JUDGMENT
J.P. Singh, J.
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Challenges Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jammu’s award dated 10th of May 2003 awarding an amount of Rs. 10,78,780/- to the dependents of Sepoy Radhe Shyam Yadav who while serving the Indian Army in one of its units at Samba was driving his scooter No. CH01B-0436 on 5-12-1999 when a Maruti Car No. Pb-10/0715 hit his scooter at about 9.30 a.m. landing him in coma till his ultimate death at Command Hospital Lucknow.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 may be stated thus:
3. Radhe Shyam Yadav was serving as a Sepoy with 329 Field Ambulance at Samba. He was driving his Scooter No. CH01B-0436 on 5-12-1999. It was at a place near Maheshwar, Samba that a Maruti Car No. PB-10/0715 coming from opposite direction, hit his scooter. The driver of the offending car was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The rash and negligent driving of the offending car resulted in accident and injuries to Radhe Shyam Yadav who remained admitted in Command Hospital Udhampur for a couple of months whereafter he succumbed to the injuries at Central Command Hospital Lucknow. The death of Radhe Shyam left behind Girija Devi respondent, the widow, Master Bipin Kumar Yadav, the minor son, Rakh Nath Yadav and Smt. Satya Devi, the parents and Anirudh yadav, the minor brother as his dependents. These dependents filed compensation Claim No. 325/Claims with Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jammu claiming an amount of Rs. 30.00 lacs as compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum. This claim was contested by the appellants and the owner of the vehicle resulting in Tribunal’s framing following issues:
(1) Whether accident took place on 5-12-99 near Samba on NH1A due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. PB10/0715 by its driver in which deceased Radhey Sham Yadav has died? OPP
(2) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom? OPP
(3) Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy, without RC, Route Permit, Fitness and by a driver not holding a valid driving licence? OPR-3
(4) Relief. O.P. Parties.
4. The claimants examined Lance Naik Sanjay, Mukesh Singh and Smt. Girija Devi as their witnesses. The respondents, despite having been afforded opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal, had opted not to lead any evidence. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence and examining the issues raised before it, came to the following conclusion:
1. The accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. PB-10/0715 by its driver which had resulted in death of Radhe Shyam Yadav.
2. Radhe Shyam Yadav was 24 years of age at the time of his death.
3. He was receiving an amount of Rs. 4833/- at the time of his death as salary and rounding it off his monthly income would come to Rs. 4850/-
4. Considering the future prospects of the young sepoy in the Army his average monthly income was doubled to Rs. 9700/- and reduced by half so as to add it to the monthly income of the deceased for determining the average monthly loss to the family.
5. Deducting an amount of Rs. 1754/- as the expenses which the deceased would have spent on himself, the Tribunal assessed the monthly dependence of the family at Rs. 5521/- and annual loss was assessed at Rs. 66252/-.
Looking to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 and accordingly determined loss of dependency at Rs. 9,93,780/-.
5. Adding an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of Estate, Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 50,000/- for medical and other expenses, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 10,78,780/-.
6. Pursuant to the filing of an appeal by the Insurance Co., Cross Appeal No. 01/2005 too has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal had erred in assessing compensation without spelling out the principle employed for such assessment. According to him, even going by the multiplier method for assessment of compensation, 13 should have been the appropriate multiplier in the present case. He refers to New India Assurance Company Limited v. Mst. Kalpana and Ors. reported as 2007 (1) Supreme 514 to support his submission.
8. Learned Counsel submitted that award for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of medical expenses too was unjustified as no evidence, documentary or otherwise, had been produced by the claimants to justify the award of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants. Interest @ 9% awarded by the Tribunal too has been questioned by Mr. Singh to be on the higher side.
Mr. R. K. Bhatia, while supporting the award and his cross appeal and seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, urged that the award of Rs. 50,000/- was not only for medical expenses which the claimants had spent on deceased during his four months of hospitalization, but was also for the amount which the dependents had spent in visiting the deceased wherever he remained admitted till his death and award of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was justified both for the medical expenses as also for the traveling expenses which the family of the deceased had spent in attending the hospitalized sepoy.
9. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for parties and gone through the judgment cited by learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.
10. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependents of a deceased is inherently a difficult task considering the imponderables involved in the process. This question as to how best a court may assess damages to compensate the dependents of a deceased/victim of a Motor Vehicle Accident, had received the attention of various High Courts in the Country. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in series of its judgments has laid down certain rules for arriving at a fair estimate.
11. The current established practice, adopted in view of various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is the multiplier method which calculates the damages for loss of dependency, by a multiplier.
12. Assessment of just compensation in terms of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may thus inter alia, require following factors to be kept in view-
(1) The monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount which he would have earned during his life time had he not met with the accident. Assessment of future income of the deceased/injured would, however, depend on the proof which the claimants furnish to the court or Tribunal for assessing the future income of the deceased/injured minus the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself to defray his/her day to day expenses.
(2) The selection of an appropriate multiplier from those prescribed in Schedule II appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 keeping in view the age of the victim, the age of the dependents and the period of dependency so as to ascertain the loss of dependency, in other words, the multiplicand and capitalizing it by an appropriate multiplier with an idea to fix such amount of compensation which if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy would yield the multiplicand by way of annual or monthly interest, such sum which would take care of the needs of the dependent family or dependents approximately in the same way the deceased or injured would have done had he not been involved in the accident.
Smt. Kalpana’s case referred by Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant may not be of any help to the appellant to consider the selection of appropriate multiplier in the present case because there is a marked difference in the case in hand and the one cited by Mr. Singh. The age of the deceased in the case in hand at the time of his death has been proved to be 24 years whereas in Kalpana’s case, the age of the deceased was 9 years more than the age of the deceased in the present case. Looking to the age of the deceased, claimant-widow, minor sons and minor brother and the aged parents, I am of the view that the Tribunal was right in selecting 15 as the multiplier. This is so because the IInd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes 17 as the multiplier when the victim is above 20 years and below 25 years of age. This Schedule, serves as a guide in fixing appropriate multiplier in view of the facts and circumstances of each case, in the backdrop of the idea of assessing such compensation which would place the family of the deceased in such a financial position that it does not feel the pinch of the exit of the deceased from the family as its sole bread-winner.
13. I, therefore, do not find any error in Tribunal’s fixing 15 as the multiplier for assessing compensation.
14. Coming to the other leg of the argument of Mr. Singh, that the Tribunal had erred in awarding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as medical expenses spent by the family during the hospitalization of the deceased, I would like to say that the argument is sustainable, but only in part because Rs. 50,000/- have been awarded by the Tribunal not only for medical expenses incurred by the family of the deceased, but also for the expenses which the family had incurred in going to Udhampur and staying there in a rented accommodation for about four months to look after the hospitalized bread-winner. Claim of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is thus both for expenses spent on the hospitalization as also for the money spent by the family for their staying at Udhampur for about four months. Mr. Baldev Singh is right in saying that the deceased was an army personnel and all the expenses had been spent by the Government on his treatment and no amount would thus be payable as compensation to defray the medical expenses.
15. I am, therefore, of the view that award of the Tribunal to the claimant is unjustified in so far as it includes the expenses which had been claimed to have been allegedly spent by the family on the medical expenses of the deceased. There is, however, no rebuttal to the evidence led by the claimants that they had spent amount in taking a rented accommodation at Udhampur and staying there for about four months during the hospitalization of the deceased. Because of the accident and hospitalization of the deceased at Udhampur, the family had to spend some additional amount to facilitate their stay at Udhampur. Employing some guess work and going by a conservative estimate to calculate as to how much the claimants would have spent in maintaining a stay away from their ordinary residence for four months in looking after the hospitalized sepoy, it would be appropriate to fix a lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- which the family must have spent for this purpose.
16. I would, therefore, reduce the award of Rs. 50,000/- of the Tribunal to an award of Rs. 20,000/- under this head.
17. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the family of the deceased by assessing his average monthly income at Rs. 5521/- taking into consideration his future prospects in the service and selecting 15 as the multiplier, to assess the compensation keeping in view the age of the dependents and the age of the deceased satisfies the principle, referred to hereinabove, and I do not find any error in the award of compensation by the Tribunal to the claimants-respondents barring the claim for medical expenses.
18. Interest awarded by the Tribunal does not appear to be in line with the view taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its latest judgments regarding fixation of rate of interest in view of the reduction of rates of interest by the Reserve Bank of India and is found to be on the higher side. Interest awarded by the Tribunal on the awarded amount thus needs to be scaled-down to 6% per annum as against 9% per annum.
19. In view of the law reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishnabala and Ors. reported as 2006 AIR SCW 3613 & Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and Ors. reported as 2006 AIR SCW 1116 regarding assessment of compensation, I do not find any merit in the cross-objections of the claimants to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The up-shot of the above discussion is that the award of the Tribunal is modified to be an award for an amount of Rs. 10,48,780/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the death of Sepoy Radhey Sham Yadav.
20. Dismissing the cross-objections of the claimants, the appeal of the Insurance Company is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Registrar Judicial shall, accordingly, release the deposited amount in favour of the claimants on their proper identification, in terms of this judgment along with proportionate interest accrued thereon during the pendency of this appeal in this Court. Excess amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall be refunded to it through their learned Counsel by a payee’s cheque.