JUDGMENT
P.N. Nag, J.
1. This appeal under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been filed against the order dated. 9th February 1987 passed by Shri. V. B. Gupta, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi whereby the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 43,200/- (Less Rs. 15,000/- already paid to appellant under Section 92-A) i.e. Rs. 28,200/ – with costs of Rs. 500/- in favor of the appellant and against the respondent No. 3– Insurance Company–on behalf of all the respondents.
2. The relevant brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that the deceased, Harish Kumar, died in an accident which took place on the mid night of 23/24.3.1983. While the deceased was boarding a cycle rickshaw after witnessing a night show in Samrat Cinema when truck No. PBO-681 driven by its driver (respondent No. 1) struck the cycle rickshaw and he fell and sustained injuries which proved fatal and on account of which the deceased died. It was alleged in the petition that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2. The truck is owned by respondent No. 2 which is insured with respondent No. 3, Insurance Company. The deceased who was unmarried and was aged at the time of his death about 25 years. He was employed with the Association of Lawyers at Delhi and his monthly income was Rs. 600/- per month. It was further alleged that the deceased had more income from typing work. Having regard to the family history about the longevity of life inasmuch as his grandfather died at the age of 75 years and grandmother was still alive and was of the age of 80 years. It was reasonably expected that the deceased would have lived up to the age of 55 to 60 years. The appellant had also claimed interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application.
3. In the written statements, factum of accident and the names of the driver, owner of the truck and insurance of the truck with respondent No. 3 have not been denied. However, it has been denied that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1, but, in fact, the accident took place due to negligence and non-controlling of the rickshaw puller who could not stop his rickshaw at the time when deceased was boarding the same as the rickshaw was parked at the slop and it immediately started going back towards the road and struck with the rear portion. Therefore, the respondent No. 1. Was not liable to pay any compensation. It has no doubt been admitted that the vehicle was driven by respondent No. 1 during the course of his employment with respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 has also denied its liability to pay as according to it respondent No. 1 was driving the truck at the time of accident without any valid driving license and R.C. and any other documents and even without any authority of respondent No. 2 and that the liability of Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 1.5 lacs as per terms of the policy.
4. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 13.8.1984.
1. Whether deceased Harish Kumar sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. PBO 681 on the part of respondent No–Shri. Ravinder Kumar ? OPP.
2. In case Issue No. 1 is proved in favor of petitioner, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled and, if so, from whom? OPP.
3. Whether respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle at the time of accident without any valid driving license and R.C., if so, its effect? OPD.
4. Relief.
5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “The Tribunal”) after protracted trial has held on issue No. 1 that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1 and as such, this issue is decided in favor of the appellant and against the respondents. He has awarded the compensation of Rs. 43,200/- with costs of Rs. 500/- as mentioned above, but without any interest.
6. Being aggrieved against this order of the Tribunal, the appellant–claimants has preferred this appeal.
7. It appears that the respondents have not filed any appeal against this impugned order.
8. It may be pointed out here that nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents in the present appeal, although served.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that neither the multiplier of “12” adopted nor the monthly dependency assessed by the Tribunal is correct and in these circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced. Further, the appellant is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of the application.
10. There cannot be any dispute about the income of the deceased and the Tribunal has correctly assessed his income as Rs. 600/- and I am in broad agreement with this finding of the Tribunal. Further the respondents have not challenged such finding.
11. However, there appears to be some dispute as to what extent the appellant was dependent upon the earning of the deceased. In other words what was the month and annual dependency of the heirs having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case. While awarding quantum of compensation, in FAO 202/87 Smt Sushila Goel and Ors. v. United insurance Company Limited and Ors. decided on May 06,1991. I have explained as to how the compensation is to be determined by adopting multiplier method as under:
The multiplier method is usually followed in England and has proved successful there. Two leading English cases which are often referred in this connection are Millett v. Mc Mmonagle (1970) A.C. 166, and Taylor v. O. Connor (1971) A.C. 115. As observed by Lord Diplock in Mallet’s case; “Since the essential arithmetical character of this assessment is the calculation of the present value of an annuity it has become usual both in England and in Northern Ireland to arrive at the total award by multiplying a figure assessed as the amount of the annual “Dependency” by a number of “Years purchase.
The method of multiplier is recognised by Supreme Court in its various decisions. Suffice it to refer to one of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh Bhopal v. Sudhakar and Ors. (supra) where it has been held that a method of assessing damages usually followed in England, as appears from Millett v. Mc Monagle (1970) AC 166 (supra) is to calculate the net pecuniary loss upon an annual basis and to “arrive at the total award by multiplying the figure assessed as the amount of the annual “dependency” by a number of “year’s purchase”, (p. 178) that is, the number of years the benefit was expected to last, taking into consideration the imponderable factors in fixing either the multiplier or multiplicand.
A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lachhman Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Kaur and Ors. AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 51 while relying upon the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court has expressed a similar view.
In Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Jai Ram etc 1979 2nd (H.P.) 267 the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court has pointed out as to how the suitable multiplier should be chosen. The multiplier is to be chosen having regard to the peculiar facts of each case. For instance, if it is found that the deceased prematurely died at a very young age and if it is further revealed that the longevity in his family was more then it would be safe to take a higher multiplier with a view to arrive at the figure of total compensation. Having regard to the individual facts of each case, the courts have applied different multipliers in each case. In our country, the Supreme Court has applied different multipliers, but in a recent decision given in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sudhakar (Supra) 20 years multiplier is taken keeping in view the fact that the deceased had before her yet thirty years of service to be performed. The choice of multiplier is to be made by the Court using its own experience and having due regard to the peculiar facts of each case, because the ultimate goal is not to adhere to any rigid formula, but to award a compensation which is just. In this approach the courts have to remain sympathetic and realistic in their considerations because every assessment of compensation of this type rests more or less on conjectures of a fallible human being who is not able to know the ways of Providence. Under the circumstances, what is required to be assessed is only a reasonable probability as it appeals to a reasonable person.
There does not appear to be any satisfactory evidence on the record as to how much money the deceased was pending on himself and how much money on the heir/appellant. However, Shri. Pawan Kumar, PW1 elder brother of the deceased has in fact deposited that the personal expenses of deceased must be Rs. 150/- per month. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence to the above effect, it can be assumed that the deceased must be spending on himself oh account of personal expenditure etc. at least Rs. 200/- per month and the remaining Rs. 400/- represents the amount spent by him for his dependants, and saving for future on the basis of which the dependency of the heir/appellant can be assessed and consequence the annual dependency therefore shall be Rs. 4,800/-.
12. However, there is serious dispute in the present case as to what multiplier should be fixed in the facts and circumstances of this case. The deceased was a young man and his age has been determined by the Tribunal as 25 years. It has been proved by the appellant. Krishna Wanti, PW11, that there is a history of long life in their family. The grandfather namely Shri. Sona Mal died at the age of 80 years as a result of an accident. The grand mother of the deceased Smt. Vira Wali died at the age of 85 years. The death certificates are exhibited as Exts. PW 11/1 and PW 11/2.
13. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was either suffering from any ailment or was otherwise incapacitated. Even otherwise we can take note of normal expectancy of life has gone higher with the advance of science. Having regard to the longevity of life of the family as deposed by PW 11, the appellant, and the normal expectancy of life which has gone above 60 years, it can be assumed that the deceased would have lived long, normally between 60 and 70 years.
14. Having regard to the longevity in the family and high rise in life expectancy, it can be assumed that the deceased in normal course would have lived between 60 and 70 years, if not more, and he would have worked at least up to 60 years of age, if not more, in normal circumstances.
15. Having regard to this background and circumstances in view, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has gravely erred in law by having fixed the multiplier as “12”. In the present case, the multiplier should have been at least “251, if not more. Since the annual dependency has been assessed at Rs. 4,800/-, the compensation payable to the appellant should be (Rs. 4,800/- x 25 : Rs. 1,20,000/-). And the appellant is entitled to this amount of compensation.
16. The Tribunal has, again, erred in having disallowed the interest, as Claimed to the appellant on the ground that the appellant has taken more than 2 years in leading her evidence as Issues were framed on 13.8.1984 and the evidence of the appellant was closed only on 29.9.1986. Therefore, on the basis of such so-called delay, no interest has been awarded to the appellant
17. I am afraid, me reasoning of the Tribunal is wholly erroneous. The Tribunal has not given any finding that the appellant has been negligent in producing her evidence or is in any way responsible for delaying the proceedings. In the absence of such a finding, interest cannot be denied to the appellant. I have pursued the record. The issues were framed on 13.8.1984 and the matter was adjourned on 24.9.1984. On 24.9.1984 respondent No. 3 was allowed to cross-examine the witness of the appellant on merits also and the statements of PW1 to 3 were recorded and the matter was adjourned to 26.11.1984 for evidence. On 26.11.1984 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 4.3.1985. On 4.3.1985 PWs 4 to 6 were examined and again the matter was adjourned to 22.7.1985. On 22.7.1985 the witnesses were present but the Presiding Officer was on leave and consequently, the matter was adjourned to 14.10.1985 .On 14.10.1985, PWs 7 to 10 were examined and the matter was adjourned to 6.1.1986 for remaining evidence. On 6.1.1986 the a matter was adjourned to 24.3.1986 as there was no light in the court room. On 24.3.1986 the Presiding Officer was, again on leave and the matter stood adjourned to 7.7.1986. Case could not be taken up on 7.7.1986 as it was declared a holiday due to death of Shri. Jagjivan Ram and consequently it came up before the Court on 8.7.1986 and was adjourned to 29.9.1986, on which date the appellant closed here evidence. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has been summoning her witnesses for the various dates fixed and the witnesses were examined on almost all the dates, except when the Presiding Officer was either not present or the electricity of the court room went off. I am therefore, opinion that the appellant cannot be held responsible for the so-called delaying the proceedings and that she has been diligently prosecuting the petition. At any rate as already stated there is no finding by the Tribunal, and mere fact that it took more than 2 years for the appellant to complete her evidence, cannot itself be ground for denying interest.
18. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to receive interest on the awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of the application till payment. This interest is being awarded in accordance with the principal Laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt Chameli Wati and Anr. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. and in Jaghir Singh and Ors. v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways and Ors. .
19. In the result, I set aside the impugned judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and pass an award in favor of the appellant and against the respondents for a total amount of compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- and thereby enhance the amount of compensation by a sum of Rs. 76,800/-. The appellants will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded from the date of the application for compensation to the date of the payment.
20. At this stage, it may be noted that the Tribunal has directed that the amount shall be payable on behalf of all the respondents by respondent No. 3. However, admittedly, the liability of Insurance Company i.e. respondent No. 3 appears to be limited to the extent of Rs. 1.5 lacs, which is also apparent from the statement of RW1. In case the amount of compensation, including interest, exceeds Rs. 1.5 lacs i.e., the maximum liability of respondent No. 3 . Insurance Company, then the amount exceeding Rs. 1.5. lacs shall be paid by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
21. However, respondent No. 3 will of course get credit for the amounts already paid by them to the appellant, if any, from time to time and interest shall be calculated taking into account such payments. The amount directed to be-paid to the appellant under this order shall be paid within two months from today. The respondents will pay the costs of the appellant quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.
