JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Shiv Raj deceased was aged about 32 years. He had been selling milk from his own buffaloes and after purchasing from the co-villagers at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Shiv Raj was using his motor-cycle as mode of conveyance. On the fateful day namely 4.5.1978 Shiv Raj was going on his motor-cycle on Palwal-Mathura road from village Tigaon, district Gurgaon to village Aswate. One Brij Lal was sitting on the pillion of the motor-cycle of Shiv Raj. It is alleged that when they reached near Aswate turning, one bus No. RSG-6214 owned by Rajasthan State Transport Corporation came while it was being driven by Gurmukh Singh. The bus was being driven rashly and negligently. The driver of the bus did not sound any horn. The motor-cycle of Shiv Raj was knocked down. Shiv Raj and Brij Lal received injuries. Both the injured were removed to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Shiv Raj did not survive and left for his heavenly abode at about 11.30 P.M. Chandro Devi widow of Shiv Raj and his six minor children filed a petition under Section 110-A, of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 2 lacs pleading interalia that the deceased was earning about Rs. 3,000/- P.M.
In the reply filed the respondents contested the petition. There was no denial that Shiv Raj died as a result of the accident between the bus of Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and the motor-cycle of Shiv Raj. It was however, contended that Shiv Raj was driving the motor-cycle rashly and negligently and while driving so, one person was carried on the pillion. Shiv Raj deceased had come from the side of a hotel. The said hotel is situated on the other side of the road. While trying to cross the road, the motor-cycle collided with the wheel of the bus. as a result of which Shiv Raj received fatal injuries. Both the respondents denied their liability to pay any Compensation.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, Gurgaon after scanning through the evidence held that the fatal accident resulting in the death of Shiv Raj was due to contributory negligence of Shiv Raj and also of Gurmukh Singh. The compensation, therefore, was reduced to 50 per cent. Both the respondents were held liable to pay the compensation jointly. The Tribunal further held that monthly income of Shiv Raj was about Rs. 1000/-. The dependency of the appellants was held to be Rs. 660/- P.M. 12 years multiplier was applied. The compensation awarded, thus, was at Rs. 48,000/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of the institution of the “claim petition till realisation, with proportionate costs. An appeal was preferred which was heard and decided by the Hon’ble single Judge of this Court. The findings of the trial court were approved. It was concluded that the Tribunal had rightly held that the motor-cycle was being driven in the centre of the road. It turned to go on the road leading to village Aswate. The situation indicated that the driver of the bus and the motor-cycle were both at fault. It was further held that there was no ground to enhance the compensation. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents took up the preliminary objection that while hearing the Letters Patent Appeal, this Court will not reappraise the evidence and, therefore, there was no merit in the appeal. Indeed there is no controversy in this regard. We find ourselves in agreement with the Division Bench decision rendered by this Court in the case of Surinder Kaur v. Mohinder Singh, (1967)69 P.L.R. 774. It was held that where after a careful consideration of the entire record of the case and after appraisal of the evidence on the record, the learned Single Judge had come to a conclusion on a question of fact, in letters Patent Appeal there should not be reappraisal of evidence to come to a different finding. We would only like to add that while hearing the letters Patent Appeal when questions of fact had been settled by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in appeal, there would be no interference. Interference would only arise unless in determining the amount, the Single Judge has failed to notice in principles on which compensation has to be fixed. In light of these findings, the findings of the learned Single Judge and that of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that deceased was about 35 years of age at the time of his death and that his monthly income was about Rs. 1,000/- P.M. requires no interference.. Also there can be no interference that appellants suffered pecuniary loss of Rs. 667/- P.M. after deducting Rs. 333/- P.M. an account of personal expenses of the deceased.
4. However, learned counsel for the appellants urged that multiplier of 12 years in inappropriate. In the facts of the case the multiplier should have been of 16 years. In this regard we have no hesitation in concluding that while determining the multiplier in years, certain amount of conjectures necessarily will creep in. There is no exact measure to find the possible period for which a person would survive or with respect to human life. Therefore, with precise mathematical calculations, the exact damages cannot be arrived at. Endeavour has to be to award just compensation. Facts and circumstances of the case have to be highlighted. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rightly observed that the compensation can be determined and termed as reasonable prophecy. In doing so the expectation of the life of the deceased, his age and health have to be taken note of.
5. Referring to some of the precedents would be in the fitness of things. A Division Bench of this Court considered this fact in the case of Asha Rani and Ors. v. Union of India, (1982)84 P.L.R. 486, in the said case at the time of the accident, the deceased was about 45 years of age. The life expectancy was found to be 70 years, it was held that there was no special reason for reducing the multiplier. It was taken to be of 16 years. Similarly, in the case of Smt. Chameli Wati and Anr. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., AIR 1982 Delhi 575. the Single Judge of that Court held that life expectancy in India should ordinarily be taken as 70 to 75 years. The period of dependency of legal representatives should be calculated on that basis. Though in the cited case the deceased was only of 25 years of age but taking note of the facts multiplier of 16 years was applied. Another Division Bench of this Court in the subsequent decision in the case of Channo Devi and Ors. v. Het Ram and Ors., (1983)85 P.L.R. 584 was concerned with a constable who was 48 years of age. He died as a result of the accident. This Court applied 16 years multiplier while awarding the compensation and allowed interest at 12% per annum from the date of the order of the Tribunal. In this regard the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Bhagwandas v. Mohd. Arif, AIR 1988 Andhra Pradesh 99 was also illuminating. While approving the method of calculation by using the multiplier system, the Court adopted the multiplier of 14.40 years when deceased was 36 years of age.
6. In the present case in hand as noted above and re-mentioned at the risk of repetition, the deceased was a normal healthy person. The expectancy of his life therefore could not be below 70 to 75 years. He left behind six children. In these circumstances, in all fairness multiplier of 16 years should have been applied and not of 12 years. Keeping in view the same, after deducting 50 per cent of the compensation with respect to contributory negligence, the compensation would arrive at Rs. 75,000/-. To this extent, the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge requires modification.
7. Another fact highlighted was about the rate of interest that had been awarded. We are conscious of the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Hazi Zainullah Khan v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 139, Therein interest was awarded firstly at 8 per cent per annum till the order of the High Court. Thereafter at the rate of 12 per cent till the date of payment and if the amount was not paid within the specified period at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. In the present case it would be in the fitness of things to have a flat rate for payment of interest right from the date of the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The interest awarded at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of the institution of the claim petition, looks inordinarily low, The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hardeo Kaur and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and Anr., AIR 1992 SC 1261 lends support to our conclusion. In paragraph 13 it was held:-
” In view of the above discussion the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,18,200/- as damages on account of the death of Major Dalip Singh and injuries received by Jasmindar Singh and Balwinder Singh. The appellant are also entitled to claim interest @ 12% p.a. from September 3, 1977, the date of the application before the Tribunal till the date of realisation. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible to pay the decretal amount.”
Accordingly it must be held that interest should be paid which is the nominal rate of interest prevalent and is reasonable. It should be from the date of the application.
8. For these reasons, we partly accept this appeal and modify the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge. The compensation is enhanced to Rs. 75,000/- with future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the/said amount from the date of the institution of the claim petition till realisation with proportionate costs against the respondents.