Bombay High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mandatai And Ors. on 21 July, 1994
Equivalent citations: II(1994)ACC562
Author: R.M. Lodha
Bench: R.M. Lodha
JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J.
1. Both these appeals shall stand disposed of by the common judgment since these appeals arise out of the award dated 10.8.1983 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Petition No. 64 of 1979 Smt. Mandatai and Ors. v. Ravindra Singh and Ors. whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has passed the award in favour of the claimants directing the non-applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to pay Rs. 2,25,000/- to the claimants.
2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the aforesaid claim petition are that Shalikram Dhondbaji Gire after attending duties on 22.4.1979 as Lamp Fitter was returning back from the colliery on cycle at about 6.00 p.m. While he was returning on the cycle the rear most truck bearing No. MTB-2548 near the weigh-bridge where loaded trucks are parked for weighment, was abruptly taken by the driver in reverse without blowing any horn. Shalikram Dhondbaji Gire was taken unaware and the truck dashed against the cycle, as a result of which he fell down and the rear wheel of the truck ran over the body of Shalikram Dhondbaji Gire. He died on the spot. The claimants, who are dependents of Shalikram Dhondbaji Gire, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ - from the non-applicants, namely, Ravindra Singh, (truck owner), Mangal Singh Pritamsingh Punjabi (driver) and United India Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The claimants submitted in the claim petition that Shalikram Dhondbaji Gire died in the accident which was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. It was inter-alia averred in the claim petition that Shalikram Dhondbaji Gire was working as Lamp Fitter in Inder Colliery at Kamptee and he was getting the salary of Rs. 600/- per month. At the time of accident, the deceased Shalikram was hardly 32 years old.
2. The non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, the owner and driver respectively, despite service by way of publication in the daily newspaper 'Lokmat dated 1.1.1980 remained absent and the proceedings proceeded exparte against them. The insurer have filed the written statement (Exh. 24) and traversed the claim. The insurer moved an application before the Tribunal for contesting the claim of the applicants on all or any of the grounds that are available to the owner, and the learned Tribunal granted the permission to the insurer (non-applicant No. 3) to contest the claim of the applicant on all the grounds, which were available to the owner.
3. The claimants examined Mandatai w/o Shalikram Gire P.W. 1 (Exh. 51), Shamrao P.W. 2 (Exh. 60) and Lalchand P. W. 3 (Exh. 63) and adduced various documents including the death certificate (Exh. 52), the notice dated 12.10.1979 served upon the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the compensation (Exh. 53), the policy of insurance (Exh. 58) and wage certificates (Exh. 64 and Exh. 66).
4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal recorded the finding that the deceased Shalikram Dhondbaji Gire died on 22.4.1979 near Coal Mines Kamptee as a result of motor accident and the said accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the truck No. MTB-2548 being driven by the non-applicant No. 2 Mangalsingh son of Pritamsingh. The Tribunal further recorded the finding that in the month of March, 1979 the deceased Shalikram got the gross salary of Rs. 638.75 and net salary of Rs. 581.63. According to the Tribunal, the deceased was aged about 32 years, when he died, and the superannuation age in the colliery being 60 years the deceased could have worked for 28 years more and this would have given the benefit to the family at least for 28 years more. The Tribunal then held that the monthly benefit, which the dependents were getting, was Rs. 320/- per month, which would be Rs. 3840/- per year, and that being multiplied by 28 years would come to Rs. 1,07,520/-. The Tribunal further held that the deceased was getting the bonus of Rs. 520/ - and that for 28 years would be Rs. 14,560/-. Thus according to the Tribunal the loss suffered by the dependents was Rs. 1,22,080/- and making that as a round figure, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,25,000/-. The Tribunal, however, refused to grant interest holding that since the compensation was being awarded in lumpsum, no interest would be granted.
5. Mr. R.K. Thakur, learned Counsel for the United India Insurance Company Ltd. in First Appeal No. 152 of 1984 has made only one submission before us. He submitted that the method employed by the Tribunal for computation of compensation was not proper and, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. According to the learned Counsel for the Insurer-appellant, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the method of multiplier. He submitted that to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating entire future earning for over the period of life expectancy lost and award on the basis of the resulting sum as compensation was unscientific. Mr. thakur in this connection referred to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in G.M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. .
6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the claimants, opposed the submissions made by Mr. Thakur and urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- was just and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. He further submitted that even if the compensation is computed by adopting the method of multiplier in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in G.M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (cited supra), the compensation would not be less than Rs. 1,25,000/- and, therefore, there is no merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the insurer. With regard to the appeal filed by the claimants, the learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to award interest on the compensation on the ground that since the compensation is granted in lumpsum, the interest cannot be granted. He submitted that since the non-applicants failed to pay the compensation despite the notice and the claimants were compelled to file the claim petition, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded the interest on the compensation determined and, therefore, this Court should now award the compensation by allowing this appeal.
6. In G.M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (cited supra) the Supreme Court has approved the multiplier method for determination of compensation in fatal accident actions. The Supreme Court reiterated that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. The Apex Court thus held that the proper method of computation is the multiplier method and any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (cited supra), we have to examine whether the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or excessive.
7. According to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, "the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants, whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last".
8. In the present case, the deceased was about 32 years of age and this fact is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Insurer in appeal also. From the evidence which has come on record, it appears that the deceased was drawing the salary of about Rs. 600/- per month. The learned Counsel for the Insurer admits that though the employment of the deceased was shown as daily rated employee, but in fact he was a permanent employee in the colliery. This being the position, the deceased was having more or less a stable job and taking aliberal view of the prospects of future increments in service, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances to estimate the monthly income of Rs. 1,000/- as the gross income of the deceased. From this has to be deducted his personal living expenses and it is not unusual to deduct one-third 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 the family and dependents. Thus after deducting the one-third personal living expenses i.e. Rs. 350/ - per month from the gross monthly income of Rs. 1,000/-, the loss of dependency per month comes to Rs. 650/-. This loss of dependency should capitalize with appropriate multiplier, which in the present case can be held to be 16 keeping into consideration the age of the deceased, which is 32 years, and the age of his children dependents, which is 6 years, 4 years and 1 Vi years respectively, and the age of the wife of the deceased which is 25 years. Thus multiplying the loss of dependency at the rate of Rs. 650/- per month or Rs. 7800/- per year with the multiplier of 16, the compensation would work out to Rs. 1.24,800/-. As a matter of fact, to this would be added the usual award for loss of consortium and loss of estate each in the lower side i.e. the conventional sum of Rs. 10,000/- each and thus the compensation awardable to the claimants would be Rs. 1,44,800/-. But since the claimants in their appeal have not prayed for enhancement of compensation and only confined their appeal to the extent of granting of interest, we think that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at the sum of Rs. 1.25.000/- is fair, just and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company, therefore, has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. So far as the appeal filed by the claimants is concerned, the same is confined to the award of interest. The reason assigned by the Tribunal for not awarding the interest is that the compensation is being granted in lumpsum. We are afraid that this is no ground to refuse award of interest. Merely because the compensation is granted in lumpsum, the claimants cannot be deprived of the interest on the compensation awarded. We therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case feel that award of interest at 12% per annum on the compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 17.10.1979 till the payment deposit of compensation, would be justified.
10. In the result, First Appeal No. 152 of 1984 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mandatai and Ors. is dismissed and First Appeal No. 42 of 1985 Smt. Mandatai and Ors. v. Ravindrasingh and Ors. is allowed, and the non-applicants are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the determined compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 17.10.1979 till the date of payment/deposit of the compensation. Costs of both the appeals easy.