JUDGMENT
Rajesh Tandon, J.
1. This is insurer’s appeal against the Award dated 10.1.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital.
2. The claimants Sri Jagan Nath Sharma and Km. Suman Sharma preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the grant of compensation on account of the death of Rajesh Kumar Sharma in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants on the fateful day on 2.2.2004, deceased Rajesh Sharma, along with his brother Pitamber Dutt Sharma was going to Haldwani from Rudrapur by a scooter. When they reached near Tanda Barrier, Car No. UP 22/4737 which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed the scooter. Both riders of the scooter sustained fatal injuries. Deceased Rajesh Sharma was rushed to Soban Singh Jeena hospital, Haldwani, from where he was referred to Krishna Hospital, Haldwani and thereafter he was sent to Batra Hospital, Delhi, where he died during the treatment.
3. According to the claimants deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident. He was mechanic of Radio, T.V. and was doing business of electronic goods. He was earning Rs. 8,000/-per month. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 23,00,000/- as compensation.
3. Respondent No. 3, Harswaroop Singh filed written statement and has denied the assertions made in the claim petition. He has stated that the accident has not taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the car driver. The car was insured with United India Insurance Co. and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any.
4. The insurance company, appellant has admitted that the car involved in the accident was insured with it but it has been denied that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the car driver. The owner of the scooter has not been made party. Further it has been stated that the owner of the car has flouted the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the amount claimed as compensation is excessive.
5. In order to prove their case, the claimants have examined P.W.1 Jagannath Sharma and P.W.2 Deep Chand Joshi. The claimants have also filed copy of the F.I.R. post mortem report, copy of charge sheet and site plan. The opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence. However, respondent Har Swaroop has filed copy of Insurance cover note, registration certificate of the car and copy of driving licence.
6. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants, the Claims Tribunal has held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver.
7. So far as the compensation is concerned the Tribunal has recorded the finding that at the time of accident the age of the deceased was 28 years. The claims Tribunal has assessed his monthly notional income at Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3 of the amount for his own expenses by the deceased, the annual loss of dependency was assessed to Rs. 24,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased as well as the claimants, multiplier of 8 has been selected by the Trial Court. Thus the total loss sustained by the claimants comes to Rs. 24,000 x 8 = 1,92,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses. Beside this the Claims Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 4,85,000/- for the expenses incurred in the treatment of the deceased. Thus claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,79,000/- as compensation along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
8. Sri Pankaj Purohit, counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the amount of compensation awarded for medical expenses and the rate of interest awarded is on the higher side.
9. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, there is no documentary proof on record regarding the income of the deceased. The father of the deceased Sri Jagannath Sharma P.W.1 has stated on oath that the deceased was mechanic of electronics items and used to sell and repair, T.V. CD Player, Radio and electrical goods at Motahaldu. He was earning Rs. 8,ooo/- per month. The claims Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his own expenses the annual dependency on the income of the deceased was assessed to Rs. 24,000/-. In our opinion the Claim Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased properly.
10. The Claim Tribunal after considering the age of the father of the deceased selected multiplier of 8, which is also just and proper in view of the observations of Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer and Anr. where the Apex Court has held that, in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should not be more than 10. Paragraph 12 of the Apex Court judgment is reproduced below:
12. Keeping in view the observations made by this Court in various cases, several other factors need to be taken note of. The deceased was unmarried. The contribution to the parents who had their separate earnings being employed and educated has relevance. The possibility of reduction in contribution once a person gets married is a reality. The compensation is relatable to the loss of contribution or the pecuniary benefits. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court is certainly on the higher side. Considering the age of the claimants, it can never exceed 10 even by the most liberal standards. Worked out on that basis the amount comes to Rs 3.6 lakhs at the monthly expected income fixed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court Looking into the nature of the contributory negligence of the deceased after making an appropriate deduction which can reasonably be fixed at 25%, the compensation amount payable by the Corporation can be fixed at rupees three lakhs including the amount awarded by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court for loss of expectation of life. Interest at the rate as awarded by the High Court is maintained from the date of application for compensation.
11. We, therefore, do not find any good ground for interference on the question of multiplier selected by the Tribunal.
12. So far as the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal for medical expenses is concerned, the claimants have filed bills and cash memos of medical expenses per list 26-C on record. The claims Tribunal has wrongly calculated the amount of those bills to the extent of Rs. 4,85,000/- while the total amount of the bills and cash memos comes to Rs. 2,48,000/-. The claimants have also made prayer in the claim petition to the following effect:
It is, therefore, prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 166 Motor Vehicle Accident with Rs.2,50,000/- incurred by the petitioner on the medical treatment of the deceased late Sri Rajesh Sharma***.
Thus the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 2,48,000/- for medical expenses.
13. Thus the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1,92,000/- as compensation for pecuniary loss, Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate. Thus the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1,92,000 + 5,000 + 5000 + 2,48,000 = Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation.
14. The Apex Court in the case of T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. , has held that the in a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal/Court should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. 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 that 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.
15. The Claims Tribunal awarded pendente lite and future interest @ 9%. In our opinion pendente lite and future interest @ 7% per annum would be just and proper.
16. In view of above, the compensation of Rs. 6,79,000/-awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 4,50,000/-along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
17. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
18. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant insurance company as mandatory deposit under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and lying with the Registry, is directed to be transmitted to the Claims Trib(sic).
19. No order as to costs.