JUDGMENT R.C. Chopra, J.
1. The appellants are the parents of the deceased who at the time of his death in the accident in question on 9.12.1984 was aged about 30 years. The appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs as compensation alleging that the deceased was their only son and was earning about Rs. 2000 per month. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 48000/- to the appellants with interest @ 12 per cent per annum holding that the income of the deceased was about Rs. 1200/- per month out of which the financial assistance to the appellants could be Rs. 400/- per month only. A multiplier of 10 was adopted to assess the compensation payable to the appellants.
2. None appeared for the parties. I have gone through the records of the case.
3. At the out set it may be stated that the Insurer-respondent No. 3 had raised a plea of limited liability and pleaded that its liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- only. The learned MACT decided the issue, against the Insurer. There is no cross appeal on behalf of the Insurer. The findings of the Trial Court on this issue therefore have become final and as such it cannot be held that the liability of the insurer was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- only.
4. The appellants had pleaded that the deceased used to do tailoring work and his income was Rs. 2000/- per month. However, the witnesses produced by the appellants before the Trial Court deposed about different figures ranging between Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 4000/- per month. No documentary evidence in support of income of the deceased was produced nor there was any record in regard to any income tax return filed by the deceased. The learned Trial Judge after scrutinising the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was about Rs. 1200/- per month only. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was likely to get married and raise his own family, thereby reducing his capacity to give financial support to his parents, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased could have contributed only Rs. 400/- per month to his parents and therefore, their annual dependency on the deceased was Rs. 4800/-. Applying a multiplier of 10 the total amount of compensation payable to the appellants was held to be Rs. 48000/- only.
5. The Supreme Court in cases of General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas , Smt. Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors. and Donat Louis Machada and Ors. v. L. Ravindra and Ors. reported in II (2000) ACC 602 (SC) has unequivocally declared that the prospects of future increase in the income of the deceased should also be taken into consideration for calculating the loss suffered by the dependants and computing the compensation to be awarded to them. In the case of Donat Louis Machada and Ors. (supra) the Apex Court after holding that at the time of his death the income of the deceased was Rs. 2500/- per month estimated that his income would have gone up to at least Rs. 7500/- per month by the time he would have rested on his oars and given up his work. 50 per cent of Rs. 7500/- was taken as the average income of the deceased per month during the entire span of his career and the multiplicand was arrived at on the basis of Rs. 3750/- per month. In the said case the deceased was about 31 years of age and was unmarried. After applying a multiplier of 15 to the multiplicand 1/3 was given to his parents and sister as compensation on account of the economic loss suffered by them.
6. This Court, taking guidance from the aforesaid judgments, has no hesitation in holding that the income of the deceased at the time of his death alone should not be the sole criteria for ascertaining the loss to the family of the deceased. The prospects of future increase in the income of the deceased also have to be taken into consideration and thereafter by adding the present income with the expected future income at the end of his career, 50 per cent thereof can be taken as the average income for the rest of his career. In a case where the deceased belongs to a salaried class, his income is capable of calculations on the basis of his pay scale and reasonable prospects of future promotions and there can be no difficulty in finding out the average income. In cases of professionals also, the future increase can be calculated upon reasonable estimates. However, this method is fraught with difficulties in cases of businessmen for the reason that ups and downs and fluctuations in their income are more. Therefore, in the case of a businessman, the expected increase in income would depend on various factors like nature of his business, investment made, money market conditions, general economic climate etc.
7. It is true that in the Apex Court judgment of Donat Louis referred to above a multiplier of 15 was applied to the multiplicand although the age of the deceased was 31 years but a perusal of the judgment does not reveal as to what was the age of parents of the deceased. The choice of multiplier is made not merely on the basis of the age of the deceased but the age of dependants also has to be taken into consideration for the reason that in case the dependants are too old a higher multiplier may bring a wind fall to them. For arriving at a just and fair compensation to be awarded to the LRs. of a deceased the multiplier should be such that the amount of compensation fairly compensates them for their financial loss. In the present case at the time of the death of their only son the age of the father of the deceased was about 60 years. There is nothing on record about the age of the mother of the deceased. In view of the age of the father of the deceased, the age of mother can be taken as 2/3 years younger to his father. If multiplier of 15 is applied, the dependency of the parents goes almost up to the age of 75 years or so which this Court feels would not be justified. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that instead of a multiplier of 10 as adopted by the Trial Court, a multiplier of 12 would be a more suitable multiplier to be invoked in this case.
8. Coming to the question of the income of the deceased and the dependency of the appellants upon him, this Court upholds the view taken by the learned Trial Judge that at the time of his death the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,200/- per month. Since the deceased was quite young and was a tailor by profession, it cannot be disputed that in due course of time, his income would have gone up. Considering the inflationary trends and rise in prices, it can be reasonably assumed that by the end of his career the income of the deceased would have gone at least up to Rs. 3,600/- per month. By adding the income at the time of his death to the ultimate income that the deceased would have been earning, and taking 50 per cent thereof as average income which is Rs. 2,400/- per month this Court can find out the average income of the deceased during the entire span of his career. With this income as average income, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 28,800/-. By applying a multiplier of 12, his total income during the remainder of his expected life comes to Rs. 3,45,600/-. If 2/3 of this income is left for the deceased and his own family which he would have raised, the total financial loss to the parents of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,15,200/- instead of 48,000/- as calculated by the learned Trial Judge. It is, therefore, held that the appellants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,15,200/- on account of the death of their son in the accident in question.
9. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed by holding that the appellants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,15,200/- with interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of this order. Both the appellants are held entitled to receive the balance amount in equal shares. After deducting the amount already paid, the Insurer-respondent No. 3 shall pay the balance payable amount to the appellants within two months of this order failing which it shall be liable to pay future interest @ 9 per cent per annum on the payable amount from the date of this order till realisation.
10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.