Joginder Kaur and Others vs The State of Haryana and Others

Naresh Chander Jain, J.—Sukhwinder Singh a driver serving in the Emergency Department, of Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, atter leaving the patients of Rajendra Hospital in Standard 20 Ambulance No. PBP-2620 was coming when Bus No. HRV-2763 being driven by Sat Narain came from behind and stopped in front of the Ambulance after crossing it all of a sudden as a result of which the back portion of the bus hit the front portion of the Ambulance causing his death and injuries to his co-passenger. The claimant (the widow and two minor children in the petition u/s 100-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act'') claimed compensation to the tune of Rupees 5 lacs for the loss to which they have been put on account of ultimately death of the sole bread winner of the family.

The claim was contested. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

Whether Sakhwinder Singh son of Amar Singh (deceased) lost his life because of the rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HRV- 2763 belonging to the Haryana Roadways by its driver on 1.2 86 ? OPP.

Whether the death of Sukhwinder Singh was the direct consequence of the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid bus by its driver ? OPP.

Whether the applicants are legal representatives heirs of the deceased ? OPP.

To what amount of compensation, if any, the applicants are entitled to, if so, from whom ? OPP.

Relief.

Both issues Nos. 1 and 2 were found in favour of the claimants and it was held that Sukhwinder Singh lost his life on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus No HR -2763 belonging to Haryana Roadways. Under issue No. 3, the appellants before this Court were found to be the legal representatives their of the deceased. As regards compensation, the Tribunal granted Rs. 1.20.000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. It has been found that Sakhwinder Singh deceased was drawing total emoluments of Rs. 956.50 P. per month and he was aged 30/35 at the time of his death. A multiplier of 16 was applied. It was further held that the deceased must have been contributing a sum of Rs. 625/- per month for the maintenance of his dependents and, therefore, Rs. 7,500/--was adjudged as the annual dependecy of the claimants. Aggrieved against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the claimants have preferred Appeal No. 721 of 1987 for enhancement of compensation amount whereas the State has filed F. A. O. No. 786 of 1987 for reduction of the compensation. Both the appeals are, therefore, being disposed of by this judgment.

Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants has argued that the deceased being 30/35 years, a multiplier of 20 should have been applied and that a multiplier of 16 was on the lower side. It has further been urged that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing Rs, 7,500/- as the annual dependency of the appellants. In other words, it was sought to be urged that a person belonging to poor class getting emoluments of Rs. 959.50 P would not spend a sum of Rs. 335- for his own maintenance and it cannot be presumed that he would be contributing Rs. 625/- per month only for the upkeep of his dependents. In short, it has been argued by the counsel that a person of meager means would contribute towards his family the maximum amount On the facts and circumstances of the present case, the counsel has argued that this court should assess the annual dependency at a higher amount. In support of the two contentions raised by the counsel, that is, one en the point of multiplier and the other on the point of annual dependency, the counsel has placed reliance upon the following judicial pronouncements:-

Smt. Usha Soni and Ors. v. State of Hy 1981 96 P. L. R. 541.

Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 81 P. L. R. 1

Asha Ram v. U O I (1982) 84 P. L. R. 486.

Kamlesh Kumari'' Nagpal and other v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd and Ors.'' 1985 A. C. J. 101.

Golu v. Jaswant Singh (1983) 85 P. L. R. 604.

Haryana Roadways v. Shakuntla Devi 1983 A. C. J. 66.

Charanjit Kaur v. U. O. I. 1988 94 P. L. R. 513.

M/s. Rajinder Singh Jasbir Singh v. Urmil and Ors., 1986 89 P. L. R. 647.

Mahipal Co-op. Society Ltd- v. Prabhati 1986 A. C. J. 460.

Zulekhabi Saifulla Chaudhary and Others Vs. Madhav Pandharinath Jadhav and Others, .

Jyotsna Dey and Ors. v. State of Assam 1987 91 P. L. R. 646.

Rekha Mothsata v. Ram Phal 1988 96 P. L. R. 528.

In Smt. Usha Soni''s case (supra), S. S. Sodhi, J applied a multiplier of 20 in the case of death of a doctor who was employed as Chief Medical Officer. It was held that in the case of professional men like doctors, their span of gainful employment extends beyond the date of retirement and that they can continue doing professional work as long as they are physically capable of doing so The learned Judge in this case clearly seems to think that in the case of professional persons the multiplier to be applied should be higher. The principles of law as settled by this Court in two judgments, that is, in Lachhman Singh''s case (supra) and 4sha Rani''s case (supra) were reiterated. Since the basic principles settled by this Court in Lachhman Sinqh and Asha Rani and other''s case (supra) have been followed in Smt. Usha Rani and others case (supra) and various other judicial pronouncements, it is just appropriate to have a look at the principles in the first instance.

It was held in Lachhman Singh''s case (supra) by a Full Bench of Five Judges that compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents which would be determined after holding the annual dependency of the dependents to be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. As regards annual dependency, annual income of the deceased was reduced by 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of the deceased. In Asha Rani''s case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court after making a reference to Lachman Singh''s case (supra) has held that the average life span of a person is 70 years. After holding that a multiplier of 20 was virtually the outer limit, the Division Bench applied a multiplier of 16 as the deceased was aged 45 years.

The perusal of the entire case law, after the law was settled in the aforesaid two judicial pronouncements, would make it clear that whatever law was laid down in the aforesaid two judicial pronouncements the same has been reiterated in various judicial pronouncements. S. S .Sodhi, J., in Kamlesh Kumari Nagpal and others'' case (supra) after taking into consideration the future prospects of an Assistant Manager who died at the age of 39 years and who was drawing a salary of Rs. 1195/- assessed the annual dependency at Rs. 12000/- (Rs. 1,000/- per month) and adopted a multiplier of 16, Again S. S. Sodhi, J. in Golu''s case (supra) assessed the mothly dependency of the claimants at Rs. 750/- when the deceased aged 25 years was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month and gave a multiplier of 16. The same Bench in Haryana Roadways'' case (supra) while dealing with the claimants'' claim on account of the death of a doctor aged 24 years drawing a salary of Rs. 536/- per month assessed the dependency of the family at Rs. 450/- and adopted a multiplier of 20. Good future prospects of the family members was taken into consideration by the learned Judge. In the case of Charanjit Kaur''s case (supra) M.S. Liberhan, J., in the case of death of a person aged 26 years who was Assistant Sub Inspector in Police applied a multiplier of 20 while taking into consideration the normal expectancy of life span of 70 years and chances of promotion and the age of the deceased. However, the same Beach in Rekha Mothsara''s ease (supra) in the case of death of a young person aged 28/29 years who was employed in the Indian Navy applied a multiplier of 16. The deceased in that case was drawing a salary of Rs. 1487/- per month with all perks of free ration, free accommodation, free medical and leave concession for himself and the family and the monthly dependency of the family was taken at Rs. l,350/- per month. In M/s Rajinder Singh Jasbsr Singh''s case (supra) G. C Mital, J., upheld the multiplier of 20 given by the Tribunal in the case of death of a young person of 23 years of age. The monthly dependency of the family members was held at Rs. 800/- when the deceased was earning Rs. 1,200/ per month. In other words, 2/3rd of the income was held to be the dependency of the family.

Having referred to the various judicial pronouncements of this Court, it is necessary to refer to two more judicial pronouncements of the other High Courts which were cited at the bar by Mr. Ashok Sharma in support of the two arguments. In Mahipal Co-operative Society''s case (supra) Sultan Singh. J. of Delhi High Court adopted a multiplier of 20 in the case of a person who died at the age of 40 and assessed the monthly dependency at Rs. 700/- whereas the deceased was drawing Rs. 800/- per month plus bonus and the family allowance. The finding of the trial Court that the deceased was spending l/3rd of the income upon himself was set aside and it was held that considering the size of the family of the deceased he was not in a position to spend 1/3rd of his earning upon himself. The family of the deceased consisted of 9 members and "Rs. 700/-, as has been observed above, was held to be the dependency of the family out of the income of Rs. 800/- per month In Zulekhabi Saifullo Chaudhary''s case (supra) a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of a deceased leaving a widow and five minor children who was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month determined the monthly dependency at Rs. 1000/- per month and applied a maltiplier of 20.

As regards the citation of law laid down by the highest Court of the country only one ruling was cited at the Bar, that is Jyotsna Dey and others'' case (supra). In this case the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of death of a man aged 45 years gave a multiplier of 25 and reduced the same by l/5th in view of the fact that payment was to be made in lump sum. A multiplier of 25 was given in view of the fact that the span of life was 70 years.

On an indepth examination of the catena of authorities the position of Saw which emerges out can be recapitulated, in short, like this. The compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dapendents by death of the person concerned. For the purpose of calculating ''just compensation'' annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose annual earning of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependents will be the determining factor In other words, the amount which the deceased was spending upon himself would be deducted out of the annual earning and then the figure would be arrived at which would be adjudged as the annual dependency The basic figure arrived at will then be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. The emphasis on just compensation'' can easily be laid in view of the provisions of Section 110 B of the Motor. Vehicles Act under which petitions for grant of compensation are maintained The mandate of law in the aforesaid provision envisages the grant of such just compensation'' which the courts think reasonable keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case.

What should be the suitable multiplier in a given case, the same would depend upon the facts of each case The perusal of the entire case law, referred to above, makes it clear that no hard and fast rule can be applied as to what would be the suitable multiplier in a particular case In the case of professional men a multiplier of 20 can always be given. Similarly in the ease of death of a young person she adoption of multiplier of 20 would be safe However, it has been seen that a multiplier of 16 had been the normal rule, whereas, in several judicial pronouncements the courts have given a multiplier of 18 and 20 Maltiplier of 20 seems to be the outer limit in the entire case law, referred to above, including the one given by the apex court in Jyotsna Dey and others'' case (supra) It would be seen that the apex court after applying a multiplier of 25 reduced the compensation by 1/5th as the payment was to be made in Sump sum meaning thereby that the dependents of the deceased ultimately gat only that much money which they would have got after giving the multiplier of 20.

As regards the annual dependency, it again depends upon the facts of each case as to how much amount the deceased would reasonably be expected to contribute towards the up keep of his family. A deduction has no doubt, to be made of amount which the deceased must have been spending upon himself There cannot be any bard and fast rules for determining such amounts, as this is a matter to be considered in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case. Besides considering the position in life and the occupation of the deceased and the claimants and other special facts, if any pertaining to them, it would be well to bear in mind that in the expanses of family there are certain expenses which may be called inflexible items of expenditure like house rent, water and electricity charges, expenses on children education, house furnishings and the like which remains largely unaffected by the addition or elimination of a member of the family However, the question which arises is as to whether a poor parson getting about Rs. 1,000/- would spend upon himself l/3rd of his income as has been held by the Additional District Judge in the present case The question has become more pertinent in view of price rise which has touched the Sky during the past one decade. Would a poor person spend upon himself I/3rd of the income leaving 2/3rd to the family ? In the considered view of this court a parson who is poor and earns only about Rs. 1,000/- or so per month would not in the normal circumstances be spending upon himself 1/3rd of his income until and unless he has got no child to support and unless he is suffering from vices. The factum of cost of living Having gone high in view of price rise cannot be lost sight of either It the normal circumstances the deceased getting about Rs. 1,000/- per month would like to contribute the maximum towards the family if he has got 2/3 children A rich person who is in affluent circumstances and is highly placed may well spend a lot of money upon himself but a poor person cannot behave in the same fashion. If the members of his family are more than 2/3, he would like to contribute each and every penny of his income towards the upkeep of his family members and in such a situation he may be contributing 9/10th share of his income towards his family, it appears, that keeping in view the large size of the family consisting of 9 members, Sultan Singh J. in Mahipal Co-op. Society Ltd.''s case (supra) determined the dependency of the family at Rs. 700/- when the deceased was earning Rs. 800/- per month meaning thereby that approximately 90 per cent was held to be the monthly dependency of the family.

There is yet another rough and dry but a good and reasonable method of determining the annual dependency, that is to fix the units of the family expenditure and deduct the units consumed by the deceased for his personal expenditure, In the past, an adult member of the family might have been consuming double the units consumed by the minors but in view of sky rocketing price rise of all the commodities including the milk etc. which is primarily consumed by the children, it cannot be said that the minors would be consuming less units than the adult members and, therefore, it would be legitimate to presume that all members of the family would be consuming one unit each and the deceased can be presumed to be consuming one unit only leaving the rest of the units for consumption to his family members irrespective of their ages. In no case, the deceased can be presumed to be spending more than l/3rd of his income upon himself, even if his family comprises of himself and his wife only as certain items of expenditure of household are always there whether the family comprises of two persons or more. However, such presumptions arise only in normal circumstances. Such presumptions can be displaced by leading categorical evidence that the deceased was leading extravagant life and suffered from several vices It can, therefore, be held as an abstract and firm proposition of law that person and more particularly a poor one would not be spending more than 1/3rd of his income upon himself and further in the normal circumstances what amount a poor person would be spending upon himself wool i depend upon his income and the size of his family. The annual dependency would vary between 66 per cent to 90 per cent of the income of the deceased. As to what percentage of the income has to be held to be the dependency of the family, it would depend upon the facts of each case and this is the only way in the considered opinion of this court to arrive at just ''compensation'' within the meaning and purview of Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that a multiplier of 18 should be given in the present case Since the deceased was having three members of his family, this Court keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the unit system holds that the deceased must be spending 1/4th of his income upon himself and must have been contributing 3/4th of the income towards the family which comprises of a wife and two inor children. The monthly dependency thus comes to Rs. 720/ and the annual dependency at Rs. 8640/-. When the same is multiplied by 18, the compensation comes to Rs. 1.55 520/ So I award Rs. 1,55,520/- as compensation to the applicants against the respondents jointly and severally plus the interest at the rate of 12 p:r cent per annum from the dare of the application till realisation. Out of the aforesaid amounts, 40 per cent of the entire compensation (including interest) will be paid to the widow and the rest of the compensation would fall to the share of the minors in the ratio of 50 : 50. In other words, the widow would be held to share the amount of compensation of 40 per cent whereas the minors in the ratio of 30 per cent each. This money falling to the shares of the minors would be got deposited in the fixed account in some scheduled nationalised bank which would be paid to them on their attaining majority. However, the widow of the deceased is entitled to withdraw interest on such fixed deposits. In case she re- marries, her entitlement to draw interest would cease.

In the light of the observations made above, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 500/- whereas the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana is ordered to be dismissed with no costs.