Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Mohd. Osman And Anr. vs M.C. Moosa And Anr. on 26 September, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995(1)ALT186
ORDER Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the claimants who are the parents of the deceased Md. Javed, aged about 20 years as on the date of accident, i.e., 23-4-1989, aggrieved by the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar in O.F. No. 271/89 dated 31-8-l990.
2. Appellant No. 1 is the father and appellant No. 2 is the mother of the deceased Md. Javed, who are aged about 43 and 38 years respectively. Their case is that their son Md. javed who was aged about 20 years at the time of his death, was a Mason and was earning Rs. 1500/- per month. On 23-4-1989, the deceased was proceeding on a cycle towards Himayathsagar from Katedhan and when he reached A.G. College on the National High Way No. 7, a lorry bearing No. KED 2336 coming from Hyderabad and proceeding towards Shamshabad dashed against the deceased around 12.30 PM and consequently, he received multiple injuries and died on the spot.
3. The appellants filed the application before the Tribunal below seeking a total Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- under various heads. As against the said claim, an amount of Rs. 41,500/- was granted by the Tribunal below.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
5. Sri K. Govind, counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the determination of dependency of the parents by the Tribunal below, for the dependent parents initially for a period of five years and later for a period of eight years is unreasonable. He contends that the ratio evolved by the Tribunal below in arriving at the dependency is far from truth and is not based on any rationality. It is stated that the dependency of the parents on their son throughout their survival is one and the same. The son's responsibility to look after the parents does not cease even after his marriage. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot fix dependency of parents by varying it to different periods. He further contends that the deceased was, admittedly, a Mason aged about 20 years and earning a sum of Rs. 50/- per day. Had he lived, he would have supported his parents who are aged about 43 and 38 years respectively, but for his sudden death, his parents who are the appellants herein are deprived of his income. There are no other sources of income for the appellants to maintain themselves.
6. A reading of the order under challenge goes to show that the Tribunal below has tentatively come to the conclusion that the" deceased would be earning about Rs. 500/- per month.. The Tribunal below has also held that the deceased was aged 20 years and he could have married in another 4 to 5 years and therefore, the dependency of the parents could have been Rs. 250/- per month for a period of four years. The Tribunal below further felt that for a period of eight years, the dependency of the parents has been fixed at Rs.150/-. Besides granting these two amounts, the Tribunal below has also granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. As against the claim of Rs. 500/- towards cost of the cycle, an amount of Rs. 100/- has been granted.
7. The fact that the deceased was working as Mason was not disputed. The fact about his age is also not disputed. The only question remains is the probable income, the deceased was earning per day. Though the appellants have claimed that their son was earning Rs. 50/- per day, the Tribunal below has fixed Rs. 500/- as the monthly income of the deceased. This fixation, as seen from the record, is not based on any rationality or logic. It is common knowledge that Masons in and around the years 1989 to 1990 were being paid an amount ranging from Rs. 25/- to 30/- per day. Even presuming that the deceased was earning Rs. 20/- per day, his monthly earning would be 20x30 = Rs. 600/-. From out of this, as held by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas, 1/3 rd amount has to be set apart for personal living expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/3 rd from Rs. 600/-, (Rs. 600 - Rs. 200) the net contribution of the deceased to his family would be Rs. 400/-.
8. As far as the principle of multiplier is concerned, it is settled that the age of the parents has to be taken into account while determining the multiplier is so far as the death of the unmarried person is concerned. In this case, the father is the appellant No. 1 and the mother is appellant No. 2 who are aged about 43 and 38 years respectively. The age of the mother has to be taken into consideration for arriving at an appropriate multiplier. According to the age of the mother of the deceased, appellant No. 2 herein, the multiplier in this case would be 12.79, which could be rounded to 13. The dependency has to be arrived at by multiplying Rs. 400/- x 12 x 13 = Rs. 62,400/-. Therefore, the dependency of the parents on the deceased comes to Rs. 62,400/-.
9. Sri Bathula Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent herein stated that as held by this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its General Manager v. G. Ramanaiah, 1987 (2) ALT 526, the dependency of the parents has to be fixed for two periods. The first period is before the marriage of the deceased son and the second period would be after the marriage of the deceased son. He further contends that even assuming the contribution of the deceased towards his family would be taken as Rs. 400/-, that could only be upto the age of 25 years of the deceased. Therefore, the dependency at the rate of Rs. 400/- has to be fixed only for a period of five years as the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of his death. He further contends that the dependency has to be brought down as the deceased would be married and would have his wife and children.
10. No doubt, the ratio laid down by this Court has been holding the field so far. My learned brother Jagannadha Rao, J. as he then was, has referred to various cases of several Courts. The sum and substance of the decisions on this subject would not in any way differ with one aspect, i.e., the dependency of the parents would not cease even though their son gets married. The only question is what could be the extent of dependency the parents could claim on their deceased married son?
11. Sri Govind, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants states that as held by the Gujarath High Court in Ranchhodbhai Somabhai v. Babubhai Bhailalbhai, , as the time advances, the deceased would have earned much more income and therefore, he would have contributed more to his parents. He further states that without regard to the children born to the deceased, the amount which has been diverted for the parents dependency would not have been suffered.
12. I do see some force in the above submissions. The fact remains that the dependency of the parents would not cease pursuant to marriage of their son, unless and until it is brought to the notice of the Court that parents are not dependent on their deceased son. In this case, there is nothing to show that the parents were not dependent on the deceased son. For determining the dependency in case of married persons, the age of the deceased is taken into consideration while applying the appropriate multiplier. However, in case of death of an unmarried persons, the age of the dependents is taken into account while applying the multiplier. Therefore, determination of dependency in case of unmarried son for two periods i.e., dependency prior to marriage and after marriage sounds to be unreasonable. The dependency of parents on their son either married or unmarried does not vary. The dependency of parents on the son in their later stage is more than when they are younger, as during their younger days, they can do some work and maintain themselves.
13. This proposition could be better explained by an illustration:
A son who is aged about 25 years is married and have children. He earns Rs. 600/- per month. Besides his wife and children, his parents are also dependent an him. Unfortunately, if the son meets with an accident and dies, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation. The relevant multiplier applied is based on the age of the deceased son at the time of his death. That is to say, for the purpose of multiplier, the age of the deceased which is 25 years is taken into account and the appropriate multiplier would be 17.95, if rounded off, it comes to 18.
14. When it comes to the question of unmarried son, the multiplier is not arrived on the basis of his age but only on the basis of the age of his parents. In the same case, the unmarried deceased son who is aged about 25 years, the multiplier applied would be on the basis of the age of the parents. Mother being younger, her age is considered for applying relevant multiplier. In this case of narration, if the age of the mother is 45 years as on the date of death of her unmarried son, her age of 45 years is taken into consideration for applying the relevant multiplier. Therefore, the multiplier in this case comes to 10.45, if rounded of, it comes to 10 only. As far as the married son who dies at the age of 25 years, the multiplier Would be 18. Therefore, in applying the multiplier itself, there is a vast difference. The difference being 8 units. For the purpose of determining the dependency, in the first case, when 25 years married son dies, the multiplier applied is 18, and the unmarried son of 25 years dies, the multiplier applied is 10, which is taken on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased. The compensation is awarded on the basis of dependency. While applying two different multipliers in case of unmarried son and married son, the compensation is determined. Therefore/ the difference in the method applied itself works out the dependency. In this view of the matter, I am not persuaded to sail with the ratio laid down by my learned brother M. Jagannadha Rao, J., in the decision cited (2 supra). This is better illustrated as under:
The married son's -tentative income is Rs. 500/- after deducting 1/3 towards his personal living expenses. The amount of dependency is calculated at 500 x 12 x 18 - Rs. 1,08,000/-.
15. Taking the second example of the unmarried deceased son who is aged 25 years and earning Rs. 500 /- per month after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal living expenses, the dependency of the parents (mother's age being 45 years) would be Rs. 500/- x 12 x 10 = Rs. 60,000/-. Thus, it is clear, while applying two different methods dependency is determined. In this case, the difference of amount is Rs. 48,000/-. When this is the reality, I am of the view that there is no logic in fixing dependency of parents one at higher strata before marriage and the other at lower strata after marriage.
16. Accordingly, I hold in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the parents of the deceased are entitled to claim the compensation towards their dependency without regard to the period whether before or after marriage of the deceased son. The rationale behind this, seems to me, is that the parents dependency is permanent without regard to the fact of marriage of the deceased son. As a bachelor, the son may contribute more to the parents welfare, but after his marriage, his contribution towards his parents dependency could be reduced on the ground that there are more dependents on him sounds unrealistic so long as the dependency of the parents continues to exist even after the marriage of their son. As long as this criteria is satisfied, applying the different method is not warranted.
17. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal below in O.P. No. 271/89 is set aside.
18. The next question is what could be the compensation for which the appellants are entitled to?
19. As I have discussed above, the earnings of the deceased after 1/3rd deduction towards his personal living expenses per month has to be fixed at Rs. 400/-. The multiplier in this case is 13. Therefore, the dependency of the parents would be 400 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 62,400/-. The Tribunal has already granted Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. I am not called upon to differ on this finding of the Tribunal below. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to this amount.
20. As against the claim of Rs. 500/- for cycle repairs, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 100/-. I am not inclined to interfere in this regard.
21. Accordingly, I hold that the appellants are entitled to the following amounts:
1. Under the head 'dependency' ... Rs. 62,400-00
2. Loss of estate ... Rs. 15,000-00
3. Cycle repairs ... Rs. 100-00
---------------
Rs. 77,500-00
---------------
22. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 77,500/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of O.P. i.e., 25-4-1989 till realisation, with costs as awarded by the Tribunal below.
23. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as indicated above. No costs.