Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1098 (RAJ)

Chanda v. State of Rajasthan

2002-05-30

H.R.PANWAR

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 4.11.1992 passed by Moor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Udaipur (for short `the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of appellant-Smt. Chanda and Rs. 15,000/- each in favour of respondent-claimants- Smt. Ratan Bai and Shanker Lal, who are parents of the deceased against the respondent-State, who is owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Feeling dissatisfied, this appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that a claim petition was filed by the appellants-Smt. Chanda wife of deceased-Lalit Kumar Bhandari, Sint. Ratan Bai and Shanker Lal, who are parents of the deceased, before the Tribunal claiming compensation, inter alia, on the ground that on 15.6.1988, the deceased- Lalit Kumar was proceeding on motor cycle No. RNY 5994 alongwith one Bhagwati Lal from Salumber to Udaipur. His motor cycle was hit by jeep No. MRB 447 in the area of village Piladhar on the road from Salumber to Udaipur. The said jeep was driven at a great speed, rashly and negligently by its driver respondent-Prem Kumar and was owned by the respondent-State. As a result of the said accident, the occupants of the motor cycle Lalit Kumar and Bhagwati Lal sustained severe injuries. Lalit Kumar was taken to hospital but he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, reached to the conclusion that the said accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid jeep by its driver respondent- Prem. Kumar, which resulted in the death of Lalit Kumar, a young person of 26 years of age and grievous injuries to Bhagwati Lal. While computing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal assessed and awarded Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant-Smt. Chanda wife of the deceased and Rs. 15,000/- each to the parents. The finding of the Tribunal holding the driver of the jeep negligent for the said accident, has not been challenged by the State-respondent and its driver and hence, became final. The only point.for consideration in this appeal is in the facts and circumstances of the present case,. what should be just compensation to be awarded to the claimants. 3. The finding of the Tribunal holding the driver of the jeep negligent for the said accident, has not been challenged by the State-respondent and its driver and hence, became final. The only point.for consideration in this appeal is in the facts and circumstances of the present case,. what should be just compensation to be awarded to the claimants. 3. It has been established by the claimant's evidence that at the relevant time, the deceased was a young person of 26 years of age and he was running a provision store at Salumber. In addition to the provision store, he was also running a fare price shop and as such, at the relevant time, his monthly income was Rs. 1,500/-. It has also been established by the evidence of the claimants that the wife and the parents of the deceased, who are claimants, were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased. The age, income and dependency of the deceased have been established by the statements of PW 1 Smt. Chanda Kumari and PW 2 Shanker Lal, father of the deceased. The evidence of the claimants remained uncontroverted. 4. On behalf of the respondent-State an attempt was made to establish that wife of the deceased has remarried after death of Lalit Kumar but Smt. Chanda categorically denied this fact in her statement saying that she has not contacted second marriage. During hearing of the appeal on 22.1.2002 before this Court, parties were asked to ascertain as to whether after the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-Smt. Chanda has contacted second marriage or not and the matter was taken for hearing on 9.4.2002. The learned counsel appearing for the parties including the counsel for the respondent-State submitted that Smt. Chanda has not contacted second marriage till date and hence, she alongwith the parents of the deceased, are dependent on the income of the deceased. 5. While computing compensation, the Tribunal has departed from adopting the multiplier method. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) held that the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) held that the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher). It was further held by their Lordships that it is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. The proper method of computation is the multiplier method and any departure, except in exceptional and extra-ordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. 6. This view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reiterated in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., 1996 ACJ 831 wherein three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "We thought it necessary to reiterate the method of working out `just' compensation because, of late, we have noticed from the awards made by Tribunals and Courts that the principle on which the multiplier method was developed has been lost sight of and once again a hybrid method based on the subjectivity of the Tribunal/Court has surfaced, introducing uncertainty and lack of reason able uniformity in the matter of determination of compensation. It must be realised that the Tribunal/Court has to determine a fair amount of compensation awardable to the victim of an accident which must be proportionate to the injury caused. The two English deci sions to which we have referred earlier provide the guidelines for assessing the loss occasioned to the victims. Under the formula advocated by Lord Wright in Davies, (1942) AC 601, the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus assessing the loss to the dependants of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier." 7. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier." 7. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. In the instant case, at the beginning of the career, the deceased-Lalit Kumar was earning Rs. 1,500/- p.m. Had he not died in the tragic accident, his monthly income would have reasonably enhanced in the ensuing years. He was a business man having a bright future prospect. It is settled law that the in come, which the deceased used to make at the age of 26 years, would not have frozen for all times to come and, therefore, taking into account the future prospects of the deceased, his monthly income can safely be taken to be at Rs. 3,000/-. From this amount, a personal living expenses of the deceased has to be deducted, which again depends on various factors such as, style of living of the deceased taking into account the fact that for the purpose of running the business, the deceased would be required to make reasonable tours, expenses on fuel and other incidental expenses. Taking into account all these, his personal expenses can be taken to be Rs. 1,500/-. Hence, the monthly contribution is computed at Rs. 1,500/-. This amount needs to be multiplied by 12 to arrive at annual dependency. This annual dependency works out to 1,500 x 12 = 18,000/-. This amount further needs to be multiplied by an appropriate multiplier as per the age group of the deceased. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor. In the Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') provides multiplier to various age group victims of accident, which can be taken as guide as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra). The appropriate multiplier in the instant case is* 18 years purchase factor. Thus, the dependency works out to 18,000 x 18 = 3,24,000/-. To this the conventional sum of Rs. 15,000/- each for loss of consortium, love and affection etc. and loss of estate is added. The appropriate multiplier in the instant case is* 18 years purchase factor. Thus, the dependency works out to 18,000 x 18 = 3,24,000/-. To this the conventional sum of Rs. 15,000/- each for loss of consortium, love and affection etc. and loss of estate is added. The total amount comes to Rs. 3,54,000/-, rounded to Rs. 3,50,000/-. Thus, in my considered view, the just compensation to which the claimants are entitled are Rs. 3,50,000/-. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 3,50,000/-. This amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the application till realisation. Out of Rs. 3,50,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest thereon shall be paid to the appellant- Smt. Chanda; Rs. 1,00,000/- and interest thereon to respondent-claimant Ratan Bai and Rs. 50,000/- and interest thereon to Shanker Lal-respondent-State is to pay the above amount by depositing it in the Tribunal within three months. On such deposit being made, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants. Amount payable to the appellant-Smt. Chanda shall be fixed deposited in a Nationalised Bank for a period of five years at the first instance and shall be further renewed for every five years. However, interest accrued thereon shall be paid to her quarterly for her maintenance. In the event of any exigency, she may be permitted to withdraw the amount of F.D.R. with the permission of the Tribunal in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra).There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******