JUDGMENT
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
1. This is insurer’s appeal against the award dated 20.1.2004 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 25 of 2003.
2. The claimants, who are unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of the deceased Rajendra Kumar Sharma, claimed compensation of Rs. 35,10,000 for his death in motor accident on 19.2.2003 when his motor cycle bearing registration No. UP 10-B 3669 was dashed by the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No. UMU 9904 resulting in multiple serious injuries to Rajendra Kumar Sharma, who succumbed to those injuries immediately after reaching Civil Hospital. The claimants further pleaded that Rajendra Kumar Sharma was getting salary of Rs. 13,045 as teacher in a government college.
3. The owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle bus contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner of the offending vehicle bus took the plea that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and in case of any liability to pay compensation to the claimants, it would be that of insurance company. The insurer, on the other hand, took the plea that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself.
4. Claimants examined Mithlesh, PW 1, Amarjeet, PW 2, Ravindra Singh, PW 3 and Sanjay Bansal, PW 4, in support of their claim, whereas the owner and insurer of the bus did not examine any witness.
5. Tribunal, on the evidence led by the parties, held that Rajendra Kumar Sharma died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.2.2003; accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the insurer of the bus was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
6. Relying upon the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased including his salary certificate, the Claims Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 13,045 per month and Rs. 1,56,540 per annum. After deducting 1/3rd of the above amount as personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs. 1,04,360 per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 1,04,360 with the multiplier of ’15’, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 15,65,400. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 10,000 for funeral expenses, loss of consortium to the widow and loss to estate. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 15,75,000 was awarded as compensation to the claimants for the death of Rajendra Kumar Sharma in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed the insurer of the bus to pay interest on the above amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum in the event of its failure to pay the compensation within a period of one month from the award.
7. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate with Mr. Manish Dalakoti, Advocate, the learned Counsel for appellant insurance company submitted that as appellant insurance company was granted permission under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim on all available defences, the quantum of compensation is being challenged in this appeal. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation on the basis of the gross income of the deceased without deducting the permissible deductions (including the income tax) from the salary; the multiplier of ’15’ selected by the Tribunal is on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9 per cent per annum is also on the higher side.
8. Mr. Manish Arora, learned Counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted that the assessment of income by Tribunal is based on the salary certificate of the deceased; the selection of multiplier of ’15’ is in line with the multiplier prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and award of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum was on the basis of the prevalent rate of interest on the bank deposits in the year 2004.
9. As the appellant insurance company has not challenged the finding recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Rajendra Kumar Sharma died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the appellant insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants, we hereby confirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal.
10. Deceased Rajendra Kumar Sharma as per his salary certificate was getting gross salary of Rs. 13,045. From the salary certificate for the month of January 2003, adduced by the claimants in evidence before Tribunal, it is apparent that a sum of Rs. 4,000 was deducted for income tax. It is further apparent from the said salary certificate that certain other amounts were also being deducted for general provident fund, L.I.C. and group insurance. In our opinion, for the purpose of assessment of compensation, the income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs. 10,000 per month. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000 per month and Rs. 1,20,000 per annum.
11. By deducting a sum of Rs. 30,000 from the annual income of the deceased of Rs. 1,20,000 the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs. 90,000 per annum. The multiplier of ’15’ selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of S. Rajapriya 2005 ACJ 1441 (SC).
12. The Apex Court, in the case of S. Rajapriya, 2005 ACJ 1441 (SC), observed in paras 8 to 10 and 18:
(8) But the assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during the period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together.
(9) The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years’ purchase.
(10) Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis ‘and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master’ since there are so often many imponderables. In every case ‘it is the overall picture that matters’, and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered.
(18) Considering the age of the deceased and the principles indicated above, the appropriate multiplier would be 12 and not 16 as adopted by the Claims Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. By applying multiplier of 12, amount of compensation is fixed at Rs. 4,50,000 (in round figures). The Tribunal has fixed interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition. Taking note of the prevailing rate of interest on bank deposits, the same is fixed at 7.5 per cent per annum. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 has been deposited pursuant to the order dated 22.3.2004. The balance amount shall be deposited with the Tribunal within four weeks from today. Out of the total deposit 90 per cent of the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of widow, respondent No. 1, minor child, respondent No. 2 and the mother, respondent No. 3 in the proportion of 35 per cent, 40 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. Rest 10 per cent shall be paid in cash equally to the widow and the mother. Fixed deposits shall be made initially for a period of five years and no withdrawal permitted and only monthly interest will be paid, so far as the fixed deposits in the names of the widow and the mother are concerned. So far as the minor child is concerned, fixed deposit shall be made initially for a period of five years and shall be renewed till the child attains majority. Monthly interest on fixed deposit shall also be released to the mother as the guardian of the minor.
13. Deceased Rajendra Kumar Sharma was aged about 41 years on the date of the accident (19.2.2003). He would have remained in service for a further period of about 20 years. During this period of 20 years, he would have earned promotions and increments. The claimants before us are the widow of the deceased, aged about 38 years, her two minor daughters, one minor son and his old mother. Considering that widow of the deceased, would be required to spend sufficient amount on the education of the three minor children and then on the marriage of her two daughters, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of ’12’ would be appropriate in the case. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 90,000 with the multiplier of ’12’, the compensation works out to Rs. 10,80,000. The lump sum of Rs. 10,000 awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased and loss to estate, being on the lower side, is enhanced to Rs. 20,000. Thus, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 11,00,000 (rupees eleven lakh) as compensation for the death of Rajendra Kumar Sharma in the motor accident.
14. Learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding interest on the amount of compensation to the claimants and in directing only a conditional payment of interest in the event of failure of insurer of the bus to pay the amount of compensation within a period of one month from the date of the award. Tribunal, therefore, has deprived claimants of their right to receive interest on the amount of compensation. The claim petition was filed on 27.3.2003 and the impugned award was passed on 20.1.2004. Appellant insurance company appears to have deposited the amount of Rs. 13,00,000 in compliance of this Court order dated 24.4.2004, on 20.5.2004. Out of this amount of Rs. 13,00,000, a sum of Rs. 6,50,000 was remitted to the concerned Claims Tribunal on 28.9.2004 for disbursal to the claimants. Considering above-mentioned broad features of the case and with a view to avoid any delay in computation of the amount of interest by the Tribunal, we deem it proper to quantify the amount of interest for the above period at Rs. 50,000.
15. For the foregoing reasons, appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 15,75,000 awarded by Claims Tribunal is modified (reduced) to Rs. 11,00,000 (rupees eleven lakh) and Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) towards interest. The balance amount of Rs. 6,50,000 out of the amount of Rs. 13,00,000 deposited by the appellant insurance company in compliance of this court’s order dated 24.4.2004, which is now lying with the Registry and the amount of Rs. 25,000 (rupees twenty-five thousand) deposited by the appellant insurance company as mandatory deposit under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act while filing this appeal against the award, be remitted to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal immediately. The Claims Tribunal shall disburse the balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000 [Rs. 11,00,000 (rupees eleven lakh) towards compensation + Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) towards interest (-) Rs. 6,50,000 (rupees six lakh fifty thousand)(already permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants)] to the claimants in the ratio and manner mentioned in the award. The balance amount of Rs. 1,75,000 (rupees one lakh seventy-five thousand) shall be released in favour of the appellant insurance company.
16. No order as to costs.
