Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 410 (RAJ)

Rajkishore v. Shakil

2012-02-10

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for enhancement against the award dated 26.4.1999 passed in MAC No. 197/1994. 2. The brief facts of the case according to claim petition are that on 22.7.1993, at about 5.30 p.m., deceased Sanjay Patnayak was going towards Polo Victory Cinema Hall, a mini bus No. RJ 26P 0015, being driven rashly and negligently, hit the deceased due to which he died. 3. Heard learned counsel for he parties and perused the record, specially the impugned judgment and award. 4. The contention of the present appellants are that income has wrongly been assessed and no future prospects have been assessed by the learned Tribunal. For loss of love and affection, nothing has been awarded and hence the compensation should be enhanced proportionately. 5. Salary slip of deceased has been produced before the learned Tribunal as Ex.9, which shows that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,490/- per month from the bank, He was working with the State Bank of Travancore. After deducting the city compensatory allowance and House Rent Allowance, the Tribunal assessed his salary as Rs.4,196/- and out of it, taking note of the fact that family is consisting six units, Rs. 1,747/- were deducted from the income and the loss of dependency has been calculated over Rs. 2,449/- month and income and looking to the age of father and mother, a multiplier of 9 has been applied. 6. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the respondent that looking to the fact that the deceased was a bachelor, deduction of 50% should have been made as his personal expenses and he has placed reliance on Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. ((2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC)), wherein it has been held as under : "31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. 33. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third." 7. Hence, looking at the above, it can be inferred that a higher multiplier has been applied by the Tribunal and deductions, which have been allowed by the Tribunal, are on lower side. 8. The contention of the present appellants is that multiplier of 9 is not appropriate and multiplier should have been used according to the age of the deceased and he has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of P.S. Somanathan & Ors. vs. District Insurance Officer & Anr. (MACT 2011 (SC) 19 = 2011(1) CCR 299 (SC)). 9. The contention of the appellants is not sustainable as in the above, mother and sister were the dependents and looking to the age of the dependents and the fact that sister is also a claimant, it was found suitable to compute the compensation on the age of the deceased. (MACT 2011 (SC) 19 = 2011(1) CCR 299 (SC)). 9. The contention of the appellants is not sustainable as in the above, mother and sister were the dependents and looking to the age of the dependents and the fact that sister is also a claimant, it was found suitable to compute the compensation on the age of the deceased. But, in catena of judgments, it has been decided time and again by the Apex Court that the multiplier should be used on the age of deceased or of the claimants, whichever is higher and to apply a multiplier, the basic formula is to ascertain the number of years, which can be purchased by the claimants. 10. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas & Ors. ( AIR 1994 SC 1631 = RLW 1995(2) SC 19), it has been held as under : The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year's purchase. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. It was further observed that the proper method of computation is the multiplier-method, which was an accepted method of arriving at 'just' compensation. Any departure, save in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Further, the Bench held that the multiplier was determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant whichever was higher." 11. It was again upheld in the judgment delivered in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Further, the Bench held that the multiplier was determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant whichever was higher." 11. It was again upheld in the judgment delivered in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors. ( (1996) 4 SCC 362 = RLW 1996(2) SC 130). 12. The counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. S. Rajapriya & Ors. ( AIR 2005 SC 2985 = RLW 2005(3) SC 390), wherein it has been held as under : "The choice of the multiplier was to be determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what the capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard was also to be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum would also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency was expected to last." 13. Hence, it is well settled proposition of law that multiplier should be chosen according to the age of the deceased or of the claimant, whichever is higher and looking at the above, the multiplier of 9 applied by the Tribunal is on higher side and hence, there is no need to interfere with the award of compensation, awarded in the head of loss of dependency. 14. It is true that only a meager amount has been awarded for loss of love and affection. Thus, this Court deems it fit to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- to each appellant which comes to Rs. 15,000/-. 15. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed and the amount of award is increased by Rs. 15,000/- along with interest @ 7½% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing this appeal till actual payment is made.