JUDGMENT
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation is the appellant.
2. The claimants/respondents filed an application seeking for a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for the death of the husband of the claimant No. 1 due to negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation. Tribunal found that the bus driver was negligent and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,20,000 as against the claim of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000.
3. The impugned award is being challenged mainly on the following grounds:
(1) For the accident, the deceased alone was responsible, since he consumed alcohol and when he was riding on a cycle, he turned the cycle towards the right side suddenly, with the result the accident occurred for which the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation was not responsible.
(2) The Tribunal, while assessing the annual income of Rs. 21,252 deducted the amount of Rs. 1,252 towards the personal pocket expenses instead of deducting 73rd amount.
4. The above contentions have been resisted by Mr. Natarajan, who is appearing for the claimants/respondents by reiterating the reasonings given by the Tribunal in the award.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties.
6. On 25.7.90 at 8.30 p.m., the deceased Meeran Mohideen was coming on a cycle from Kasthuri Bai Nagar. He was taking a turn towards west leading to Thattanchavady. At that time, Thiruvalluvar bus bearing registration No. TCD 6782 was coming with a great speed from Pondicherry proceeding towards Thattanchavady. While the deceased was going to the left side of the road, it dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, he fell down from the cycle with bleeding injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Jipmer Hospital wherem he died. Relating the incident, PW 2 who is the eyewitness, has given clear details by narrating as to how the occurrence had taken place.
7. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence of PW 2 and the documentary evidence Exhs. A-1 to A-3, found that the deceased died in an accident which was due to negligent driving of the bus driver. In Exh. A-3 it is mentioned that in the stomach there was 25 ml. of bi-coloured fluid which was normal. The post-mortem report does not show that the said fluid was alcohol and emanating smell from it. Therefore, the Tribunal, in my view, correctly concluded that the accident was due to negligence of the bus driver.
8. As regards the second point, the counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the amount of Rs. 1,252 deducted from the annual income towards the personal expenses of the deceased is very low, whereas the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the annual income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as it is normally done by the courts.
9. With reference to this point, the learned counsel for the respondents on the strength of the decisions in Sudha Transport v. Shanmughavadivu 1997 ACJ 457 (Madras); Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. ; Kanchan Tyagi v. Mohd. Ishak Saddique Bhai Patel ; Tas-nimtaj v. Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. and Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn. , would submit that the Tribunal has taken into consideration various aspects while fixing the amount of dependency and in the instant case, the calculation done by the Tribunal was correct, since it is not a rigid rule that in every case 1/3rd amount has to be deducted towards the personal expenses, especially when the method of multiplier is adopted.
10. The Apex Court in U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra , while referring to the earlier decision in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas , has held that instead of theory of longevity by working out the annual dependency, discounting on various factors having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as, premature death of the deceased or the dependant, remarriage, accelerated payment and increased earning by wise and prudent investments, etc., would be better and proper and theory adopted as held in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. (1942) AC 601, by invoking the multiplier method as the discounting on various imponderables made assessment of compensation would become unnecessary.
11. So, the gist of the observation made by the Supreme Court in that case in which the multiplier method has been discussed in detail, is that the complicated and cumbersome theory of longevity has to be avoided as the multiplier theory alone would be more proper and scientific. However, in para 12 of the said judgment, it is provided to calculate the annual dependency after deducting the pocket expenses of the deceased. In the same para an illustration has been given. According to the illustration, out of the total income of Rs. 3,500 per month, Rs. 250 could be deducted towards the pocket expenses of the deceased.
12. The Apex Court in the said decision does not make it a rigid rule whenever the amount spent towards personal expenses of the deceased is deducted, it shall be 1/3rd of the amount. This is entirely dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case.
13. In the light of the above principles, if we look at this case we find that PW 1, the wife of the deceased, had stated that her husband was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1,771 and she was paid Rs. 1,600 per month from the salary drawn by him. In the light of the said material, the Tribunal has deducted Rs. 1,252 towards his personal pocket expenses. Therefore, the failure to deduct 1/3rd from the monthly income towards personal pocket expenses of the deceased cannot, in my view, be a ground to hold that the assessment regarding the compensation is not correct.
14. In this context, the reference of the Apex Court’s decision in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn. , which has been recently rendered, is quite relevant. In the said decision, the question relating to the deduction of the amount from the total compensation has been elaborately dealt with by interpreting Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is corresponding to Section 168(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
15. The words used in Section 110-B are ‘which appears to it to be just’. Use of these words widens the scope of the determination of compensation which is neither under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 nor under the English Fatal Accidents Act, 1846.
16. On a reading of the provisions in the light of the observation made by the Apex Court, it is clear that under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, corresponding to the present Section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal is required to fix such compensation which appears to it to be just, the power given to the Tribunal in the matter of fixing the compensation under that provision is wide.
17. The whole scheme of the Act, in relation to the payment of compensation to the claimant, is a beneficial legislation. The intention of the legislature is made more clear by the change of language from what was in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and what is brought under Section 110-B of the 1939 Act. This is also visible through the provision of Section 168(1) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 92-A of the 1939 Act which fixes the liability on the owner of the vehicle even on no fault.
18. This clearly indicates the intention of the legislature which is conferring larger benefit on the claimant. Interpretation of such beneficial legislation is also well settled. Whenever there be two possible interpretations of such statute, then the one which subserves the object of legislation, viz., benefit to the subject should be accepted.
19. No decision has been brought to my notice with reference to the principles of deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased which must be fixed only at the rate of 1/3rd. Therefore, in my view, it cannot be said that in each and every case, there must be deduction for the amount of personal expenses also, while computing the amount of compensation.
20. But in the instant case, while the Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier method by adopting the multiplier of 16 years, it has deducted a portion of the amount towards the personal expenses. Therefore, the contention that 1/3rd amount has not been deducted as personal expenses from the annual income of the deceased does not merit acceptance and the same is liable to be rejected.
21. As indicated above, there is no hard and fast rule as provided in the Act or in any of the decisions that in each and every case, there shall be deduction for personal expenses and the said deduction is also to the extent of 1/3rd.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the amount fixed by the Tribunal, viz., Rs. 3,20,000 as against the total claim of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 is proper and justified. It is further noticed that with this amount no amount has been added towards the loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of prospects of life. However, I am not inclined to go into those aspects, since there is no appeal for enhancement.
23. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.