AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.�The Insurance Company is the appellant. It is aggrieved by an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadia dated 19th August, 2005 in M.A.C.C. No. 233 of 2003. The parents of a 24 years old bachelor victim killed in a motor vehicle accident on 12th February, 2003 filed the application for compensation. They claimed fault liability compensation. The Claims Tribunal granted compensation choosing the multiplier of 17 referring to the victim''s age and deducting one-third towards the victim''s personal and living expenses.
Mr. Das leading Mr. Roy appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted as follows. In view of the position of law existing at the date of the award, the Claims Tribunal ought to have chosen the multiplier referring to the unmarried victim''s mother''s age and deducted 50% from the victim''s income towards his personal and living expenses.
Mr. Mondal appearing for the claimants has defended the award saying that the decisions he is armed with will show that the law was not what the Insurance Company says it was.
Quite a few decisions have been cited to us and we propose to deal with them in their chronological order.
The first decision is U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Others, I (1996) ACC 592 (SC) : 1996 A.C.J. 831, cited by Mr. Das. It is a three-Judge Bench decision given on 7th May, 1996. In that case the Supreme Court was deciding the question of "the use of the correct multiplier for determination of compensation to be awarded to the legal representatives of a victim of a road accident".
The Supreme Court said, "The Tribunals and High Courts have adopted divergent methods to determine the suitable multiplier. Even this Court has not been uniform; may be because the principle on which this method came to be evolved has been forgotten. It has, therefore, become necessary to examine the law and to state the correct principles to be adopted".
From para 15 of the report it appears that the Supreme Court was reiterating the method of working out just compensation, because the Courts and Tribunals, instead of determining ''just'' compensation applying the multiplier method, were applying a hybrid method based on their subjectivity.
The principle applicable to a claim arising out of the accidental death of a bachelor was stated in para 18 of the report and it is as follows:
"Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependents are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of multiplier."
In Trilok Chandra the Supreme Court quoted the following principle from General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, I (1994) ACC 346 (SC) : 1994 (1) T.A.C. 323 (S.C.)--
"The choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased then (or that of the claimants, whichever is higher)."
The Supreme Court directed that a copy of Trilok Chandra decision should be sent to all the High Courts with a direction to circulate it to the Courts and Tribunals dealing with motor accident claims cases.
The second decision is Fakeerappa and Another Vs. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and Others, , cited by Mr. Banerjee interested in a case involving the deduction issue. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 13th February, 2004. The parents of the bachelor victim were the claimants. The Claims Tribunal deducted 50% towards personal expenses. Deduction was one of the issues before the Supreme Court.
While, on the facts of the case, ordering a one-third deduction, the Supreme Court said as follows:
"7. What would be the percentage of deduction of personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case. The deceased undisputedly was a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an overall view the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction."
The third decision is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, , cited by Mr. Das. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 29th March, 2005. As to multiplier and deduction the Supreme Court said: "The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher);" and "what would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula by universal application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case."
The fourth decision is New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Others, , cited by Mr. Das. It is a three-Judge Bench decision given on 10th July, 2007. It was contended that the multiplier ought to have been chosen on the basis of the age of the claimants, not of the victim. Accepting the contention, the Court chose the multiplier on the basis of the victim''s mother''s age (65). The victim was 25 and his father was more than 65.
The fifth decision is Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and Others, , cited by Mr. Das. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 17th September, 2007. As to choice of multiplier, there the Supreme Court said, "In cases, where parents are the claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents."
The sixth decision is Ramesh Singh and Another Vs. Satbir Singh and Another, , cited by Mr. Das. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 21st January, 2008. It was a Section 163-A claim by the parents of a 22 years old victim. The question was whose age should be the basis for choosing the multiplier. Referring to Trilok Chandra and Syed Ibrahim the Supreme Court said that in view of the law laid down in Charlie, the multiplier should be "determined by the age of the deceased or the claimants whichever is higher".
The seventh decision is Bilkish Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, , cited by Mr. Banerjee. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 12th March, 2008. It was a fault liability claim case and the parents of the bachelor victim were the claimants. One of the questions was whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in deducting 50% towards the victim''s personal and living expenses.
Their Lordships said and held:
"After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court and the Tribunal is not correct. The incumbent was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty. Therefore, determining the loss of dependency by 50% was not correct. Therefore, we assess that he must be spending 1/3rd toward personal use and contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family."
The eighth decision is Syed Basheer Ahamed and Ors. v. Mohd. Jameel and Anr., I (2009) ACC 29 (SC) : 2009 (1) T.A.C. 794 (S.C.), cited by Mr. Das. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 6th January, 2009. It was a fault liability claim case filed by the parents and three sisters of a 20-years old bachelor victim. The Claims Tribunal granting compensation deducted 50% from the victim''s income towards his personal and living expenses. It was contended that the deduction should have been one-third.
The Supreme Court upheld the 50% deduction saying as follows:
"17. On the question of deduction on account of personal expenses by the deceased, there is no set formula which could be applied in every case to determine as to what should be the deduction on this account. The contention that deduction on that count cannot exceed one-third on the ground that there is some statutory recognition in the Second Schedule to the Act for such deduction, is untenable. The said deduction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, no evidence was led on this point as well. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income in case he was married and one-half (50%) if he was a bachelor."
The ninth decision is Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , cited by Mr. Mondal. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 15th April, 2009. Mr. Mondal has submitted that in view of Sarla Verma, in every fault liability claim case, irrespective of whether the victim was a bachelor or not, the multiplier mentioned in Column 4 of the table given in the decision is to be chosen on the basis of the victim''s age.
Dealing with Sarla Verma, Mr. Das has submitted as follows:
"It was not a case of a bachelor victim. How the multiplier should be chosen in a claim case arising out of the accidental death of a bachelor was not an issue in the case. Trilok Chandra was the case in which choice of multiplier was the sole issue and in that case the principle applicable to a claim arising out of the accidental death of a bachelor was clearly stated. Hence, it cannot be said that multiplier mentioned in the table given in Sarla Verma by implication would apply also to a claim case where the bachelor victim''s older dependents are the claimants. That in such a case multiplier should be chosen on the basis of the age of the younger between the older dependents, reiterated in Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim and Ramesh Singh, was not considered in Sarla Verma."
Mr. Das has, however, strongly relied on Sarla Verma in support of his contention that in a claim case arising out of the accidental death of a bachelor the general rule is to deduct 50% towards the victim''s personal and living expenses. He has relied on para 15 of the report.
Paragraph 15 of Sarla Verma report is quoted below:
"15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelor, 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 dependent 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 dependent on the father. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, 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 dependent 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."
In para 25 of Sarla Verma report the Supreme Court, however, said, we agree with the contention that the deduction on account of personal living expenses cannot be at a fixed one-third in all cases unless the calculation is under Section 163A read with Second Schedule to the M.V. Act.
The tenth decision is Shakti Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., VIII (2010) SLT 394 : IV (2010) ACC 523 (SC) : 2011 (1) T.A.C. 4 (S.C.), cited by Mr. Das. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 9th November, 2010-There the bachelor victim was 22 and his parents were the claimants. It was a claim for fault liability compensation. Choice of multiplier was one of the issues. Sarla Verma was considered and the table given therein was reproduced.
After saying that multipliers mentioned in column 4 of the table would be applicable to fault liability claim cases, the Supreme Court specifically dealt with the question of choice of multiplier in a claim case arising out of the accidental death of a bachelor and reiterated the principle stated in Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim and Ramesh Singh.
In para 12 of the report the Supreme Court said:
"Insofar as multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the multiplier of 18 should have been applied keeping in view the age of the deceased. The argument is devoid of any substance. In a case where the age of the claimant is higher than the age of the deceased, the age of claimant and not the age of the deceased has to be taken into account for the capitalization of the lost dependency. It is so because the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, whichever is higher."
The eleventh decision is Mohd. Ameeruddin and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, , cited by Mr. Banerjee. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 18th November, 2010. The parents of a 20-years old bachelor victim were the claimants. It was a fault liability claim case and the Claims Tribunal granted compensation applying the one-third deduction principle. The deduction issue did not arise in the Supreme Court.
The twelfth decision is P.S. Somanathan and Others v. District Insurance Officers and Another, I (2011) ACC 659 (SC) : 2011 (1) T.A.C. 861, cited by Mr. Mondal. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 17th February, 2011. It was a fault liability claim case. The parents and a sister of a 33-years old bachelor victim were the claimants. Principle stated in Trilok Chandra and two other subsequent decisions that choice of multiplier is to be determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant whichever is higher was noticed.
Saying that the table in Sarla Verma was given after considering Trilok Chandra and Charlie, the Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to ascertain the correct ratio of Sarla Verma, and that the compensation ought to have been computed choosing the multiplier on the basis of the age of the victim.
The thirteenth decision is National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shyam Singh and Others, , cited by Mr. Das. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 4th July, 2011. In that case, the bachelor victim was 19. It was a fault liability claim case. The victim''s parents were the claimants. The question was whose age was to be the basis for choosing the multiplier.
Relying on Sarla Verma, the High Court substituted the multiplier of 18 for 8 chosen by the Claims Tribunal. The contention was that the High Court failed to ascertain the correct ratio of Sarla Verma. Accepting the contention, the Supreme Court held, "The Tribunal had rightfully applied the multiplier of 8 by taking the average of the parents of the deceased who were 55 and 56 years".
The fourteenth decision is Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, VIII (2012) SLT 423 : IV (2012) ACC 248 (SC) : A.I.R. 2012 S.C. (Civil) 1954, cited by Mr. Mondal. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 4th April, 2012. It was a fault liability claim case and the bachelor victim''s parents and a sister were the claimants.
Both the questions of choice of multiplier and deduction for personal and living expenses were in issue in that case. The Sarla Verma principle that deduction should be 50% in case of a bachelor victim was reiterated. As to multiplier, column 4 of the table given in Sarla Verma was referred to, and it was held that the multiplier should be chosen on the basis of the age of the victim, not of the dependant.
Paragraph 17 of the report is quoted below:
"17. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation."
The fifteenth decision is Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, , cited by Mr. Mondal. It is a three-Judge Bench decision given on 2nd April, 2013. It was a reference made by a two-Judge Bench. The questions were:
"(1) Whether multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the 1988 Act") should be scrupulously applied in all cases? and
(2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospect."
Paragraph 40 of the report is quoted below:
"40. In what we have discussed above, we sum up our conclusions as follows--
(i) In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table prepared in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment.
(ii) In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years, irrespective of the Section 166 or Section 163A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma should be followed.
(iii) As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act.
(iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of compensation in cases of death.
(v) While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma.
(vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above.
(vii) The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration."
Relying on Reshma Kumari, Mr. Mondial has forcefully argued that in every fault liability claim case, irrespective of whether the victim was a bachelor or not, the applicable multiplier is to be chosen only on the basis of the age of the victim mentioned in the table given in Sarla Verma, categorically approved by the Larger Bench in Reshma Kumari.
In reply Mr. Das has forcefully argued that the question of choice of multiplier in a fault liability claim case arising out of the accidental death of a bachelor was not an issue either in Sarla Verma or in Reshma Kumari; and that Sarla Verma and Reshma Kumari ratios are not different from the ratio of Trilok Chandra in which the question of choice of multiplier in a fault liability claim case was the only issue.
The sixteenth decision is M. Mansoor and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., IV (2013) ACC 45 (SC) : 2014 S.A.R. (Civil) 107, cited by Mr. Mondal. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 3rd October, 2013. It was a fault liability claim case. The victim was a 24 years old bachelor and his parents were the claimants. The contention was that in view of Sarla Verma, the High Court ought to have chosen the multiplier of 18 on the basis of the victim''s age. The contention was accepted.
Paragraph 15 of the report is quoted below:
"15. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and the High Court determined the multiplier as 12 on the basis of the age of the parents/claimants. This Court in the decision in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, , held as follows:
"15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the; computation of compensation."
The seventeenth to twenty-second decisions are the six Division Bench decisions of this Court dealing with the issues arising in the cases concerned. While Mr. Das has, inter alia, relied on Renuka Sen and Another v. Jagdish Pandey and Another, III (2013) ACC 216 (DB) : 2013 (2) T.A.C. 451 (Cal); Mr. Mondal has strongly relied on the decision dated 2nd December, 2013 in FMA No. 1325 of 2012, Bidyut Maity v. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others.
It is, therefore, to be examined whether the multiplier choice principle stated in Susamma Thomas, and then clearly stated in Trilok Chandra, and then consistently stated in Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim and Ramesh Singh that the choice of multiplier is to be determined by the age of the victim or that of the claimant, whichever is higher changed because of the decision in Sarla Verma.
In Trilok Chandra, use of the correct multiplier for determination of compensation to be awarded to the legal representatives of the victim of a road accident was the only issue; and the Supreme Court held that the selection of multiplier would not in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the victim, and that in a claim case by the parents of a bachelor victim the ages of the parents would also be relevant for the purpose.
In Sarla Verma the wife, three minor children, parents and grandfather of the victim claimed fault liability compensation. The Claims Tribunal chose the multiplier 22 on the grounds that the lost period of service of the employed victim was 22 years. The High Court chose 13 on the basis of the victim''s age. In the Supreme Court the claimants contended that in view of the Second Schedule to the Act multiplier of 16 was applicable.
While deciding the question of choice of multiplier applicable to the case, the Supreme Court referred to Susamma Thomas, Section 163A of the Act, the Second Schedule to the Act, Trilok Chandra and Charlie, and prepared a table specifying the multipliers "envisaged in Susamma Thomas," "adopted by Trilok Chandra" "clarified in Charlie," "specified" in the Second Schedule, and the ones "actually used" in the Second Schedule.
In para 20 of Sarla Verma report the Supreme Court said that while some Tribunals and Courts were following the multiplier envisaged in Susamma Thomas, some were following the multipliers adopted by Trilok Chandra, some were following the multipliers clarified in Charlie, many were following the multipliers specified in the Second Schedule and some were following the multipliers actually used in the Second Schedule.
The Supreme Court gave an example saying, "If the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in Column (2) of the Second Schedule to the M.V. Act, or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule to M.V. Act."
After saying that some Tribunals, as was in the case the Supreme Court was deciding, were even applying "the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of services with reference to retiring age", the Supreme Court said, "It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under Section 163A of M.V. Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, Davies method is applicable."
Saying that there was inconsistency, and that it was necessary to avoid it, in para 21 of the report the Supreme Court said as follows:
"21. We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
It is, therefore, evident that in Sarla Verma what the Supreme Court was actually deciding was which multiplier was applicable to the case and when the Supreme Court noticed the existing inconsistencies because of several operative multipliers almost for all the age groups mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Act, it thought it necessary to direct that only one set of multipliers mentioned in Column 4 of the table given in the decision should be applied to all fault liability claim cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Supreme Court said that because of the existing inconsistencies to a case arising out of the death of a 38 years old victim, the multipliers of 12, 14, 15, 16 and 22 were in operation. With a view to removing this evident inconsistency the Supreme Court directed all to follow one set of multipliers mentioned in column 4 of the table; and according to the table, the multiplier of 15 was applicable to Sarah Verrna, because the victim was 38 and the Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 15 to the case.
It is, therefore, not correct to say that in Sarla Verma the Supreme Court explained or clarified the above noted multiplier choice principle stated in its previous decisions in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra, Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim and Ramesh Singh. Sarla Verma principle stating which multiplier should be applied to which age group had no connection whatsoever with the choice of the correct multiplier.
The first step in the multiplier choice has nothing to do with the several age groups given in the Second Schedule to the Act and in the table given in Sarla Verma; for the first multiplier choice step is entirely connected with the age of the victim or the age of the claimant, whichever is higher; and there is no reason to say that any principle stated in Sarla Verma caused any change to this principle clearly and specifically stated, reiterated and laid down in Trilok Chandra.
It is to be noted that Sarla Verma is a two-Judge Bench decision; as noted hereinbefore, Trilok Chandra is a three-Judge Bench decision. Sarla Verma principle applies to the second multiplier choice step, i.e., the principle is to be applied only after ascertaining the age for choosing the multiplier. Once the age is determined, in view of Sarla Verma the multiplier is to be chosen following the age group mentioned in the table given therein.
The problem, however, has arisen because of the decisions of the Supreme Court in P.S. Somanathan, Amrit Bhanu and M. Monsoor. It is to be noted that in the decisions given by the Supreme Court after Sarla Verma in Shakti Devi, P.S. Somanathan, Shyam Singh, Amrit Bhanu and M. Mansoor the question of choice of multiplier was decided as an issue.
In Shakti Devi--the first after Sarla Verma--the parents of a 22-years old bachelor victim filed the application claiming fault liability compensation. The Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8. The High Court did not interfere. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the choice of multiplier was wrong. The Supreme Court held that the multiplier specified in Column 4 of the table given in Sarla Verma was applicable.
As to the question of choice of multiplier, the Supreme Court said and held as follows:
"Insofar as multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the multiplier of 18 should have been applied keeping in view the age of the deceased. The argument is devoid of any substance. In a case where the age of the claimant is higher than the age of the deceased, the age of claimant and not the age of the deceased has to be taken into account for the capitalization of the lost dependency. It is so because the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, whichever is higher."
After reiterating the above-noted principle and holding that at the date of accident Shakti Devi (the victim''s mother) was about 54-55, the Supreme Court chose the multiplier of 11 specified in Column 4 of Sarla Verma table.
It is in P.S. Somanathan--the second after Sarla Verma--that the Supreme Court took a different view for the first time. There the bachelor victim was 33 and his mother was one of the claimants applying for fault liability compensation. The Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16. The High Court chose 5 as the victim''s mother was 67. The Supreme Court said "the High Court should have proceeded to compute the compensation on the age of the deceased".
In Shyam Singh--the third after Sarla Verma--the parents of a 19 years old bachelor victim filed the application claiming fault liability compensation. Considering the parents'' ages (56 and 55), the Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8. Following Sarla Verma the High Court applied 18. Accepting the contention that the High Court failed to correctly apply the Sarla Verma ratio, the Supreme Court held that the Claims Tribunal had correctly applied the multiplier of 8.
Then in Amrit Bhanu--the fourth after Sarla Verma - the Supreme Court again took a view contrary to the view taken in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra, Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim, Ramesh Singh, Shakti Devi and Shyam Singh.
In Amrit Bhanu the parents and a sister of a 26-years old bachelor victim applied for fault liability compensation. Following Sarla Verma the Claims Tribunal chose the multiplier of 17 referring to the victim''s age. The High Court, also following Sarla Verma, however, chose 13 referring to the victim''s age, One contention in the Supreme Court was that choice of 13 was against the law laid down in Sarla Verma.
The Supreme Court holding that in view of Sarla Verma the multiplier of 17 ought to have been chosen on the basis of the victim''s age said as follows:
"The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation."
M. Mansoor--the fifth and the last after Sarla Verma--is yet another decision of the Supreme Court taking a view contrary to the one consistently stated by the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra, Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim, Ramesh Singh, Shakti Devi and Shyam Singh. In fact, M. Mansoor was given following Amrit Bhanu and quoting para 15 of its report. In M. Mansoor the High Court chose the multiplier of 12 referring to the age of the parents of the 24-years old bachelor victim.
In para 16 of M. Mansoor report the Supreme Court said as follows:
"16. In the decision in Sarla Verma case (supra), this Court held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column 4 of the table of the said judgment which starts with an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased a the time of the death was 24 years, the multiplier of 18 ought to live been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 and the High Court committed a serious error by bringing it down to the multiplier of 12."
The question that thus merges is whether in Sarla Verma the Supreme Court said anything concerning the principle that the multiplier applicable to a claim case filed in a Claims Tribunal is to be chosen referring to the age of the victim or that of the claimant whichever is higher.
As already noted hereinbefore, this was not even an issue in Sarla Verma in which while determining the multiplier applicable to that case the Supreme Court noticed that even to a claim case arising out of the death of a 38-years old victim as many as multipliers could be chosen. The Supreme Court very specifically stated that thought it necessary to remove this inconsistency; and consequently it prepared the table and directed that the multipliers specified in Column 4 of the table would be followed in all cases.
It is evident that nothing in Sarla Verma even explained or clarified the principle on choice of multiplier indicated in Susamma Thomas, specifically reiterated in Trilok Chandra (for the reasons stated therein) and consistently stated thereafter in Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim and Ramesh Singh. In Shakti Devi and Shyam Singh the Supreme Court sufficiently, indicated that nothing in Sarla Verma :hanged that position of law.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the principle stated in P.S. Somanathan, Amrit Bhanu and M. Mansoor does not emerge from Sarla Verma, and that it is fully in conflict with the principle stated in Susamma Thomas, specifically reiterated in Trilok Chandra and then repeatedly stated in Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim and Ramesh Singh. Shakti Devi and Shyam Singh also support this view.
Hence, we find that as to choice of multiplier the law of the land always was and still is: it should be chosen referring to the victim''s age or the age of the claimant, whichever is higher".
Since after considering the decisions of the Supreme Court cited to us we have reached the foregoing conclusion, we do not think it is necessary to deal with the six Division Bench decisions of this Court also cited to us.
We only say that while we agree with the view taken in Renuka Sen, we are unable to agree with the view taken in Bidyut Maity; for it is not based on the correct Sarla Verma ratio and is in conflict with the law on choice of multiplier based on age specifically laid down in Trilok Chandra.
As to the deduction issue, the consistent view of the Supreme Court stated in Fakeerappa, Charlie, Syed Basheer Ahamed, Sarla Verma, Shakti Devi and Reshma Kumari is as follows:
"What will be the percentage of deduction for personal and living expenses cannot be decided by any rigid rule or formula of universal application. It will depend upon the circumstances of each case. The general practice is to deduct from one-third to half. Where the victim was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. Normally 50% is deducted. But it is always a matter of evidence. If evidence proves that the victim left a large number of dependants, then the deduction should be restricted to one-third."
We, therefore, hold that the Claims Tribunal erred in law by choosing the multiplier of 17 referring to the bachelor victim''s age and deducting one-third, when there was no evidence of a larger contribution. It ought to have chosen the multiplier referring to the victim''s mother''s age, because his parents were the claimants; and deducted 50% from his Rs. . 3000 monthly income.
The victim''s father testified in the Claims Tribunal as P.W. 1 and it was recorded that on 20th May, 2005 he was 52. The victim''s mother verifying the claim application did not give her age. She did not testify. Hence, it is not known between the parents who was younger. In view of the principle stated hereinbefore, the younger parent''s age was to be the basis for choosing the multiplier.
Faced with the situation, Mr. Mondal has prayed for leave to file an affidavit producing therewith evidence of the victim''s mother''s age. We think instead of remanding the case to the Claims Tribunal for taking down evidence for ascertaining the victim''s mother''s age, it will be appropriate to grant the claimants leave to adduce additional evidence in proof of the victim''s mother''s age at the date of the accident. For these reasons, we allow the appeal without: costs and order as follows. The award of the Claims Tribunal shall stand modified according to the calculation to be made next day. List for calculation and further order on 4th March, 2014. Certified xerox.