R. MANI v. NAND FAST TRANSPORT — 1999 DIGILAW 517 (CAL)

P. K. SAMANTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the claimants appellants against an award dated 30th March, 1999 passed under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The claimants are the father, mother and two sisters of the deceased who died in a fatal accident on 17th December, 1995. By the aforesaid award the learned Tribunal determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 62,400/- and a consolidated cost of Rs. 1,600/- for payment to the claimants appellants jointly which would be divided equally amongst them. ( 2 ) IT was not disputed that the deceased was 16 years old while he died in a fatal accident on 17th December, 1995. The said deceased had an earning of Rs. 600/- per month at the time of his death, was also not controverted by the respondents is the proceeding before the Accident Claims Tribunal. The death is a fatal accident on 17th December 1995 because of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in question, was also established in evidence before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The father of the deceased being 47 years old and his wife 37 yrs old, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier method for the purpose of determining the compensation by taking into account the age of the father, one of the dependents which is higher than the other dependents. The learned Tribunal accordingly, by taking the normal expectancy of life as 60 years held that the multiplier will be 13 and ascertained the damages for compensation at Rs. 62,400/- on the basis of the earnings of the said deceased at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month by deducting 1/3 from the said earnings for personal expenses of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE Insurer of the vehicle did not challenge the said award nor filed any cross objection to the appeal filed by the claimants. On the other hand the claimants preferred the above appeal for enhancement of the amount of award on the ground that the selection of multiplier as 13 in the facts and circumstances of this case was bad in law in as much as the normal expectancy of life of the dependants of the deceased should have been counted in between 65 and 70 instead of 60. It is recorded that earnings of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month and his dependency expenditure at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month have not been challenged before us by the Insurer respondent. In these state of things only question left to be decided in this appeal is whether the learned tribunal was right in applying 13 years multiplier for calculating just and proper compensation in this case. ( 4 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors, 1994 ACJ (1) (SC) held that the multiplier method is the sound method of assessing compensation. The said principle was reiterated in the case of U. P State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. , 1996 ACJ 831 and it was further held that the dependence amount is required to be multiplied by the figure of the expected useful life of the deceased and at the same time it held that some allowance has to be made to scale down the multiplier for uncertainties like the possible premature death of the dependent or of the deceased had he been alive. The expected useful life of the dependants as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsna De v. State of Assam (1987 ACJ 172) and Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan S. T. C, (1992) 2 SCC 567 is 70 years. Again choice of the multiplier is required to be fixed by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is higher, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) and in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), which again should be in maximum 18. ( 5 ) THUS taking into account the age of the father of the deceased, which is 47 years as found by the learned tribunal and highest amongst the claimants and the normal expectancy of the useful life being 70 years, the multiplier should have been 18 in maximum in the present case. ( 5 ) THUS taking into account the age of the father of the deceased, which is 47 years as found by the learned tribunal and highest amongst the claimants and the normal expectancy of the useful life being 70 years, the multiplier should have been 18 in maximum in the present case. But since allowance has to be made to scale down the multiplier by taking into account the uncertainties of the future and the period for which dependency is to last we are of the opinion that for the ends of justice multiplier should have been applied as 16 instead of 13 as applied by the learned Tribunal. We came to such conclusion by taking into account the tender age of the victim who had not attained majority on the date of his death while he was serving only as a cleaner of the vehicle and also upon consideration that better employment or income during the remainder of his life cannot be ruled out altogether. We do so further upon consideration that the mother of the victim was of 37 years at the relevant point of time who is also one of the dependants and in any event she is also expected to live atleast for another two decades and more particularly the value of the rupee has dimishing return in course of progress of time. We accordingly by applying the multiplier as 16 ascertain the award at Rs. 76,800. 00 upon calculation at the rate or the basis upon which the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award. We also uphold the determination of consolidated costs of Rs. 1600. 00 for payment to the claimants and consequently hold that the claimants appellants would get an award of Rs. 76,800. 00 jointly i. e. Rs. 19,200. 00 individually plus Rs. 400. 00 as costs; totalling Rs. 19,600. 00 for each of the four claimants. ( 6 ) WE accordingly direct the respondent No. 2 to pay the award as mentioned above to each of the claimants appellants for and on behalf of the opposite party respondent No. 1 by means of four account payee cheques of Rs. 19,600. 400. 00 as costs; totalling Rs. 19,600. 00 for each of the four claimants. ( 6 ) WE accordingly direct the respondent No. 2 to pay the award as mentioned above to each of the claimants appellants for and on behalf of the opposite party respondent No. 1 by means of four account payee cheques of Rs. 19,600. 00 each in the individual names of the claimants within a period of two months hence, failing which the opposite party respondent No. 2 will pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. If both or any one of the two sister (s) of the deceased as claimants Nos. 3 and 4 is/are minor (s) then the individual awarded amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in her/their name (s) in a nationalised bank for a period till attainment of their/her majority. The claimant No. 1 R. Mani, the father of the deceased shall take appropriate steps in depositing the aforesaid amount in the name (s) of the minor (s) in the aforesaid manner under intimation to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The award of the learned Tribunal is thus modified to the extent as indicated above. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. T. Chatterjee, J.-I agree. Appeal disposed of of.