JUDGMENT
Rajeev Gupta, J.
1. ‘Loss’ of a ‘near and dear’ can neither be assessed nor can be compensated in terms of ‘money’. How the loss of husband by a young widow, at the threshold of her married life, or the loss of father by a suckling child, who is yet to learn the alphabets of ‘life’, or the loss of the only son by the parents in the evening of their life, can be assessed, much less compensated, in terms of ‘money’? Their ‘loss’ is not an equation of arithmetic, like the one of ‘loss and profit’, in the ‘business world’. ‘Compensation’ to the dependants of a person, losing life in a motor accident, is only an attempt, in a welfare State, to wipe out the tears from their eyes, and to prevent the further aggravation of their grief, sorrow and suffering due to the imminent financial crisis, resulting from the untimely death of the bread-winner of their family. Attempts are always made to assess and award just and adequate compensation in a motor claim case. Of late, the Courts have preferred the ‘multiplier method’, for assessing the compensation in such cases. It is now settled that ‘multiplier method’ is more logical and sound. The Courts, while applying ‘multiplier method’, are first to arrive at the ‘multiplicand’, and then by multiplying it by the chosen ‘multiplier, just and fair compensation is arrived at. The error, committed by the Tribunal, in arriving at the ‘multiplicand’, has given rise to the filing of this appeal by the claimants, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short ‘the Act’), for enhancement of the compensation awarded by VIII Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, vide award dated 26.7.1995, passed in M.C.C. No. 169 of 1993.
2. The claimants are the widow and four children of the deceased, Prabhakar Tyade, who died at the age of 35 years, in an unfortunate motor accident, which occurred in the noon of 22.6.1991, as his scooter was dashed by respondent No. 2, who was driving jeep No. MPD 9743, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3.
3. The appellants claimed an amount of Rs. 16,09,700/-, as compensation, for the death of Prabhakar Tyade, alleging that he was getting a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month and was also getting bonus of Rs. 4,000/- per annum. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in their separate written statements, though admitted the fact of the accident and the death of Prabhakar Tyade, on account of the injury sustained by him in the accident, but denied that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the jeep driver. On the contrary, it was pleaded that the accident had occurred on account of the sole negligence of the scooterist, who was trying to take right turn by short cut. Respondent No. 3, the insurance company, also filed its written statement in line with the written statements of the owner and the driver.
4. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that both the scooterist and the jeep driver had equally contributed to the accident and, therefore, held them equally responsible for the accident. The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased Prabhakar Tyade as Rs. 2142/- per month. After deducting an amount of Rs. 642/-, as personal living expenses of the deceased, the monthly dependency was estimated at Rs. 1,500/-. Applying the ‘multiplier’ of 15, the compensation was worked at Rs. 2,70,000/-. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was added towards consortium, making the total compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/-. As no evidence was led for proving the damage to the scooter, the Tribunal did not award any compensation under this head. No amount was awarded towards ‘funeral expenses’. As the Tribunal had found it to be a case of contributory negligence, therefore, apportioned the compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/- in equal proportion. Thus, Rs. 1,40,000/- was awarded to the appellants-claimants as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of application till the date of realisation.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the scooterist had also contributed to the accident, though the accident had occurred solely on account of the negligence of the jeep driver. From the evidence, led by the parties and the documents on record, it is apparent that the jeep was coming from the opposite direction and was to proceed straight on the main road, whereas the scooterist, who was coming from the opposite direction, was to take a right turn towards the sublane. It is further in the evidence that the scooterist instead of taking right turn, after crossing the traffic island tried to turn to his right without crossing the island, by a short cut. It is also in the evidence that the jeep was being driven at high speed. Therefore, on due consideration of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that both the scooterist and the jeep driver had equally contributed to the accident is well merited, and does not call for interference in this appeal and is, therefore, upheld.
6. Next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal, while assessing the income of the deceased, has not taken into consideration the future prospects, including the promotion and the increments of the deceased, which he could have earned in his service career. The deceased was in the permanent employment of BHEL, Bhopal, as driver. Therefore, the Tribunal apparently has fallen into error in not considering the future prospects, including the promotion and increments of the deceased. The learned Counsel for the appellants, in support of his above contention, placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC).
7. On the evidence led by appellants-claimants, in regard to the income of the deceased, and on taking into consideration the future prospects and likely increments, we take gross average monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. After deducting an amount of Rs. 1000/-, being one-third, the monthly dependency of the claimants is assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per month, which comes to Rs. 24,000/- yearly. As the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of 15, and by applying the same to the ‘multiplicand’ of Rs. 24,000/-, the amount would work out to Rs. 3,60,000/-. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards ‘consortium’ is also added to the above amount of compensation, and also further amount of Rs. 2,000 towards ‘funeral expenses’. The total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 3,72,000/-.
8. As the present is a case of contributory negligence of the scooterist and the jeep driver, and though the deceased was a pillion rider on the scooter, but being the owner of the scooter would be entitled to only 50 per cent of the above amount of compensation of Rs. 3,72,000/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1,86,000/- as compensation from the respondents. They shall further be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the application till the date of payment. Respondent No. 3, the insurer, shall deposit the amount awarded, less the amount already deposited, within 2 months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the balance amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal shall stand substituted, as indicated hereinabove. The appellants shall get the costs of this appeal. Counsel’s fee Rs. 1,000/-, if pre-certified.