Naini Devi and Others vs Kailash Chandra and Others

Rajendra Saxena, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 27.12.1988 passed by learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby in the fatal accident case it allowed compensation to the claimants-appellants for an amount of Rs. 2,03,000 with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The Tribunal also gave detailed directions for apportionment, disbursement and investment of the award amount.

Briefly, the relevant facts are that on 27.5.1985, deceased Mangilal was going in jeep No. RJX 2248, which was being driven by the respondent No. 1, Kailash Chandra. The said jeep was owned by the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Tonk, respondent No. 2. The deceased Mangilal was a Co-operative Inspector on deputation in respondent bank. The said jeep was going from Chaksu to Kotkhawda. It is alleged that respondent Kailash, who was Assistant Executive Officer of respondent bank, drove the said jeep rashly, negligently and with very high speed. He dashed the jeep with the wall of a culvert. The jeep overturned and fell in a ditch and Mangilal, who was crushed under the jeep, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Ramuram lodged the F.I.R., Exh. 1, at police station, Chaksu, whereupon Crime No. 110/86 under Sections 279, 304A, Indian Penal Code, was registered. However, after investigation a final report was submitted by the police. On 10.9.1985 the appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation amounting to Rs. 6,01,000/-. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite service preferred to remain absent. They also did not file any reply. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, contested the claim. The learned Tribunal framed necessary issues. The appellant examined Naini Devi, AW 1; Kajod, AW 2; Ramu, AW 3; Rajendra, AW 4 and Rambabu, AW 5 and filed F.I.R. Exh. 1, post-mortem report and salary certificate, Exh. 2, of the deceased. In rebuttal Pratap Kumar Bhatia, Surveyor, NAW 1, was examined. The learned Tribunal after discussing the evidence held that at the time of accident respondent Kailash Chandra, who was in the employment of respondent bank, was driving jeep No. RJX 2248 carelessly, negligently and with high speed causing the accident, wherein deceased Mangilal sustained fatal injuries and died. It further held that the deceased did not fall within the meaning of ''owner'' of the said vehicle and that the insurer respondent was liable to pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal further held that on the date of accident age of Mangilal was about 40 years, that he was an Inspector, Co-operative Societies and that as per his last pay certificate, Exh. 2, his salary was Rs. 1,455/- per month, that the appellants were dependent on him and that by his death their annual dependency loss was Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal adopting a multiplier of 18 awarded Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation for loss of income to the family, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for loss of consortium to widow, appellant Naini Devi and Rs. 2,000/- each to the remaining nine appellants for loss of love, affection and society of the deceased. The appellants have filed this appeal for the enhancement of the award amount.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.

Mr. Sandeep Mathur has strenuously contended that the learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in considering the loss of dependency at Rs. 10,000/- per annum only, that the Tribunal has also not taken into consideration future prospects of promotion and increase in salary of the deceased, who was in regular Government service. According to him, a very low amount for loss of consortium has been awarded to the widow. Similarly, compensation amount under the head loss of love and affection allowed to other appellants is also on the lower side and as such, the compensation awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. is neither just nor proper nor reasonable, which needs to be suitably enhanced. Mr. S.N. Kumawat has reiterated the reasonings given by the learned M.A.C.T. and asserted that the award amount is just and reasonable.

I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. The respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned award. I have also gone through the evidence recorded in this case. To my mind the learned Tribunal has scanned and assessed the oral and documentary evidence in the right perspective and correctly held that at the time of accident respondent Kailash, who was in the employment of the respondent bank, was driving the said jeep rashly, negligently and with a high speed with the result that the jeep dashed with the wall of the culvert, overturned and fell into a ditch, whereby the deceased Mangilal sustained injuries and died instantaneously.

In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, the Apex Court has held that multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring ''just'' compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards and departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and in very exceptional cases. The Apex Court has observed that the multiplier represents the number of years'' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. For example, if annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,000/- and if a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 is invested at 12 per cent annual interest then the interest will take care of the dependency perpetually and the multiplier in such a case works out to ten; that allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowance for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last, etc. Their Lordships have pointed out that usually the operative multiplier should rarely exceed 16 as maximum and that such a multiplier will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased (or that of the dependants, whichever is higher) goes up. It has been further pointed out that if the deceased has more or less stable job, then it will not be inappropriate to take a reasonable liberal view of the prospects of the future and in estimating the gross income, it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased on the date of his death and that it will also not be inappropriate in making higher estimate of his gross income having regard to the prospects of advancement in the future career. From such estimated gross income the expenses incurred by the deceased on his personal living should be deducted and that in the absence of evidence as to whether the style of living of the deceased was Spartan or Bohemian, it will not be unusual to deduct 1/3rd of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of his family and dependants. Thus, the loss of dependency should capitalise with the appropriate multiplier. Mangilal on the date of accident was earning Rs. 1,455/- p.m. There is no evidence that the deceased was addicted to any vice or that he incurred expenses on himself more extravagantly.

Now keeping in view these principles, let us quantify the loss of dependency in the case on hand. As per the salary certificate dated 23.4.1987, Exh. 2, the monthly salary of deceased Mangilal on the date of accident was Rs. 1,455/-. There is no evidence that the deceased was addicted to any vice or that he used to extravagantly spend money on personal living and pleasure. In such circumstances after deducting the notional 1/3rd amount of his income, which works out to Rs. 455 for his self maintenance, the loss of income to his dependants comes out to Rs. 1,000/- per month or Rs. 12,000/- per annum. The deceased left his widow Naini Devi, two major sons, one major daughter, 4 minor daughters and two minor sons. But the learned Tribunal has computed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per annum only under the head loss of dependency which is low and not justified. The annual loss to the family by the death of deceased, therefore, works out to Rs. 12,000/-.

On the date of accident the deceased Mangilal was aged about 40 years. He was in regular Government service. Had he been alive he would have superannuated at the age of 58 years. The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the prospects of promotion and advancement of future career of the deceased and adopted a multiplier of 18. The deceased was in regular Government service. He was entitled for annual grade increments and fixation of pay in revised pay scales and for promotions. Therefore, it will be just and reasonable to assess the annual loss of dependency at Rs. 16,000/- and to adopt the multiplier of 12. Thusi the compensation for loss of dependency works out to Rs. 16,000/- x 12 = Rs. 1,92,000/-. Hence, to this extent the compensation amount under this head needs to be enhanced.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss of consortium to appellant Naini Devi, the widow of the deceased, which is definitely on a lower side.

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tulsi Devi 1988 ACJ 962 (Rajasthan) and Sushila v. Succha Singh 1989 ACJ 226 (Rajasthan), amount of Rs. 15,000/- was allowed for loss of consortium to the widow. A similar amount for loss of consortium was awarded in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, Hence, keeping in view all the relevant factors, it will be just and proper to allow an amount of Rs. 15,000/-as compensation for loss of consortium to appellant Naini Devi.

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to each of the nine sons and daughters of the deceased for the loss of love and affection. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to the dependants of deceased for loss of love and affection. Keeping in view the age of the appellant Nos. 2 to 9 and all other relevant factors, in my considered opinion, it will be just and proper to allow a compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- each to appellant Nos. 2 to 9 under this head.

Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award dated 27.12.1988 passed by the M.A.C.T., Jaipur, is modified as under:

(i) the compensation amount for loss of dependency to the appellants is raised from Rs. 1,80,000/- to Rs. 1,92,000/-;

(ii) the compensation for loss of consortium payable to the appellant Naini Devi is raised from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-;

(iii) the compensation amount under the head loss of love and affection and society payable to appellant Nos. 2 to 10 is raised from Rs. 2,000/- each to Rs. 3,000/- each;

(iv) the appellant shall be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of award from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., from 10.9.1985; and

(v) The appellant shall also be entitled to costs, which are quantified at Rs. 500/-.