JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. By this judgment two cross-appeals, being FAOs (MVA) Nos. 134 and 160 of 2005, are being disposed of.
2. The only question involved in these appeals is with regard to the amount of compensation payable to the claimants, hence reference is being made only to that portion of the pleadings and evidence which are relevant for the decision of this issue. The Insurance Company was permitted by the Tribunal to contest the petition on all grounds under Sections 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. The claimants are the widow, three sons and mother of deceased Chamel Singh. Chamel Singh was riding his motorcycle. This motorcycle was hit by Tanker No. HP-24-5658, which was owned by M/s Naresh Kumar and Co. and was driven by Nand Lal. Chamel Singh sustained serious head injuries. He was taken to the Hospital at Bilaspur from where he was referred to PCI, Chandigarh. He succumbed to his injuries on 31.5.2003. The claimants, being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased filed the claim petition for grant of compensation.
4. P.W. 1 Soma Devi is the widow of the deceased. She has stated that about Rs. 30,000 was spent on the treatment of the deceased before his death and that the body was brought to the native place in a taxi and Rs. 2,000 was spent for taxi charges. According to her, the salary of the deceased was Rs. 17,600 per month and the deceased used to give her Rs. 12,000 per month. The deceased had retired from the Air Force and he was getting about Rs. 3,000 as pension, which has been stopped after his death. She has produced a photocopy Ex. PA of the Matriculation certificate of the deceased, which shows that his date of birth was 15.2.1959. He was to retire after 14 years on attaining the age of 58 years. She states that he would have probably rised to the rank of the Superintendent of Police. She has produced the photocopy of the seniority list Ex. PB. Her mother-in-law, Kolan Devi, is aged about 80 years and her father-in-law, who is still alive, is about 82-83 years. In cross-examination, she has stated that she has no documentary proof that her husband was giving her Rs. 12,000 per month and that sometimes he used to come and give the money to her and sometimes she used to go and get the money from him. She has admitted that her elder son has been employed in the Police Department recently and is under training. She states that the Air Force pension has been discontinued since she is now getting family pension from the Police Department.
5. P.W. 2 Shri Prabhu Dayal, who come from the SP Office, Bilaspur. He stated that the deceased was posted as inspector in the Police Department in Police Station, Bilaspur. The last pay of the deceased was Rs. 17,040. The deceased used to get Rs. 6,000 deducted towards GPF and Rs. 30 towards GIS. He has produced the Last Pay Certificate, photocopy of which is Ex. PY. In cross-examination, he has stated that the carry home salary of the deceased was Rs. 11,000 per month. He stated that the GPF is the saving of the employee. He also admitted that the deceased was paying income Tax on the salary but he is not in a position to state how much Income Tax was being deducted.
6. P.W. 5 is an Assistant from the State Bank of India, Dhaulakuan. He states that pension of Rs. 2,432 per month was being remitted by the Air Force in the account of Chamel Singh son of Shri Duni Chand of Village Kollar. This pension was being paid since the year 1992-93. According to the Bank record, Chamel Singh had died on 31.5.2003 and thereafter no pension is being remitted. However, now the family pension amounting to Rs. 5,106 per month is being remitted to the account of Soma Devi.
7. It is in the light of the above evidence that the compensation payable to the claimants is to be assessed.
8. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the claimants relies upon the judgments of the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. , Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors. and a judgment of this Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Bimla Kanwar and Ors. . On the basis of these judgments, he contends that the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), needs to be enhanced since the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future chances of promotion and future prospects of the deceased. He also states that a higher multiplier should have been applied.
9. On the other hand, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, contends that while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal has not followed any settled principle for assessment of compensation. He submits that keeping in view the age of the mother of the deceased and the fact that all the sons of the deceased were major the multiplier applied is very high. He submits that there is no proof with regard to the future prospects of the deceased. According to him, the compensation is extremely high and deserves to be reduced substantially. He relies on two judgments of the Apex Court in Asha and Ors. v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. and Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and two Ors. .
10. Before dealing with the above authorities, it would be appropriate to see how the Tribunal had dealt with the matter. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the carry home salary of the deceased was only Rs. 11,010 per month. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Asha’s case (supra), to hold that the net carry home salary of the deceased after adding the pension would be Rs. 13,400 per month or Rs. 1,60,800 per year. The Tribunal has in the earlier part noticed that 1/3rd deduction has to be made for the personal expenses of the deceased. However, no such deduction has been made and it has applied the multiplier of 15 and assessed the compensation. He has also awarded Rs. 38,000 on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000 in lieu of funeral charges. Rs. 24,60,000 as compensation has been assessed in total.
11. The Apex Court in Susamma’s case (supra) held that the multiplier method is the best method for assessment of damages. In the said case the deceased was aged 39 years. He was earning Rs. 1,032 per month. The accident had occurred on February 19,1984. Taking into consideration the future prospects and avenues in life the gross income was assessed at Rs. 2,000 and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the dependency of Rs. 1,400 was taken. A multiplier of 12 was applied and compensation of Rs. 2,03,000 was awarded in all. In Sarla Dixit’s case (Supra), the deceased was a Captain in the Army and was aged 27 years. The accident in question had occurred on 16.3.1975. It had come on record that the deceased was a highly decorated Officer and his salary at the time of death was Rs. 1,543 per month. It had come in evidence that he was a tea-totaller and did not smoke or drink. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was in stable Army service, his brilliant academic record and exceptional Military service, the Apex Court in this judgment held that at the time of his death the deceased may have been earning Rs. 3,000 per month and the income was taken at Rs. 2,200 per month. l/3rd was deducted towards the expenses of the deceased and after applying multiplier of 15, compensation of Rs. 2,85,000 was held payable.
12. In Bimla Kanwar’s case (supra), the deceased was aged 45 years. He was drawing Rs. 6,171 per month but it had come on record that soon after his death the salary had been revised and after the revision of the pay-scales he would have been getting Rs. 7,880 and as on 31.10.1999 when the appeal was still pending his total emoluments would have been Rs. 13,109. In this case, after taking into consideration the entire case law, this Court held that the income of the deceased could be fixed at Rs. 9,500 per month. After deducting the personal expenses, the dependency of the family was taken at Rs. 5,700 per month. Multiplier of 15 was applied and total compensation was assessed at Rs. 10,40,000.
13. The Apex Court in Asha’s case (supra) held that while ascertaining the compensation payable, the deduction in the salary towards LIC, society charges and house building advance, etc. are not benefits available to the claimants. The income of the deceased has to be assessed after taking these factors into consideration. Despite the fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,632 per month, the income was taken at the carry home salary of Rs. 6,642.
14. In Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation’s case (supra), which is the latest judgment on the point, the Apex Court after referring to the earlier judgments in UP State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. I (1996) ACC 592 (SC) : JT 1996 (5) SC 356 Susamma’s case (supra) as well as Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti 1996 (3) SCR 649 held that in the case of a deceased, who was aged about 38 years, the suitable multiplier would be 12 and not 16. Despite the fact that the deceased was working in a stable job and getting Rs. 4,683 per month, no future prospects were taken into consideration. The Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd of the actual income and applying multiplier of 16 awarded compensation of Rs. 6,09,552. This was upheld by the Madras High Court. The Apex Court held that the appropriate multiplier would have been 12 and thereafter the compensation was reduced to Rs. 4,56,000 and reduced the interest from 9 per cent to 7.5 per cent per annum taking into consideration the prevailing rate of interest in bank deposits. Paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 of the judgment read as under.
17. In Susamma Thomas’s case (supra), it was noted that the normal rate of interest was about 10% and accordingly the multiplier was worked out. As the interest rate is on the decline, the multiplier has to consequentially be raised. Therefore, instead of 16 the multiplier of 18 as was adopted in Trilok Chandra’s case (supra), after reference to Second Schedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects. It was pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide, but cannot be said to be invariable ready reckoner. However, the appropriate highest multiplier was held to be 18. The highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian Citizen starts independently earning and the lower would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age.
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 Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. By applying multiplier 12, amount of compensation is fixed at Rs. 4,50,000 (in round figures). The Tribunal has fixed interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. Taking note of the prevailing rate of interest in bank deposits, the same is fixed at 7.5% 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% 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%, 40% and 15% respectively. Rest 10% 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. The monthly interest on the deposit shall also be released to the mother as the guardian of the minor.
15. In the present case, other then the statement of the widow, there is nothing to show what were the future prospects of the deceased. It has come on record that the deceased retired from the Air Force. The widow claims that he had done his MA. However, as per the seniority list Ex. PB, which has been proved by her he was only a graduate. His name finds mention at Sr. No. 190 of the seniority list and only people upto Sr. No. 74 have been promoted as Dy. S.Ps. Therefore, there were more than 100 people senior to the deceased. No Rules have been placed on record nor any evidence has been led to show as to when the deceased would have been promoted, If at all. It is true that the Apex Court in Susamma’s case (supra) has virtually doubled the income of the deceased taking into consideration his future prospects. The deceased in that case was only 39 years. The case had come up before the Apex Court after about 10 years and the salary he was drawing was an extremely low salary of Rs. 1,000 per month. In a case of death of 39 years old person, the Apex Court only applied a multiplier of 12.
16. In Sarla Dixit’s case (supra), it had come on record that the deceased had a brilliant academic career and his Military service was also exceptional. The deceased was drawing more than Rs. 15,00 per month at the time of his death and by taking into consideration his future prospects, the income was assessed at Rs. 2,200. The facts of the case cannot be applied to the present case. In the present case, the deceased had been re-employed after retirement. He was almost 45 years old and his case cannot be compared with the case of a young Army Officer aged only 27 years. It is also pertinent to mention that the Apex Court applied a multiplier of 15 only. In Bimla’s case (supra), it had been proved on record that the deceased at the time when the appeal was pending and within four years of his death would be getting total salary of Rs. 13,109 on 31.10.1999. Despite this fact, this Court after taking into consideration the future prospects assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000 and dependency was assessed only at Rs. 5,700. On the other hand, in the latest two judgments of the Apex Court in I (2004) ACC 533 (SC) : 2004 ACJ 448 and II (2005 ACC 476 (SC) : JT 2005 (4) SC 531 (supra), no future prospects have been taken into consideration while applying the multiplier method. In fact, in the latest judgment in the case of a person aged 38 years only a multiplier of 12 has been applied.
17. In the present case, the total income of the deceased was Rs. 17,040. Out of this his basic pay was Rs. 10,980, DA Rs. 5,710, Cn Rs. 200, KMA Rs. 50, ratio allowance Rs. 100 and his deduction was Rs. 6,000 on account of GPF and Rs. 30 on account of GIS. Thus, total deduction was Rs. 6,030. His carry home salary was Rs. 11,010. Mr. Sood has urged that only this amount should be taken into consideration. This submission cannot be accepted. The amount being deducted as GPP was also accretion to the estate and was for the benefit of the estate. It is, thus, clear that the total salary of the deceased was Rs. 17,040 out of which Rs. 130 cannot be taken into consideration since that was personal allowance payable to the deceased. Therefore, the net amount payable to the deceased was Rs. 16,910. He was also getting pension of Rs. 2,432 per month. Therefore, his total income was Rs. 19,324 per month or Rs. 2,32,204 per year. Out of this amount, the deceased would have to pay income tax. On rough calculations even after giving allowance of standard deduction and benefit of Rs. 12,000 on account of savings, the income tax payable would be about Rs. 26,200 and the net income of the deceased would be around Rs. 2,06,000 per annum. The deceased was posted at Bilaspur. He was not living at his native place. Therefore, in this case, it would be reasonable to deduct 40 per cent for his personal expenses which comes to Rs. 82,400. Therefore, the balance annum income of the deceased stood at Rs. 1,23,600. In this case, the mother of the deceased is aged 80 years and three of the sons are all majors who would have started earning in the near future. The deceased was more than 44 years old and keeping in view the various judgments of the Apex Court, it would be reasonable to apply a multiplier of 14 in the present case. The amount payable would be Rs. 17,30,400. The widow is also entitled to Rs. 10,000 for loss of consortium. It has come on the record that the deceased remained in hospital for about one week. The widow has claimed that Rs. 30,000 was spent on his medical expenses. However, it would be reasonable to assess the damages on this count at Rs. 15,000. The claimants are also held entitled to the funeral expenses and other conventional damages, which are assessed at Rs. 9,600. The total amount payable to the claimants, therefore, comes to Rs. 17,65,000, which is apportioned as follows:
Soma Devi (Widow) : Rs. 7,00,000
Lakhbir Singh, Dharminder Singh and Harjinder Singh (sons) : Rs. 3,00,000 each.
Kolan Devi (mother) : Rs. 1,65,000.
The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 21.7.2003, the date of filing of the claim petition till the deposit of the amount.
18. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the compensation payable is reduced from Rs. 24,10,000 to Rs. 17,65,000.
19. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No orders as to costs.