JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This is claimants’ appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity ‘the Act’), awarding a sum of Rs. 60,400/- to claimant- appellants Arjan Singh and Bimla Devi father and mother of deceased Avtar Singh by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (respondent No. 3).
2. The unfortunate accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. HPB1139, driven by respondent No. 1-Suresh Kumar on June 1, 1986 at Nangal. An FIR No. 34 dated June 1, 1986 (Ex.P1) was promptly lodged at Police Station Nangal showing the accident has been taken place. The FIR was recorded on the statement made by Arjan Singh. The Tribunal has recoded a firm finding on issue No. 1 in para 8, as to whether accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HPB 1139 which was being driven by Suresh Kumar- respondent No. 1 on June 1, 1986. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal read as under:
In this case the driver of the truck also appeared as R.W.1 and has given the version of the accident. According to Suresh Kumar when he was driving his truck at the speed of about 30 kilometers per hour, he found two motor cycle borne persons coming from his right side from the side lane from the market side and entering the road and according to him the motor cycle hit against the rear right side of his truck and in that manner the accident took place. He also admitted that there was a crossing at the place of accident and the motor cyclists were coming from his right hand side entering the road. The very fact that he admitted to have seen the motor cyclists coming from the right hand side lane earlier to his own truck had reached the point where the road from the lane entered the crossing shows that the motor cyclists were still ahead of the truck before they entered the crossing. According to him the motor cycle had hit the rear back side but in case the motor cyclists were coming from his right side and were ahead of the truck and were to enter the crossing, it was his duty to have allowed them to enter the crossing before he himself entered that crossing. Respondent No. 1 Suresh Kumar admits that the accident took place in the crossing which means that there was intersection of the road. The tenth schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provide driving regulations.
3. The Tribunal also found blatant violation of Regulations 6 and 7 of the Regulations as given in the 10th Schedule of the Act. It has further been found that Avtar Singh, the son of the claimant- appellants died on the spot. The post mortem report Ex.P7 proves the injuries sustained by Avtar Singh in this accident.
4. On issue No. 3 regarding the amount of compensation, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the deceased was a Science Graduate and was running a shop of Radio/ Television mechanic along with his father Arjan Singh. He was likely to learn the mechanism in Radio and Television or to do its repair work more efficient as compared to any other mechanic who are usually less educated. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 3 reads as under:
It is not disputed that the deceased was a science graduate and as such he was likely to learn the mechanism in radio or television or do its repair work more efficiently as compared to any other less educated person. The very fact that the deceased had not opted for any job shows that even after doing graduation in science he was satisfied with the earnings he was having from the repair work of television and radio. It is common knowledge that these days almost every third house has a television set and because of influx of television industry, the television mechanics are in high demand these days and they charge per visit because normally television is not taken to the shop of the mechanic and the mechanic is called to the house itself. There may be an element of exaggeration in the income as stated by Arjan Singh by his son Avtar Singh that the same was Rs. 1,500/- per month. In any case a television mechanic does not earn less than Rs. 1,000/- . The same can well be correct in the case of Avtar Singh deceased keeping in view his educational qualifications. The deceased was a bachelor, aged about 22 years and living joint with his father and rest of the family members which included his mother Bimla Devi aged about 47 years, his father aged about 51 years, his sister Sunita Devi aged 19 years, Nirmal Devi aged 17 years and his brother Ravinder Singh aged 14 years. The deceased was likely to be married and set up his own family as well which may or may not be separate from his parents which may be a reason to curtail his contribution towards his parents and other dependents. Besides he is expected to spend 1/3rd of his earnings on his own. He was also maintaining a motor cycle which in his case appears to be a necessity because in order to attend the calls, a television mechanic has to go to distant places from his shop. Out of his earnings which are fixed at Rs. 1,000/- he was likely to spend 1/3rd i.e. Rs. 333/- on his own business he must be spending Rs. 200/- on the maintenance and upkeep of the motor cycle thereby leaving a sum of Rs. 467/- rounded of Rs. 470/- towards his contribution to his family members. The annual contribution he was making to his family comes to Rs. 5,640/-….In this case a multiplier of 10 would meet the ends of justice and the compensation worked out for the loss of life of Avtar Singh comes to Rs. 56,400/-. In the claim petition Arjan Singh and others have claimed that they had spent Rs. 10,000/- on the last rites of the deceased. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- is allowed on that count as compensation. The claimants, in all, are entitled to a sum of Rs. 60,400/-.
5. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 60,400/- was awarded to the claimant- appellant No. 1 along with his wife Bimal Devi.
6. Mr. Rajesh Garg, learned Counsel for the claimant- appellants argued that the Tribunal has acted arbitrarily by calculating the income at Rs. 1,000/- per month whereas the income of a mechanic was not less than Rs. 1500/- per month. Learned Counsel has emphasized that an imposition of a cut of Rs. 200/- on the maintenance of motor-cycle and 1/3rd on his personal expenditure would also be unwarranted, if his income was to be assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. He has maintained that the multiplier of 10 has also been incorrectly applied, because according to Schedule 2 appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the victim, if is aged 22 years, is entitled to avail the multiplier of 17 and at the rate of Rs. 1,00/- per monthly, multiplied by 12 i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per month, the compensation cannot be less than Rs. 2,16,000/-. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court to support the argument that formula given in Schedule 2 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, could serve as a safe- guide to the cases which are even arriving under 1939 Act.
7. Mr. Munishwar Puri, learned Counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the claimant- appellants and argued that already adequate compensation had been awarded by the Tribunal by assessing the income of a T.V. mechanic who was working with his father. According to the learned Counsel, a T.V. mechanic in the year 1986 would not earn more than Rs. 1,000/- per month in any case and the dependency assessed after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and Rs. 200/- for maintenance of the motor-cycle, did not suffer from any illegality. According to the learned Counsel the deceased was to get married and was to have children, and therefore, income of Rs. 1,000/- would have been further apportioned to the wife and the children.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel at a considerable length, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. The factum of accident is admitted and the rash and negligence of the Driver- respondent No. 1 stand established. In fact, there is flagrant violation of Regulations 6 and 7 of the Regulations as depicted in 10th Scheduled. Thus, it is admitted position that the Driver- respondent Suresh Kumar was negligent as he did not slow down the Truck when it was approaching the inter-section of the road and he was under legal obligation to ensure safety of the road user before entering on the inter-section of the road. The whole dispute raised in the instant appeal is with regard to assessment of the income of the deceased and dependency of the claimant- appellants. On that issue also, the facts are admitted that the deceased was Science graduate and was supposed to be an efficient TV mechanic. If he is said to be earn Rs. 1,000/- per month, then his enhanced income is required to be projected by taking into account the principles laid down in the cases of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. and Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors. of the Susamma Thomas case (supra) would show as to how the future prospects of advancement of life are to be narrated in terms of money to augment the multiplication. The application of the aforementioned principle in Susamma Thomas case (supra) is highlighted in para 19 and the same reads as under:
In the present case the deceased was 39 years of age. His income was Rs. 1032 per month. Of course, the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. While the chance of the multiplier is determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant whichever is higher, the ascertainment of the multiplicand is a more difficult exercise. Indeed, many factors have to be put into the scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future. All contingencies of the future need not necessarily be baneful. The deceased person in this case had a more or less stable job. It will not be inappropriate to take a reasonably liberal view of the prospects of the future and in estimating the gross income it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the present actual income of Rs. 1032 per month. We think, having regard to the prospects of advancement in the future career, respecting which there is evidence on record, we will not be in error in making a higher estimate of monthly income at Rs. 2000 as the gross income. From this has to be deducted his personal living expenses, the quantum of which again depends on various factors such as whether the style of living was Spartan or bohemian. In the absence of evidence it is not unusual to deduct one-third of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family and the dependents.
This loss of dependency should capitalize with the appropriate multiplier. In the present case we can take about Rs. 1400 per month or Rs. 17,000/- per year as the loss of dependency and if capitalized on a multiplier of 12, which is appropriate to the age of the deceased, the compensation would work out to (Rs. 17,0000 x 12 = Rs. 2,03,000) to which is added the usual award for loss of consortium and loss of the estate each in the conventional sum of Rs. 15,000/-.
9. The aforementioned principles are also applied in Sarla Dixit’s case (supra).
10. When the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgment are applied to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the young man of 22 years would have certainly advanced in life as he was a Science Graduate which degree is not usual to possess for such type of TV mechanics in this part of the country. On account of stability of his job, his business prospects would have prospered. It would not be unimaginable to make a higher estimate of monthly gross income as Rs. 2,000/-. If the aforementioned amount is added with the income of Rs. 1,000/- per month, then the average would come to Rs. 1500/- per month. Out of Rs. 1500/- it is not unusual to deduct 1/3rd of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family and the dependents. Therefore, the total dependency would come to Rs. 1,000/- per month and Rs. 12,000/- per annum. The next question is what multiplier should be applied. If the method adopted by 2nd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 applied then the multiplier of 17 is required to be applied. However, it will meet the ends of justice if the multiplier of 15 is applied. Accordingly, the claimant appellants is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal.
11. In view of the above, the claimant- appellants are awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed.