Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 100 (MP)

MOHAR SINGH v. TRILOK CHAND

2000-02-02

N.G.KARAMBELKAR, S.P.SRIVASTAVA

body2000
SRIVASTAVA, KARAMBELKAR, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the record. ing1/3rd of the total yearly income of the deceased which was taken to have been spent by the deceased upon himself. This appeal, which arises out of the proceedings initiated by the claimants-appellants under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act is directed against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, whereunder the present appellants have been found entitled to a total amount of Rs. 1,89,200 with 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of filing of the application towards compensation in respect of the death of their son, Tehsildar Singh, aged 20 years in the motor accident which took place on 12. 1. 1996. ( 2 ) THE Tribunal has found that the deceased, son of the claimants who had read only up to 5th class, was having an income of Rs. 1,800 per month. It may be noticed that the father of the deceased, the present appellant No. 1, was aged 45 years at the time of the accident while the mother of the deceased, the present appellant No. 2, was aged about 40 years. The deceased was the youngest son having four elder brothers. ( 3 ) WHILE assessing the amount of compensation the Tribunal had taken into account the age of the claimants dependants and taking the guidelines envisaged under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles act read with the Schedule had proceeded to apply the multiplier of 13 as applicable to the persons falling in the age-group of 45 to 50. The extent of yearly dependency was determined to be Rs. 14,400 exclud ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that the method adopted by the Tribunal for assessing the quantum of compensation is wholly unwarranted as the Schedule read with section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased and not the dependants. 14,400 exclud ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that the method adopted by the Tribunal for assessing the quantum of compensation is wholly unwarranted as the Schedule read with section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased and not the dependants. ( 5 ) THE principle regarding application of multiplier doctrine involves calculation of pecuniary loss upon an annual basis and to arrive at the total award by multiplying the figure assessed as the amount of annual 'dependency' by the 'number of years purchase', i. e. , the number of years the benefit is expected to last taking into consideration the imponderable factors in fixing either the multiplier or the multiplicand. ( 6 ) IT may be noticed that the multiplier in an individual case has to depend on the particular circumstances of the case because one has to take into account the probable duration of the life of the deceased, duration of the life of the dependants who might prematurely die and other factors resulting in either creating a situation where the dependant no longer remains a dependant or there is acceleration of interest in the estate, possibility of increased earnings on the one hand as well as displacement or unemployment on the other. All these possibilities and chances are taken into account while fixing a basic sum of annual dependency and multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. ( 7 ) FURTHER, it may be noticed that for the purposes of calculating the just compensation, the annual dependency of the dependants has to be determined in terms of the annual loss due to the abrupt termination of life. The suitable multiplier has to be determined by taking into consideration the number of years of the dependency of various dependants as well as the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors such as his early natural death or his becoming incapable of supporting the dependants due to illness or other natural handicap or calamities, the age of the dependants and their developing independent sources of income, etc. , excluding, however, the amount of insurance policies of the deceased to which the dependants may become entitled on account of its maturity on account of the death. , excluding, however, the amount of insurance policies of the deceased to which the dependants may become entitled on account of its maturity on account of the death. It must be emphasized, however, that the method of multiplying the amount of annual loss to the dependants with the number of years by which the life has been cut short without anything else cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) IN our considered opinion it would be safe to proceed to assess the compensation by adopting the method of multiplier making a judicious use of the appropriate number of the years of purchase. The multiplier is to be chosen having regard to the peculiar facts of each case. If it is found that the deceased prematurely died at a very young age and if it is further revealed that the longevity in his family was more then it would be safe to take a higher multiplier with a view to arrive at a figure of total compensation. ( 9 ) THE choice of multiplier has, however, to be made by the court using its own experience and having due regard to the peculiar facts of each case because the ultimate goal is not to adhere to any rigid formula but to award a compensation which is just. The age of the deceased person cannot be taken to be either a conclusive or a paramount factor in the determination of the compensation except in those cases where the remaining years of the life expectancy are less than the multiplier which is sought to be applied. ( 10 ) AS the determination of the question of compensation depends on several imponderables and also there is always a likelihood of there being a margin of error, if the assessment made by the Tribunal is not considered to be unreasonable it will not be proper to interfere in the same. ( 11 ) SINCE it is the just compensation which is required to be awarded no method of calculation of compensation would be justified if it does not result in awarding the amount which is not 'just' looking to the peculiar facts of each case. ( 12 ) IN the present case, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal should have adopted the multiplier of 16 instead of 13. ( 12 ) IN the present case, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal should have adopted the multiplier of 16 instead of 13. No justifiable basis for the use of multiplier of 16 could, however, be pointed out. The selection of multiplier has to depend as already indicated above on various facts and circumstances. ( 13 ) CONSIDERING the totality of the circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation determined cannot be held to be unjust. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has next contended that the finding of the tribunal in regard to the monthly income of the deceased cannot be sustained in law and in the circumstances of the case the income of the deceased ought to have been accepted as Rs. 100 per day. The Tribunal has found his income to be only Rs. 60 per day. The finding in this regard is based on an appraisal of the evidence on record. We have perused the evidence tendered by the claimants. The findings returned by the tribunal against the appellants cannot be said to be vitiated in law and suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify an interference by this court. ( 15 ) THIS appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed. .