JUDGMENT
Jasbir Singh, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of five appeals, i.e., F.A.O. Nos. 472, 473, 683, 598 and 626, all of the year 1988, as all these appeals arise out of one and the same judgment dated January 2,1988, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar. For facility of dictating judgment, facts are being taken from F.A.O. No. 472 of 1988.
2. Briefly, facts of the case are that on December 23, 1983, Vinod Kumar deceased along with his family members was travelling in a three wheeler, being driven by Hari Mohan deceased. When it reached near local Rigo bridge, a truck bearing registration No. PNB-897, owned by appellant-Jasbir Singh, and driven by respondent No. 6 Santokh Singh, struck against the three wheeler, which resulted into deaths of Hari Mohan (driver of the three-wheeler), and Vinod Kumar, who was travelling in the same. Factum of accident and death of Hari Mohan and Vinod Kumar in that accident are not in dispute.
3. At the time of trial, the Insurance Company respondent No. 7, in its written-statement raised an objection that as the registered owner had died on December 1, 1983, the accident had occurred on December 23, 1983, as such the insurance policy had lapsed because no intimation was sent for transfer of the insurance policy and also of the vehicle in dispute. That objection was upheld and the Tribunal held that the owner, the appellant, was liable to make payment of the compensation amount. Shri Mahajan placed reliance upon ratio of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ; Rikhi Ram v. Smt. Sukhrania and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh to argue that the transfer of the vehicle makes no difference so far as claim of compensation by the third party is concerned.
4. Argument raised is perfectly justified. In the present case, the appellant is son of the owner of the vehicle, who had died only a few weeks earlier to the date of accident. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in G. Govindan’s case (supra), while dealing with a similar situation, have held as under:
The registration of the vehicle in the name of the transferee is not necessary to pass title in the vehicle. Payment of price and delivery of the vehicle makes the transaction complete and the title will pass to the purchaser. When the policy of insurance obtained by the original owner of the vehicle is composite one covering the risks for his person, property (vehicle) and the third party claim, on passing of title the transferee cannot enforce his claim in respect of any loss or damage to his person and vehicle unless there is novation. So far the third party risks is concerned the proprietary interest in the vehicle is not necessary and the public liability continues till the transferor discharges the statutory obligation under Section 29-A and 31 read with Section 94 of the Act. Till he complies with the requirement of Section 31 of the Act the public liability will not cease and that constitutes the insurable interest to keep the policy a line in respect of the third party risks are concerned. It must be deemed that the transferor allowed the purchaser to use the vehicle in a public place in the said transitional period and accordingly till the compliance of Section 31, the liability of the transferor subsists and the policy is in operation so far it relates to the third party risks. We answer the second question accordingly.
5. To the same effect is ratio of other two judgments, referred earlier. In this case, admittedly the truck was insured in the name of one Inder Singh, who had died a few weeks prior to the date of the accident. It is also not in dispute that Jasbir Singh, the appellant, is son of deceased Inder Singh, who had become owner of the truck in dispute, by way of natural succession. At the time of accident, insurance policy was still in existence. As such in view of settled proposition of law, referred to above, and facts of this case, it is held that not only the appellant but the Insurance Co. was also liable to make payment of the compensation amount. Accordingly both, appellant Jasbir Singh and the Insurance Co., are held liable jointly and severally to make payment.
6. Defendants of Vinod Kumar deceased have filed two appeals, i.e. F.A.O. Nos. 598 of 1988 and 626 of 1988, wherein they have claimed that the compensation amount awarded is on the lower side and the same be enhanced. Further prayer has been made that the Insurance Company be made liable to make payment of the compensation amount. It is apparent from the records that the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimants by way of compensation. At the time of accident, age of deceased Vinod Kumar was 32 years. He was an Income-tax payee. His income was assessed at Rs. 20,000/- per annum. Dependency was arrived at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. By applying multiplier of 20, the compensation, as referred to above, was awarded. This Court is of the view that while calculating the above said amount, the Tribunal has committed an error. It is not in dispute that Vinod Kumar was looking after the family consisting of his mother, wife and three minor children. Under these circumstances, it cannot be expected that he was spending half of his income for his own use only. The dependency assessed is on the lower side. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra , for the purpose of determination of dependency of the claimants, while laying down formula, has observed thus:
15. We thought it necessary to reiterate the method of working out “just” compensation because, of late, we have noticed from the awards made by Tribunals and Courts that the principle on Which the multiplier method was developed has been lost sight of and once again a hybrid method based on the subjectivity of the Tribunal/Court has surfaced, introducing uncertainty and lack of reasonable uniformity in the matter of determination of compensation. It must be realised that the Tribunal/Court has to determine a fair amount of compensation awardable to the victim of an accident which must be proportionate to the injury caused. The two English decisions to which we have referred earlier provide the guidelines for assessing the loss occasioned to the victims. Under the formula advocated by Lord Wright in Davies, the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus assessing the loss to the dependents of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier. Let us illustrate: X, male, aged about 35 years, dies in an accident. He leaves behind his widow and 3 minor children. His monthly income was Rs. 3,500/-. First, deduct the amount spend on X every month. The rough and ready method hitherto adopted where no definite evidence was forthcoming, was to break up the family into units, taking two units for an adult and one unit for a minor. Thus X and his wife make 2 + 2 = 4 Units and each minor one unit, i.e. 3 units in all, totaling 7 units. Thus the share per unit works out to Rs. 3,500/- = Rs. 500/- per month. It can thus be assumed that Rs. 1,000/- was spent on X. Since he was a working member some provision for his transport and out of pocket expense has to be estimated. In the present case we estimate the out of pocket expenses at Rs. 250/-. Thus the amount spent on the deceased X works out to Rs. 1,250/- per month leaving a balance of Rs. 3,500/- -Rs. 1,250/- = Rs. 2,250/- per month. This amount can be taken as the monthly loss of X’s dependents. The annual dependency comes to Rs. 2250/- x 12 = Rs. 27,000/-. This annual dependency has to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier to assess the compensation under the head of loss to the dependents. Take the appropriate multiplier to be 15. The compensation comes to Rs. 27,000/- x 15 = Rs. 4,05,000/-. To this may be added a conventional amount by way of loss of expectation of life. Earlier this conventional amount was pegged down to Rs. 3,000/- but now having regard to the fall in the value of the rupee, it can be raised to a figure of not more than Rs. 10,000/-. Thus the total comes to Rs. 4,05,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 4,15,000/-.
The aforesaid view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Shobha Rani v. P.S.E.B. (2005-1) 140 Punjab Law Reporter 340.
7. In this case also, it is desirable to adopt the same procedure, as referred to above. Family of the deceased consisted of deceased himself, his mother, his wife and also three minor children, as such total number of units would come to 9. Two units can be ear-marked for the deceased for his own personal use. In this manner, as per admitted income of the deceased (Rs. 20,000/- per annum), the annual dependency of the claimants will come to Rs. 15,555/-. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 20, which is one the higher side, keeping in view age of the deceased, i.e.32 years, ends of justice will be met if multiplier of 17 is applied. In this manner, total amount of compensation, payable to the dependents of deceased, will come to Rs. 2,64,435/-. They are further held entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards further expenses and Rs. 5,000/- toward loss of consortium. Thus total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 271,435/-.
8. A similar prayer has been made by claimants/dependents of deceased Hari Mohan, who are appellants in F.A.O. No. 683 of 1988. It is prayer of the appellants therein that the amount of compensation awarded is on the lower side and the same be enhanced. A further prayer has been made that the Insurance Co. be also held liable to make payment of the compensation amount. The Tribunal, by taking Rs. 1,000/- per month as income of the deceased, has assessed dependency of the claimants, who are five in number, i.e., mother, wife and three minor children of the deceased. Age of the deceased was 49 years. To assess compensation, multiplier of 15 has been applied and compensation amount has been determined at Rs. 1,26,000/-.
9. This Court is of the view that prayer of the claimants that while calculating the compensation amount, proper procedure has not been adopted, seems to be justified. The deceased was maintaining a big family. Because of that, he cannot be expected to spend 1/3rd of the amount on himself. By applying the formula, as has been Lald down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation case (supra), the income of deceased can be divided into nine units and two units can be deducted for his personal use. By making calculations in this manner, annual dependency of claimants will come to Rs. 9,334/-. Age of the deceased was 49 years. Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 15 to calculate the compensation amount. Multiplier applied is on the higher side. This Court is of the view that in the present case, ends of justice will be met if multiplier of 14 is applied. The amount of Compensation will now come to Rs. 1,30,676/-. Claimants are further held entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium. The total amount of compensation will come to Rs. 1,37,676/-.
10. In view of the facts, mentioned above, two appeals, i.e. F.A.O. Nos. 472 of 1988 and 473 of 1988, filed by the owner of the offending vehicle (the truck) are partly allowed. He along with the Insurance Company is held liable to make payment of compensation amount, as determined above, jointly and severally. Two appeals, i.e. F.A.O. Nos. 598 and 626, both of the year 1988, filed by the dependents of deceased Vinod Kumar are allowed and they are held entitled to claim an amount of Rs. 2,71,435/-. Similarly, appellants in F.A.O. No. 683 of 1988, who are dependents of deceased Hari Mohan, are held entitled to claim Rs. 1,33,676/- towards compensation amount. Claimants in all the appeals are also held entitled to claim interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the compensation amount, so awarded, from the date of filing the claim petition(s) till its realization.