Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2220 (ALL)

Kamla Devi v. Chandra Engineering Corporation

2008-11-04

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, SATISH CHANDRA

body2008
JUDGMENT : Devi Prasad Singh, J. Cause list has been revised. None appeared for the respondents. This is a case of 1994, hence the appeal is being decided with the assistance of the learned standing counsel. This is an appeal filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the impugned award dated 17.8.1994, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Ist Additional District Judge, Bahraich) in M.A.C.T. No. 43/70/85. 2. The claim filed by the appellants was allowed by the Tribunal granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,06,000. Feeling aggrieved with the insufficiency of compensation, the present appeal has been preferred for the enhancement of the compensation. 3. The husband of appellant No. 1 late Sri Ashok Prasad Singh died in an accident on 19.2.1984 at about 4.15 p.m. while coming from Faizabad to Bahraich in his Jeep No. U.R.V.-2728. The deceased was an employee of the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Limited and his monthly salary, as recorded by the learned Tribunal, was Rs. 2,183. The Tribunal, after recording of evidence and providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, has recorded a finding of fact that the deceased succumbed to his injuries on account of accident which took place on 19.2.1984. The jeep was driven by driver Sri Karuna Shanker Tiwari. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,06,000. 4. While assailing the impugned award, the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri R. P. Singh submits that the Tribunal has not applied multiplier as given in Second Schedule of the Act and has also not granted the damages for funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate, etc. The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgments in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, AIR 1994 SC 1631 , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. 1994 (4) SCC 362 ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kiran Singh and others, (2000) ACJ 396, and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Premwati and others, (1992) ACJ 488. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned standing counsel for the State assisting the Court and perused the record. 5. 1994 (4) SCC 362 ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kiran Singh and others, (2000) ACJ 396, and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Premwati and others, (1992) ACJ 488. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned standing counsel for the State assisting the Court and perused the record. 5. The accident took place on 19.2.1984 at about 4.15 p.m. when the deceased was going to Bahraich in Jeep No. U.R.V.-2728. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 43 years and his salary, which he was receiving from the bank, was Rs. 2,183 per month. From a perusal of the award, it appears that while calculating the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,06,000, the learned Tribunal has not followed the multiplier given in Second Schedule of the Act. While calculating the compensation, the Tribunal has recorded that salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,183 per month but deducted the amount of Rs. 949.95 which, according to the Tribunal, was paid by deceased every month to the Bank in lieu of certain loan taken from the Bank. The Tribunal calculated the compensation of Rs. 1,06,000 after deducting the instalment paid by deceased in lieu of loan taken from the Bank. However, while calculating the compensation, the multiplier as given in Second Schedule has not been applied. No finding has been recorded with regard to the funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. 6. It has been submitted by the appellants counsel that the deceased was getting salary @ Rs. 2,183 per month, the annual income comes around Rs. 26,000 in odd. In case l/3rd amount is deducted in lieu of expenses, the income will be around Rs. 17,000. By applying multiplier of 15, as per Second Schedule of the Act, the compensation which the claimants seem to be entitled, shall be Rs. 2,55,000. As per Second Schedule, the funeral expenses may be Rs. 2,000, loss of consortium Rs. 5,000 and loss of estate Rs. 2,500. Keeping in view the compensation on these counts comes to Rs. 2,64,500; 7. While awarding compensation the learned Tribunal had deducted an amount of Rs. 949.95 from the total salary received by the petitioner in each month. The deduction of Rs. 949.95 by the learned Tribunal from the salary of the deceased does not seem to be justified. 2,500. Keeping in view the compensation on these counts comes to Rs. 2,64,500; 7. While awarding compensation the learned Tribunal had deducted an amount of Rs. 949.95 from the total salary received by the petitioner in each month. The deduction of Rs. 949.95 by the learned Tribunal from the salary of the deceased does not seem to be justified. The learned Tribunal was concerned with the total income of the deceased for the purpose of compensation. Re-payment of loan through instalments does not mean that the salary of the deceased was reduced. Virtually, the repayment of loan through the instalments was being done by the deceased with regard to the amount taken as loan and spent to meet out the requirement of life. The instalments paid does not mean that the salary of the deceased was lesser than what he was entitled in accordance to law. Accordingly, the deduction of Rs. 949.95 from the monthly salary of the deceased while calculating the annual income does not seem to be correct and the claimants are entitled for payment of compensation keeping in view the monthly salary of the deceased @ Rs. 2,183 per month. 8. According to the Second Schedule of the Act, since the deceased was aged about 43 years, the multiplier of 15 could have been applied by the Tribunal. From the age of 40 to 45 years, the Second Schedule provides the multiplier of 15. In the event of death, in the Second Schedule, the Legislatures have also provided for payment of damages with regard to funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of estate and medical expenses, etc. So far as medical expenses are concerned, since the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot, there appears to be no ground for payment of any medical expenses. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was getting salary @ Rs. 2,183 per month, his annual income comes around Rs. 26,000 in odd. In case 1 /3rd amount is deducted in lieu of expenses, the income will be around Rs. 17,000. By applying the multiplier of 15 to 17,000 as per Second Schedule of the Act, the compensation which the claimants seem to be entitled to, shall be Rs. 2,55,000. As per Second Schedule, the funeral expenses may be assessed to Rs. 2,000, loss of consortium Rs. 5.000 and loss of estate Rs. 2,500. 17,000. By applying the multiplier of 15 to 17,000 as per Second Schedule of the Act, the compensation which the claimants seem to be entitled to, shall be Rs. 2,55,000. As per Second Schedule, the funeral expenses may be assessed to Rs. 2,000, loss of consortium Rs. 5.000 and loss of estate Rs. 2,500. Keeping in view the amounts of compensation on these counts, the compensation comes to Rs. 2,64,500. 10. In the case of Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that while awarding compensation, the multiplier method is logically sound and well established. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under: 15. In regard to the choice of the multiplicand the Halsbury's Laws of England in Vol. 34, para 98 states the principles thus: 98. Assessment of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1976.: The Courts have evolved a method for calculating the amount of pecuniary benefit that dependants could reasonably expect to have received from the deceased in the future. First the annual value to the dependants of those benefits (the multiplicand) is assessed. In the ordinary case of the death of a wage-earner that figure is arrived at by deducting from the wages the estimated amount of his own personal and living expenses. The assessment is split into two parts. The first part comprises damages for the period between death and trial. The multiplicand is multiplied by the number of years which have elapsed between those two dates. Interest at one-half the short term investment rate is also awarded on that multiplicand. The second part is damages for the period from the trial onwards. For that period, the number of years which have elapsed between the death and the trial is deducted from the multiplier based on the number of years that the expectancy would probably have lasted; central to that calculation is the probable length of the deceased's working life at the date of death. As to the multiplier, Halsbury states: However, the multiplier is a figure considerably less than the number of years taken as the duration of the expectancy. As to the multiplier, Halsbury states: However, the multiplier is a figure considerably less than the number of years taken as the duration of the expectancy. Since the dependants can invest their damages, the lump sum award in respect of future loss must be discounted to reflect their receipt of interest on invested funds, the intention being that the dependents will each year draw interest and some capital (the interest element decreasing and the capital drawings increasing with the passage of years), so that they are compensated each year for their annual loss, and fund will be exhausted at the age which the Court assesses to be the correct age, having regard to all contingencies. The contingencies of life such as illness, disability and unemployment have to be taken into account. Actuarial evidence is admissible, but the Courts do not encourage such evidence. the calculation depends on selecting an assumed rate of interest. In practice about 4 or 5 per cent is selected, an inflation is disregarded. It is assumed that the return on fixed interest bearing securities is so much higher than 4 to 5 per cent that rough and ready allowance for inflation is thereby made. The multiplier may be increased where the plaintiff is a high tax payer. The multiplicand is based on the rate of wages at the date of trial. No interest is allowed on the total figure. 16. It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which, have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as compensation. 11. The proposition of law with regard to multiplier as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Susamma Thomas has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra). In the case of Smt. Kiran Singh, a Division Bench of this Court after considering the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ruled that interest should be paid while awarding the compensation to the claimants in the claim petition. In Kiran Singh, the Division Bench had proceeded to grant interest @ 9% whereas in the case of Smt. Premwati, the Division Bench had given the interest @ 12%. 12. In Kiran Singh, the Division Bench had proceeded to grant interest @ 9% whereas in the case of Smt. Premwati, the Division Bench had given the interest @ 12%. 12. Keeping in view the settled proposition of law, the appellants seem to be entitled for payment of compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,55,000, apart from the compensation payable in lieu of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate, etc. The total compensation which the appellants seem to be entitled to, comes to Rs. 2,64,500. So far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal has already granted 6% interest and we do not propose to interfere in it. Keeping in view the finding recorded by the Tribunal, the appellants are entitled to the interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim petition. 13. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation is assessed to the extent of Rs. 2,64,500 in the manner indicated hereinabove. The amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellants in the ratio provided by the Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 4. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. Costs made easy.