JUDGMENT
K. Sampath, J.
1. The owner of the vehicle and the insurance company are the appellants. The above civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the award of Rs. 4,00,000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Kancheepuram in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 160 of 1991 filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein, claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 for the death of one Shanmugavel, husband of the respondent No. 1, father of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and son of the respondent No. 6, in an accident involving the vehicle belonging to the appellant No. 1 and insured with the appellant No. 2.
2. The case of the claimants was as follows:
On 22.3.1991 at about 10.00 a.m., when the deceased Shanmugavel was on his way to the house in a bicycle, a car bearing the registration No. TSI 7346 belonging to the appellant No. 1, driven by its driver, the respondent No. 7 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him causing grievous injuries to which he succumbed on the way to the hospital. At the time of his death, Shanmugavel was 30 years old. He was hale and hearty. Besides being a village postmaster earning Rs. 750 p.m., he owned extensive lands, which he was supervising and getting considerable income for the family. The claimants filed a claim petition for Rs. 4,00,000 though according to them they were entitled to claim Rs. 6,00,000 as and by way of compensation.
3. The appellant No. 2 insurance company resisted the petition contending, inter alia, that the driver of the vehicle drove the car at a normal speed, that at Chinnaiyan Chathram bus stand two buses were standing and the passengers were alighting and getting in, that the driver of the vehicle, the respondent No. 7 was driving the vehicle, putting on the front lights and at that time another bus was coming from the opposite direction; that when the deceased was coming out in his cycle from between two buses standing in the bus stand, the car dashed against the cycle resulting in his death and that the accident was entirely due to negligence of the deceased. The appellant No. 2 further contended that in any event the claim for Rs. 4,00,000 was highly exaggerated. It also disputed the age and income and other particulars given in the petition.
4. The driver and the owner remained exparte. The Tribunal found, on the materials placed before it, that the accident was entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the respondent No. 7. I do not find any infirmity in the said conclusion reached by the Tribunal and the same is confirmed.
5. The larger question is with regard to the quantum. According to the claimants the deceased was employed as village postmaster besides owning extensive lands, which he supervised and got a lot of income. The Tribunal had taken into consideration all aspects and quantified the compensation and no exception could be taken to the same. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the insurance company that the Tribunal had worked out the compensation improperly and had used the wrong multiplier in arriving at the compensation. The Tribunal used the multiplier of 28 and took the income of the deceased as Rs. 18,000 per year and arrived at Rs. 5,04,000 towards loss of earning and since the claimants had restricted the amount of loss of earning to Rs. 4,00,000 the same was awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Deceased was a village postmaster. The accident took place on 22.3.1991. At that time, he was getting Rs. 750 as salary. The salary of the village postmaster would not be stagnant. In a few years from 1991, it would have really gone up and we can reasonably assume that it would have doubled and if we take the monthly salary as Rs. 1,500 and add the salary on the date of his death and divide it by two, then his monthly salary would have been Rs. 1,125. Apart from his monthly salary he was also earning a considerable income from his agricultural properties. This is evident from the returns submitted by him to the Agricultural Income Tax Department and by reason of his death, the family has lost a person, who had effectively supervised the agricultural operations and if the family were to engage a third party, they would have to pay not less than Rs. 750 per month towards supervision charges. This would be an additional burden on the family occasioned by the death of Shanmugavel. We may, therefore, add this amount to the salary arrived at as loss per month to the family and that will be Rs. 1,875 out of which about Rs. 400 can be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. We are left with Rs. 1,475. If we multiply it by 12, the multiplicand will be Rs. 17,700. The deceased was aged 30 years and the proper multiplier would be 18. The loss of income to the family would be Rs. 3,18,600. We can deduct a sum of Rs. 75,000 from this for lump sum payment and can arrive at Rs. 2,43,600. We have to add the amount towards loss of expectation of life, loss of consortium, towards love and affection and for pain and agony. Under these four heads, if we add Rs. 40,000, the proper compensation would be Rs. 2,83,600. The Tribunal was in error in fixing the compensation at Rs. 4,00,000 which cannot be supported. Learned counsel for claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 relied on two judgments, one of the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation v. Trilok Chandra , wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the Table given in the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act abounds in mistakes and that the Tribunal/courts cannot go by the ready reckoner.
From this, the counsel for the claimants wants the court to maintain the same multiplier used by the Tribunal. In my view, this contention cannot be accepted. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court has observed that whatever be the situation the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years’ purchase factor. Therefore, the maximum multiplier, that can be used is 18. The other decision relied on by the learned Counsel is of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of D. Vinoda v. B. Baswa Raju 1988 ACJ 1072 (AP). That was a case of death of an agriculturist cultivating his own lands. Jagannadha Rao, J. (as the learned Judge then was) discussed the Indian and foreign case-law and laid down the following principles for quantifying the compensation in the case of death of an agriculturist (para 13):
(i) In the case of an agriculturist owning agricultural land, the value of the supervisory services of the deceased have to be estimated. It will be more than the value of the services of a manager employed for the purpose because an owner-manager takes extra care in increasing the income and the value of the property. A deduction may be made out of the value of the supervisory services for the money, the deceased would have spent for himself to arrive at the annual contribution to the family which may be multiplied by an actuarial multiplier suitable to the age of the deceased. Sums towards loss of consortium and loss of expectation of life and pain and suffering may be added.
(ii) It is not permissible to say that no amount need be awarded towards the loss to the dependency merely because the corpus of the agricultural land is left intact for the dependants.
(iii) It is not permissible to capitalise the income from the land by a number of years’ purchase.
In the case before the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the deceased was aged 38 years. He was an agriculturist cultivating his own lands and having cattle. The claimants were the widow, four children and the mother as in the present case. The learned Judge assessed the supervisory charges as the owner-manager at Rs. 15 per day and the dependency at Rs. 250 per month and adopted the multiplier of 14.60 and calculated the award on this score at Rs. 43,800. The learned Judge awarded Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 7,500 towards loss of expectation of life and Rs. 7,500 towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities, arriving at a total sum of Rs. 63,800, awarded Rs. 30,000 as per the claim made in the case.
7. In the present case, I have fixed the supervisory charges at Rs. 750 per month, much more than what was done in the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The calculation made by me has been done as per the guidelines and as already stated compensation can be only Rs. 2,83,600. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and instead of Rs. 4,00,000 the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,83,600 as compensation with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. There will be no order as to costs.