JUDGMENT
S.P. Talukdar, J.
1. The present appellants, as petitioners, filed an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs over the accidental death of their son, a khalashi (helper) of Matador Van being No. WB 41/0316.
2. The victim was a young boy of 25 years and had an income of Rs. 1500/-per month. Such accident took place on 21.6.1996. –
3. On perusal of the impugned judgment dated 16.1.1999 passed by the learned Tribunal it appears that in absence of satisfactory proof in support of the claim regarding income of Rs. 1500/- per month of the victim, the Tribunal decided to proceed on “guess work”. No proper reason could be assigned as to why the income would be taken as Rs. 900/- per month only. Then, again, the learned Tribunal took into consideration the fact that the mother of the victim was 54 years of age. The learned Tribunal appeared to have been largely guided by the fact that “dependents of the victim may not live upto the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy.” After taking into consideration all such facts and materials the learned Tribunal thought it just and proper to apply ten (10) as multiplier.
4. The Division Bench of this Court, with one of us (Samanta, J.) presiding, in the case of Monorama Chakraborty and Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2004 (4) CHN 587, proceeded on the basis of Schedule I to the Motor Vehicles Act and a multiplier of ’16’ was applied in respect of the victim, who was in the age group of 35 to 40 years.
5. In the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. , the Apex Court observed that “The calculation of compensation and the amount worked out in the Schedule suffer from several defects. Neither the Tribunals nor the Courts can go by the ready reckoner. It can only be used, as a guide. Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. But these mistakes are limited to actual calculations only and not in respect of other items.”
6. In the said case the Apex Court held that in certain situations, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier. The Apex Court observed that “What we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years’ purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as Courts and Tribunals are using higher multiplier as in the present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34, thereby showing lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system in Davies’ case”. It appears that certain other factors in the nature of uncertainties of life are also sometimes taken into consideration. Those are like premature death of the dependents or of the deceased had he been alive, remarriage of the widow, acceleration over other interests of the estate, etc.
7. Reference to the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala and Ors. reported in 2002 ACJ 827, may also lead further light in this regard.
8. The fact, however, remains that no amendment has yet been brought to such Schedule. The Schedule may not be conclusive. It may be a guideline and not a fetish. It does not take away the scope for exercise of good sense and sound reason. It certainly does not give a stop to rational thinking and consideration of the fundamental aim of “law”, that is, to do justice. Such ‘Schedule’ cannot be just be brushed aside without any reason. Why should it be unnecessarily ignored when following such Schedule can lead one to a sensible position, which serves the interest of justice better?
8. In the present case, the learned Tribunal did not choose to assign any specific reason for not following the Schedule.
9. The Second Schedule to the Act gives the notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to the accident as Rs. 15,000/- p.a. The learned Tribunal was not satisfied regarding the income of the victim as claimed. But without indicating any reason and without having any material, it proceeded on the basis that the income was Rs. 900/- per month, which comes to Rs. 10,800/- p.a. It is much less than Rs. 15,000/- p.a. as referred to earlier.
10. The age of the dependants appeared to have played a role in the mind of the learned Tribunal but, unfortunately, may not be in the night manner. No concrete rational basis is reflected in the manner of assessment of compensation as made by the Tribunal. It is just not understood as to Why the income was brought down from Rs. 1500/- per month to Rs. 900/- per month. Why multiplier of 16 was used?
11. Assessment of compensation cannot be made with mathematical precision. Besides, loss of life can perhaps never be compensated with money. While calculating the amount, it is not always possible, nor demanded by law, to dot every “i” and cut every “t”. There can at best be an attempt to arrive at a rational amount. Courts and Tribunals are to guard against whims and arbitrariness. While assessing compensation, there must not be even an unconscious bias. No unreasonable kindness to the victim or his family at the cost of public exchequer, no undue meanness to those for whose benefit the “Act” has been brought into force.
12. The Tribunal or for that matter, the Court is not to act in a manner which will be a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise of interpretation. No doubt, in a conflict between “literal approach” and “purposive approach” the choice may fall on the latter when it helps the Court to give effect to the intention of Parliament. The Courts should better be described as “bold spirits” rather than “timorous souls”. What can be found in the judgment of the Tribunal is nothing but inhibited approach, unreasonably restrained.
13. Having regard to the facts and materials on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, and in the light of the discussion held earlier, I am inclined to hold that the Tribunal in such backdrop should have proceeded on the basis of notional income as given in the Second Schedule. Having regard to the age of the victim, 25 years, a multiplier of 17 should have been used. This takes us to an amount of Rs. 2,55,000/- only. One-third of the same amount is required to be deducted as that amount would have been spent by the victim for himself if he had been alive. Thus, the total amount comes to 1,70,000/- only. To this, an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expense is required to be added. Thus in the factual backdrop of the present case the Tribunal should have granted compensation of Rs. 1,72,000/-.
14. The present appeal being F.M.A. No. 199 of 2002 be allowed. The claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,72,000/- as compensation and the respondent/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay the aforesaid amount, which must include any other amount, if already paid in connection with the present case, within a period of 3 months from this date.
15. The aforesaid amount must also carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application to the actual date of payment on the amount remaining unpaid. There is no further order as to costs.
16. Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsel for the parties as expeditiously as possible after due compliance with the procedural formalities.
Prabir Kumar Samanta, J.
17. I agree.