Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Though the basic principles regarding the annual earnings of the deceased and on that basis the estimate of the annual dependency of the dependants and thereafter working out the lump sum payable to the dependants by taking into consideration the various possibilities and uncertainties like widow remarrying, were laid down in the abovementioned two English cases, but the principle of arriving at the lump sum payable to the dependants by the following the multiplier doctrine was not expressly laid down although the final amount payable was arrived at in terms of the annual dependency by multiplying the same by a number of years' purchase. However, in Mallet v. McMonagle, 1969 Acc CJ 312 (HL), after taking into consideration all the previous decisions, it was held as under by the Court of Appeal, Northern Ireland:

According to the learned Judge, for the purpose of determining the multiplier to be applied to the annual dependency the factors like prospects of increase in wages, recession in trade, spells of unemployment, possibilities of the children beginning to earn when grow up, remarriage of the widow as well as the presence of the children diminishing the chances of remarriage have to be taken into consideration.

7. In Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh v. Sudhakaran 1977 Acc CJ 290: (AIR 1977 SC 1189), one woman aged 23 years and one year's old son had died while travelling in a bus as a result of an accident. At the time of her death, she was a physical instructress and drew Rs. 190/-. Claim application had been filled by her husband. The tribunal assessed the monthly dependency to the husband at Rs. 50/- and awarded the sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. In appeal, the High Court enhanced this amount to Rs. 50,000/-. The Supreme Court in appeal against the decision affirmed the award of the tribunal by adopting 20 years' multiplier. The principle regarding the application of multiplier doctrine was laid down in Mallett's case (supra) was approved and it was held (at p. 1191 of AIR):

14. In Damyanti Devi v. Sita Devi 1972 Acc CJ 334 (Punj), similarly, a Division Bench of this Court also held that it was not necessary to make any deduction on account of the lump sum payment and the amount of annual loss was multiplied by the number of years by which the life had been cut short.

15. In another Division Bench judgment of this Court as reported in Parsani Devi v. State of Haryana 1973 Acc CJ 531 (Punj) the amount of damages was arrived at by multiplying the annual dependency by the number of the years till the age of retirement. From its perusal it appears that no arguments were addressed on the principle of applicability of multiplier to determine the damages, nor was any deduction made in lieu of payment of compensation in lump sum.

16. However, in the State of Haryana v. Balbir Singh Hooda 1975 Acc CJ 1 (Punj) the Claims Tribunal after determining the total amount of damages reduced the same by 15 per cent on account of payment of lump sum and the learned Single Judge approved the principle of reduction of lump sum by 15 per cent though the amount was reduced on account of other relevant considerations.

17. The learned counsel for the appellants, placed strong reliance on Surjit Singh v. The Co-operative General Insurance Society Ltd., 1974-76 Punj LR 353, for the proposition that only such amount should be allowed to the claimants which will ensure the amount of interest equal to the annual dependency if the same were invested on a long-term basis in some bank. In the said case, the Tribunal had awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. In appeal, the learned Single Judge reduced the said amount to Rs. 10,000/- only. In L.P.A., the Division Bench upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge holding that the claimants' dependency was Rs. 50/- per mensem which will be ensured by the total amount of Rs. 10,000/- as the same will yield this much interest if it were invested in a bank on a long-term basis. This is quite a short judgment. Its perusal shows that no arguments had been addressed against the application of the principle in such matters, nor was the same considered in the background of the multiplier theory. This judgment was followed in Sukhdev Raj Jain v. Shanti Devi 1975 Acc CJ 246(Punj), by a learned single Judge of this Court, and in Jagir Kaur v. Uttam Singh Chatter Singh 1975 Acc CJ 26 (Punj), by a single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, without going into the merits of the principle. These decisions, however, were not agreed to by a Full Bench of this Court in the Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Naresh Kanta 1977-79 Pun LR 328: (AIR 1977 Punj & Har 214), wherein after scrutinising these judgments, it was held (at p. 219 of AIR):