Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(36) There can generally be no discrimination between rich and poor victims for evaluating non-pecuniary damages as laid down by Diplock L.J and Salmon LJ. in Fletcher's case 1969 Acj 99 (CA).

(37) Pecuniary Damages Multiplier: the arrival of a statutory multiplier under Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 54/1994: (Certain mistakes in Rs. calculation to be ignored) (38) A statutory multiplier Table has arrived in India with effect from 15.11.94. That means that our Parliament is ahead of the Parliament in U.K. and other countries. The amendment by .Act 54 of of 1994 to the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 contains a multiplier Table in the Second Schedule. The amendment is prospective and applies to cases of accidents which have occured after 15.11.94. (Unfortunately, in the quantum fixed for different levels of loss of annual earnings, there are clear arithmetical errors in multiplication. In our view, the arithmetical mistakes in the Table can be corrected by the Courts/Tribunals for if there is an obvious arithmatical mistake in the Table appended to a statute, the Courts can correct the same. The mistakes are confined to the other columns which refer to the amounts in Rupees).While the column relating to the appropriate multiplier for different age levels does not contain any mistakes, the mistakes are confined to the other columns which refer to the amounts in Rupees).

(43) Multiplier Table appended by Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1994: if can be treated as relevant for accidents before 15.11.1994. ( This will help avoid selection of multiplier based on conflicting judicial decisions).Question arises whether the multiplier in the Table appended by the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1994 which is prospective, can also be of relevance in respect of accidents which occured before 15.11.94, on which date the Table came into force. In our opinion, the statutory multiplier table is clearly relevant for the following reasons.

(44) Actuarial multipliers are based on mortality rates of different persons bearing different ages and are published by the Registrar General,Government of India. Census in our country are taken once in 10 years. In our view, there can be no difficulty in taking judicial notice of the fact that over the last 10 years medical facilities have increased considerably and that is why there is also a general increase in the survival rates or decrease in mortality rates. This position has been accepted by the Supreme Court. The multiplier published, in the Amending Act,1994 is based on the mortality or rather survival rates officially published for the period just before 1994. If a Court or Tribunal is considering the case of an accident which occured prior to 15.11.94 when death rates were higher and survival rates lesser, then it is obvious that these multipliers in the statutory table are more favourable to the claimants if a latter multiplier based upon a higher survival rate of a latter date, immediately preceding 1994, is applied in respect of an accident which occured long before 15.11.94. This can be explained from another angle. If in fact a multiplier table had been published .by Parliament (say) for 1984 then those multipliers would have been lesser than the multipliers now published in 1994. This is because survival rates in 1984 and earlier thereto were less than those in 1994. That is why we are of the view that even in regard to cases of accidents prior to 15.11.94 the date from which the Table in the Second Schedule brought in by the Amending Act,1994 has came into force, it will be open to the Courts/Tribunals to take the multiplier as per the said statutory table as relevant. (In fact, the objection or dispute must come from the tortfeasors or the insurance companies. Even if they do raise an objection, we may say from experience, that the defendants need not be apprehensive of a higher award on the basis of the 1994 statutory table, because differences in each multiplier over a period of 10 years will be higher only by small fractions ranging between 0.25 or 0.50 generally.) (45) If the above procedure enunciated by us based on the statutory multiplier provided by Parliament is applied, we can steer clear of conflicts in the multipliers applied by Courts on the judicial side in several cases. This approach of ours will help in rationalising awards, remove ad-hocism in selection of multipliers based on individual preferences. A whole range of discrimination between case and case can easily be avoided. That is why we have taken pains to give reasons as to why the statutory multiplier Table provided for prospective use can also be used for the accidents which occured before 15.11.1994.

(46) In fact, if ad hoc multipliers like 26 etc. are used for pre-15.11.94 accidents and only maximum multiplier of 18 as per the Table are bound to be used for post 15.11.94 accidents, there will be undue overpayment in regard to accidents prior to 15.11.94 i.e. in the seventies or eighties, when survival rates were far less than in 1994. Our view will eliminate any such anomaly.

(47) Multiplier cannot be the difference between age at death (or age at trial of injured person) and total expected life. If does not exceed 18 or 20 This aspect does not indeed fall for consideration because Parliament has now prescribed the Table in 1994. The maximum multiplier as per the Table is only 18.