JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Madan Mohan Saini aged 33 years received fatal injuries in a road accident on 3.9.87. He died on 8.9.87.
2. The dependents of the deceased, his widow, 4 daughters and mother filed a claim petition before the MACT seeking compensation.
3. Learned MACT awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,36,000/- to the dependents of the deceased on account of death of deceased in the said road accident.
4. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded under the award, appellants have filed the present appeal praying for enhancement of compensation.
5. Since enhancement of compensation is prayed for and there are no cross objections, I would only be noting the relevant facts pertaining to the compensation assessed to the appellants.
6. Vide award dated 13.7.92, loss of dependence worked out to the family is Rs. 1,120/- per month. Multiplier of 25 has been applied noting that the deceased was 33 years of age at the time of the accident and as he was employed in a government service he would have continued to support his family for another 25 years. Thus, total loss of dependency to the family assessed by the Tribunal is Rs. 3,36,000/-. (1120 x 12 x 25).
7. Counsel for the appellants has urged three main grounds. Firstly, Tribunal wrongly noted the income of the deceased at the time of his death as Rs. 1,681/- per month. Secondly, Tribunal has ignored the future prospects. Thirdly, Tribunal erred in awarding no compensation to the appellants towards non-pecuniary damages.
8. As regards the first contention, learned Counsel for the appellants contends that deceased was working as a Sanitary Inspector in DDA and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,788/- per month at the time of his death. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relies upon testimony of Suresh Kumar, PW-1, who was a colleague of the deceased and deposed that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,788/- per month at the time of his death.
9. In arriving at the conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 1,681/- the Tribunal has relied upon testimony of S.N. Tripathi, PW-6, who was also colleague of the deceased and deposed on the basis of cash book, salary register and pay bill for the month of August 1987 to the effect that the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs. 1,682/- per month.
10. In my view the Tribunal rightly determined the income of the deceased by relying upon testimony of S.N.Tripathi, PW-6 as his testimony is corroborated by the documents which clearly show that income of deceased was Rs. 1,681/-p.m. at the time of his death.
11. The second submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that while determining the income of the deceased at the time of his death the Tribunal erred in ignoring the future prospects.
12. Relying upon decision reported as Smt. Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors. and various other decisions of Supreme Court and this Court, the learned Counsel submitted that future prospects had to be considered and granted.
13. In the appeal, appellants have filed letter dated 27-2-99 (Annexure B) and letter dated 3-5-02 (Annexure D) issued by DDA, the employer of the deceased. The afore-noted letters show the salary structure of the deceased and that the deceased would have received Rs. 25,00,321/- during his entire service and that his last salary would have been Rs. 11,230/- p.m.
14. The question is whether the sum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side as claimed by the appellants.
15. In a fatal accident action, the accepted measure of damages awarded to the dependants is the pecuniary loss suffered by them as a result of the death. ‘How much has the widow and family lost by the death?’
16. 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 dependents, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependents during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependents 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.
17. One of the two methods adopted to determine compensation in fatal accident actions is the multiplier method mentioned in Davies v. Powell Duffregn Associated Colliers Ltd. 1942 AC 601.
18. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest applicable to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. Since the dependents can invest their damages, the lump sum awarded in respect of future loss must be discounted to reflect interest on invested funds, the intention being that the dependents will each year draw interest and some capital (the interest element decreasing and the capital drawings increasing with the passage of years), so that they are compensated each year for their annual loss, and the fund will be exhausted at the age which the court assesses to be the correct age, having regard to all contingencies.
19. Thus, the compensation awarded by way of multiplier method takes care of future prospects. I will demonstrate the same in the present case. Taking monthly income of deceased as Rs. 1,681/- and considering the extended family of the deceased, I deduct 1/5th on account of personal expenses of the deceased, loss of dependency is assessed as Rs. 1,344/- per month. (More than the sum treated as per the award). I increase the wages by 10% each year. I take interest on the capital @ 12% p.a. from 1987 to 1995 and @ 10% for the period 1995-2002 and thereafter @ 8% p.a. for the period 2002-2012. Annual interest is shown in column 4. Annual loss of dependency in column 5 and excess/shortfall of interest over annual dependency in column 6. The statement comes to as under:
1 2 3 4 5 6
S.No. Year Money in Interest (12% Loss of Dependency Excess of
Capital Account for 87-95, 10% (Assuming 10% interest
for 95-02, 8 % increase over dependency
for 02-12) every year)
1. 1987-88 3,36,000 40,320 1344 X 12 = 16128 24,192
2. 1988-89 3,60,192 43,223 1478 X 12 = 17736 25,487
3. 1989-90 3,85,679 46,281 1625 X 12 = 19500 26,781
4 1990- 91 4,12,461 49,495 1787 X 12 = 21444 28,051
5. 1991- 92 4,40,512 52,861 1965 X 12 = 23580 29,281
6. 1992-93 4,69,793 56,375 2161 X 12 = 25932 30,443
7. 1993-94 5,00,236 60,028 2376 X 12 = 28512 31,516
8. 1994-95 5,31,753 63,810 2613 x 12 = 31356 32,454
9 1995-96 5,64,207 56421 2874 x 12 = 34488 21933
10. 1996- 97 5,86,140 58,614 3161 X 12 = 37932 20,682
11. 1997- 98 6,06,822 60,682 3476 X 12 = 41712 18,970
12 1998- 99 6,25,792 62,579 3823 x 12 = 45876 16,703
13 1999- 00 6,42,495 64,250 4205 x 12 = 50460 13,790
14. 2000-01 6,56,285 65,628 4625 x 12 = 55500 10,128
15. 2001-02 6,66,413 66,641 5087 X 12 = 61044 5,597
16. 2002-03 6,72,010 53,761 5595 x 12 = 67140 -13,379
17. 2003-04 6,58,631 52,960 6154 x 12 = 73848 -21,558
18. 2004-05 6,37,474 50,998 6769 x 12 = 81228 -30,230
19. 2005-06 6,07,244 48,579 7445 x 12 = 89340 -40,881
20. 2006-07 5,66,363 45,309 8189 x 12 = 98268 -52,959
21. 2007-08 5,13,404 41,072 9007 x 12 = 108084 -67,012
22. 2008-09 4,46,393 35,711 9907 x 12 = 11884 -83,173
23. 2009-10 3,63,220 29,058 10897 x 12 = 130764 -1,01,706
24. 2010-11 2,61,514 20,291 11986 x 12 = 143832 -1,22,911
25. 2011-12 1,38,603 11,088 13184 x 12 = 158208 -1,47,120
20. A perusal of the table shows that till the 15th year, there is excess of interest over dependency. The excess interest has been capitalized for the next year. After 15 years, the capital is eroded and stands completely eroded in the 25th year.
21. According to Annexure-D filed by the appellants, the salary of the deceased would have been Rs. 2,293/- p.m. as on 31.12.90, Rs. 4,117/- p.m. as on 31.12.95, Rs. 8,940/- p.m. as on 31.12.00, Rs. 10,235/- p.m. as on 31.12.05 and Rs. 11,230/- p.m. as on 31.12.14 i.e. at the time of his retirement.
22. As per appellants, loss of dependency at the end of 25 years comes to Rs. 8,984/-. Whereas, loss of dependency assumed by me as per the chart is Rs. 13,184/- p.m. in the 25th year. The table clearly shows that compensation awarded by way of multiplier method has taken into account future prospects.
23. I also note that it has come in evidence that at the time of his death, deceased was a work charge employee. Suresh Kumar, PW-1 and S.N. Tripathi, PW-6 have deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was a work charge employee at the time of his death. There is no evidence to show that in due course of time deceased would have been confirmed.
24. I find no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal had erred in ignoring the future prospects. The table clearly shows that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of dependency is just, fair and reasonable.
25. Lastly, counsel for the appellants submits that Tribunal erred in awarding no compensation to the appellants towards non-pecuniary damages.
26. I agree with the said submission made by the counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, I award conventional damages on account of loss of consortium to the wife, father’s love and affection to the children at Rs. 15,000/-. Funeral expenses are awarded in sum of Rs. 2,000/-.
27. Net effect is that the compensation stands enhanced by Rs. 17,000/-.
28. The appeal stands disposed of enhancing the compensation by a sum of Rs. 17,000/-.
29. The enhanced compensation shall be paid to the appellants together with interest @ 6% per annum from date of the claim petition till date of realization.
30. No costs.