Punjab-Haryana High Court
Savitri And Another vs Rejender And Another on 14 February, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO No.2618 of 2011 -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
FAO No.2618 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION:14.02.2012 **** Savitri and another . . . . Appellants Vs. Rejender and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Anil Ghangas, Advocate, for the appellants.
Ms.Savita Tanwar, Advocate for Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.2-Reliance General Insurance Company.
**** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.
The question involved in this appeal is "as to whether in case of assessment of compensation on an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier is to be applied in respect of the age of the deceased or the claimant, whichever is higher?"
In short, the appellants are the parents of the deceased Parveen aged 22 years, who have been awarded compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short 'the Tribunal') on their application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') to the tune of `3,03,000/- with cost and interest @ 7½ per annum from the date of institution FAO No.2618 of 2011 -2 - of the petition till its realization. After assessing the income of the deceased to the tune of `4,000/- per month, 50% was deducted being a bachelor and on a sum of `2,000/- per month, multiplier of 12 was applied keeping in view the age of the mother of the deceased who has been held to be the sole claimant in view of the fact that the deceased was bachelor and a sum of `10,000/- towards loss of estate and `5,000/- towards funeral expenses have been awarded additionally.
The only grievance of appellants is about the application of multiplier of 12 keeping in view the age of the claimant/mother. He has submitted that the age of the deceased is to be considered on an application filed under Section 166 of the Act. In this regard, he has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) "Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr." 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77; (ii) "P.S. Somanathan and others Vs. District Insurance Officer and another" 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 228.
In reply, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that there is no error on the part of the Tribunal in applying multiplier of 12 because the deceased was 22 years of age and his mother is 45 years of age and in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, the multiplier has to be adopted by determining the age of the deceased or that of the claimant whichever is higher. She has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Shakti Devi vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr." 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 950.
In the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (Supra), the petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act in respect of the death of a person aged 38 years, who was working as a Scientist in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 22 considering the age of retirement as 60 which was reduced to 13 by the High Court. It was observed by the Supreme Court that in the case of assessment of compensation in respect of death three things are required to be established (a) Age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; (c) number of FAO No.2618 of 2011 -3 - dependents. It was also observed that the Tribunal should follow the following three well settled steps:
(i) Ascertaining the multiplicand.
(ii) Ascertaining the multiplier.
(iii) Actual calculation.
It was observed that the Tribunal can add compensation for loss of consortium, funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred).
In respect of the multiplier, it has been observed that the multipliers to be used should be according to the groups which are as follows:
Age group (in years) Multiplier (in %) 15 - 20 18 21 - 25 18 26 - 30 17 31 - 35 16 36 - 40 15 41 - 45 14 46 - 50 13 51 - 55 11 56 - 60 9 61 - 65 7 66 - 70 5 Ultimately, while disposing of that appeal, since the deceased was 38 years of age, a multiplier of 15 was applied in order to assess the total loss of dependency.
In the case of P.S. Somanathan and others (Supra) deceased was 37 years of age. He was unmarried and was looking after his entire family comprising his mother, sister and one brother. It was held that "this Court is of the opinion that the law as has been laid correctly in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), in a very well considered judgment, is to be followed". In the said case the dependency was computed in respect of the age of the deceased.
In the case of Shakti Devi (Supra), the petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act in respect of the death of a person, who was 22 years of age, by the claimant, who happened to be his mother, who was aged 54/55 years. The Tribunal applied a FAO No.2618 of 2011 -4 - multiplier of 8 keeping in view the age of the mother which was upheld by the High Court of Jharkhand but the Supreme Court revised the multiplier to 11 in view of the table prepared in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (Supra) on the principle that the multiplier would be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased or of the claimant which ever is higher.
With utmost respect, case of Shakti Devi (Supra) is decided on 9.11.2010 and the case of P.S. Somanathan and others (Supra) is decided on 17.2.2011 reiterating the view expressed in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (Supra) taken on 15.4.2009 wherein it has been held that the multiplier has to be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased.
Interestingly all the decisions of the Supreme Court are rendered by the Bench of Hon'ble two Judges.
Since the view in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (Supra) has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Somanathan and others (Supra) even after the decision in the case of Shakti Devi (Supra), therefore, I am inclined to take the view expressed in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (Supra) and P.S. Somanathan and others (Supra) to hold that the multiplier has to be applied by the Tribunal in respect of the age of the deceased and not of the claimant.
In the present case, admittedly the deceased was 22 years of age and since the only dispute is with regard to the multiplier which has been applied as 12 keeping in view the age of the mother/claimant, therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal deserves to be modified as the multiplier which is to be applied is of 18 in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (Supra). Accordingly, the compensation would be `4,32,000/- after multiplying the income of the deceased assessed @ `24,000/- per annum with a multiplier of
18. Rest of the order with regard to the compensation of loss of estate, funeral expenses, Costs and interest etc. would remain the same.
With these observations, the present appeal is hereby allowed.
FAO No.2618 of 2011 -5 -
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
FEBRUARY 14, 2012 JUDGE
Vivek