JUDGMENT
R.L. Gupta, J.
1. This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.3.87 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal for short) by which he awarded a sum of Rs. 48,000/- to the appellant payable by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. (Insurance Company for short) on behalf of all the respondents. The Insurance Co. was directed to deposit a crossed cheque for Rs. 28,000/- in the name of the petitioner and another crossed cheque of Rs. 20,000/- in the name of the Tribunal. It was also made liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the judgment till realisation. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in the name of the Tribunal was to be converted into a fixed deposit account for a period of 3 years while the amount of Rs. 28,000/- was made payable to the petitioner.
2. The claim arose out of a fatal accident suffered by Smt. Suresh Kanta, mother of the petitioner on 19.12.1972 while she was standing at DTC bus stop of Roshanara Road opposite Roshanara Garden at about 7.15 AM caused by the driver Sukhdev Singh of truck No. HRR 85.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the adoption of a multiplier of 20 only by the Tribunal was not correct because the average expectancy of life in India is now between 65 to 70 years. The mother of the petitioner would have been expected to live upon that age and no merely till the age of retirement. The second grievance is that the dependency of Rs. 200/- per month only fixed by the learned Tribunal was inordinately low. The third grievance is that there had been revision of pay scales of teachers with effect from 1.1.86 after the fourth Pay Commission’s recommendations and the mother of the petitioner during her entire career would have drawn a total sum of R. 7,50,430/-. Therefore, she prays for enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 7,50,000/-. She also complained of interest having not been granted by the Tribunal.
3. I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the daughter of the deceased Suresh Kanta. She was hardly 4-1/2 to 5 years at the time of the fatal accident of her mother. It has come in evidence that her father was also alive at the time of the accident. But he did not file any claim petition. He was imp leaded as respondent 4 in the amended claim petition. But he remained ex pane in the proceedings showing thereby that he was not at all interested in the Compensation claim. It cannot be disputed that under the Hindu Succession Act, he was equally entitled along with the petitioner to receive the claim. Since he has not come forward, it has also to be kept in mind that the Court will not make over his share to the other dependent. Keeping these broad facts in view let us now see what would have been the reasonable compensation payable to the petitioner. The last pay certificate of the deceased is Ex.PW3/1. It shows that she was drawing total emoluments of Rs. 682.55 per month including house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance etc. It also shows that she was deducting Rs. 30/- as Provident Fund. So she was receiving about Rs. 650/- per month. She also must have been paying income tax. Therefore, he carry home salary would be around Rs. 600/- per month at the time of the accident. It has also come in the statement of Sh. Parma Nand, PW 7, father of the deceased that the deceased did not have any bank account Therefore, except the compulsory deduction of PF, the deceased was not saving any money out of her salary. She was working as a school teacher and, therefore, the normal presumption would be that she must be spending some amount on her conveyance as also on costly sarees and other clothes. The monthly dependency of the petitioner at the time of the accident could not have been more than Rs. 200/- per month as held by the learned Tribunal, However, I would discuss in the later part of the judgment, whether that dependency should be taken at a constant rate for the entire period or whether an average should be worked out by taking into consideration some other factors also.
4. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dewan Hari Chand and Ors. v. Municipal Committee of Delhi and Ors. AIR 1981 Delhi 71 laid down various guidelines for determining the compensation. In para 4 it held, “the law applicable to the claim for compensation is the common law of torts as modified by the statutes in India. The first such modification was made by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1955. It is only that Act which provided payment of compensation in favor of the dependents of the deceased killed in a fatal accident The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act only provide a forum and a procedure for the Claim for compensation”.
5. Regarding the figure per annum to be fixed as the amount of dependency, it held in para 10, ‘the dependence of the legal representatives of the deceased is called in this context dependency’. It means the measure of maintenance or support which the dependent received from the deceased. It may be calculated annually. Two methods can be used to calculate it. One is to calculate the actual number of years for which the deceased and the dependents were expected to live and to total up the figure of annual dependency for that number of years. Since the dependency was receivable from the deceased by the dependents in annual Installments, a deduction on the ground of acceleration would have to be made from such a total when the court grants compensation in one lump sum payable forthwith. Further deduction will have to be made from such a sum by taking into account the risk of illness or incapacity shortening the working life of the deceased and fatal accidents shortening the actual longevity of the deceased. To avoid these numerous calculations, another method is adopted and has become the standard one. It is to arrive at a figure which would represent the purchase of the dependency for a number of years which would be much shorter than the number of years for which the deceased was expected to live. This view of the Division Bench was based upon the various decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami . Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subbagwanti C.K Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair . Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sudhakar AIR 1977 SC 1189 and Mrs. Manjushri Raha v. B.L. Gupta .
6. The reasons why the second method of calculating the compensation is preferable as given in para 11 of the judgment are:
The basis of this method is that the actual number of years for which the deceased was expected to live is shortened by off-setting against it the risk of untimely death or incapacity to work caused by accident and illness. Since these off-setting factors are such as have to be taken into account in every case, the difference is caused only by the age of die deceased at the time of his death and the number of years he was expected to live had he not died in the accident.
The deceased in that case was 28 years old and his income tax returns showed that his earnings were Rs. 7000/- per annum in 1961-62. The claim was filed by the father and minor brothers of the deceased. Brothers were held not entitled to the compensation because according to the Hindu Succession Act, father would take precedence over the brothers in the category of legal representatives. The Bench expressed its anguish in para 7. We are distressed by the inadequacy in the law which has prevented the three minor brothers of the deceased from claiming compensation for his death even though they were his real brothers and were actually dependent on the income earned by the deceased. The Division Bench also relied upon the observations of Lord Diplock in Mallet v. MC Monagle 1969 ACC CJ 312 which held, Courts have not infrequently awarded 16 years purchase of the dependency. It is seldom that this number of years’ purchase is exceeded. They further relied upon the observations in the aforesaid case, Commonly accepted method of working out the compensation is to provide the dependent legal representatives of the deceased with a capital sum which with prudent management will be sufficient to supply them with material benefits of the same standard and duration as would have been provided for them out of the earnings of the deceased had he not been killed by tortuous act.
7. The Tribunal in this case has applied a multiplier of 20 taking into consideration that the petitioner who was aged 5 at the time of the accident would have been married by the age of 25. I am of the view that as held in the case of Dewan Hari Chand (supra) it is seldom that the multiplier of 16 years purchase of dependency is exceeded, in this case the multiplier applied being 20, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the Tribunal has committed any error in this respect. In this situation the question that the appellant would have been married at the age of 25 or not loses all significance. Rather the error, if any, is on the higher side.
8. In the case of Dewan Hari Chand (supra) this Court also said that the claimant had not made any pleading and had not adduced any evidence that there were circumstances which would Show that the income of the deceased was liable to increase from year to year. So the Court was constrained to observe further that it was unable to give effect to the probability which existed that the income of the deceased would not have remained stationary but would have increased from year to year (See para 7 at page 74). In the case before this Court, there is evidence to indicate that the deceased would have earned various increases in her salary with the passage of time because of annual increments as also because of recommendations of the various pay commissions. Ex. PW/2 is a statement issued by the Principal, Govt. Girls Hr. Sec. School, Dhaka, Delhi where the deceased was employed. She would have continued to remain in service up to 30.3.98 which was the date of her retirement. By that time her total monthly emoluments would have reached Rs. 1458/- per month. The appellant also produced on record certain documents including a letter dated 7.5.75 by the Accounts Officer of the Office of Accountant General, New Delhi to the Director, Directorate of Education, Accounts III branch, Delhi informing that on the death of mother of the appellant family pension at the rate of Rs. 146/- per month with effect from 20.12.72 to 19.12.79 and at the rate of Rs. 73/- with effect from 20.12.79 onwards and the DCR gratuity of Rs. 4850/- in equal shares to all the family members are payable. Regarding family pension, it further stated that the same will be payable to the husband up to 20.11.73 and thereafter to the minor daughter Reena up to and for 24.12.88 or marriage whichever is earlier. This document has not been formally proved on record but by now it is well established that formal rules of procedure and evidence are not applicable to these proceedings. Therefore, this document can be taken into consideration by the Court especially when it is produced on record by the appellant herself. The net result is that the appellant has also received family pension with effect from 21.11.73 till 24.12.88 because it has been stated at the bar that she has not married as yet. As there is a revision of pay scales from time to time, it is also a matter of common knowledge that the pensionary benefits are also revised. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant would also have drawn at least about Rs. 2000/- per month as family pension. Therefore, I am of the view that balancing the various imponderables of life like risk of illness, incapacity, shortening the working life of the deceased etc. and also the fact that accelerated payment is being made as against the subsequent increases in the salary of the deceased, the monthly dependency or the purchase dependency may be taken at Rs. 400/- per month. Calculated in this manner the total amount of compensation claim payable to the appellant would come to Rs. 96,000/-. I would like to round off this claim at Rs. 1 lac. It may be recalled at this point that this amount is being paid only to one of the legal representatives in a situation where the husband of the deceased has not made any claim.
9. I, therefore allow this appeal and award the claim of Rs. 1 lac to the appellant. So far as the claim of interest is concerned, I am of the view that the Tribunal has given very cogent reasons for not awarding the interest prior to the date of the order. The Insurance company shall however, pay interest on the awarded amount for the date of judgment of the Tribunal at the rate 12% per annum till realisation. If the amount awarded by the Tribunal has already been deposited in accordance with its directions, the Insurance company would be liable to pay interest on the balance of Rs. 52,000/-. This amount should be deposited before the Tribunal within 4 weeks.