Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Oriental Insurance Co. Limited vs G. Seshamma And Ors. on 19 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: I(2003)ACC160, 2003ACJ1895, 2002(5)ALD615, 2002(5)ALT306
Author: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
Bench: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
JUDGMENT Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kurnool in OP No. 946 of 1999 awarding compensation of Rs. 18,01,608/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment.
2. The main contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel Mr. Kota Subba Rao appearing on behalf of the appellant that the compensation paid to the claimants in the aforesaid OP is exorbitant. Moreover, the multiplier used by the Tribunal is totally wrong. The multiplier used by the Tribunal is 13 as against 10.45. As per the manner in which the accident was concerned, it is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. Even the age of the deceased as 45 is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. While opposing the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, the learned Counsel for the respondents/ claimants submitted at the Bar that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is correct. The learned Counsel further submitted that the higher multiplier used by the Tribunal considering the prospects which the deceased could have got it if he would not have died in the motor accident. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company be dismissed.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon a ruling reported in Jyothi Kaul and Ors. v. State of M.P and Anr., AIR 2000 SC 3582, in which their Lordships were pleased to hold that the principles of multiplier depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. Deceased was the Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department, who was aged about 50 years at the time of his death and in good health. Considering his chances of promotion, his increments and what he would have received after retirement, compensation is computed. Predecessor of deceased lived for more than 80 years. The multiplier of 13 applied by the Tribunal based on sound reasoning.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted at the Bar that the deduction of 173rd income towards personal expenses of the deceased is always not advisable. It can be even less than 1/3rd. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents. It has been the practice in all the reported cases that 173rd income is to be deducted for the expenses of the deceased while computing the compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the multiplier used by the Tribunal is correct. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon a ruling reported in APSRTC v. Patan Shamshad Begum and Ors., (DB), in which the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to hold that the Claims Tribunal has power to apply the reasonable and relevant multiplier in determining compensation under the head "loss of dependency" unlike in mathematical calculations depending upon the facts of each case. We agree with the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. But the leaned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant could not place any material on record, which would weigh in our minds to apply the higher multiplier than the table of multiplier given in Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif a case reported in 1987 (2) ALT 137. The learned Counsel further relied upon a ruling reported in U.P State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors., , in which their Lordships held that Second Schedule suffers from several defects, Courts and Tribunals cannot go by the ready reckoner. It can only be used as a guide. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that the Second Schedule can be used in finding of the appropriate multiplier.
5. The learned Counsel further relied upon a ruling reported in APSRTC v. Saharaj Vijaya and Ors., 1995 (2) ALD 423, and submitted at the Bar that in fact the claimants are entitled for more compensation even without filing the cross-objections. The learned Counsel further submitted at the Bar that this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Order 41, Rule 33 CPC can enhance the compensation. We are not in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge in the above ruling. As a matter of fact, though the Court has all powers to pass any decree or to make any order which ought to have been passed and made by the original Court but this can only be done if the claimants filed cross-objections and not otherwise.
6. Now we proceed to scrutinise as to whether the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant has any legal force?
7. We rely upon a ruling reported in Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif, 1987 (2) ALT 137. The deceased was aged between 45 to 50 and the multiplier given for 45 years -- 10.45 and for 50 years -- 7.68. In the said ruling his Lordship further held that in computing the multiplier for persons, who like professionals, can earn for all their lives and there is no retirement, the multiplier from the table can be increased approximately by 1 or 2 points. Therefore, we choose appropriate multiplier in this case as 12 instead of 13 as used by the Tribunal. Therefore, we hold that the deceased was earring Rs. 17,165/- p.m., deducting l/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, Rs. 11,443/- will be dependency per month and Rs. 1,37,316/- p.a. and the multiplier which we have shosed is 12. If the aforesaid figure is multiplied with 12, then the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 16,47,792/-. In addition to the above amount, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- towards loss of estate, making a total of Rs. 16,47,792/- plus interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
8. Thus, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands allowed to the extent indicated to above. No costs.