Rochi Vidhani vs Harminder Kaur & Others
1998 Latest Caselaw 822 Del

ORDER

S.N. Kapoor J.

1. There is no dispute in between the parties that the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,200/-. There were two major dependents, namely, the mother/appellant and the wife (who has also filed cross-objection) and the minor daughter of the deceased in the family of the deceased apart from the deceased. Taking into consideration the overall facts, it appears that the learned Tribunal was justified in deducting a sum of Rs. 400/- per month in all. In case we apply the formula laid down by the Supreme Court in U.P. States Road Transport Corpn. & Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors. 1996 ACC 592 (SC), then Rs. 354/- were required to be deducted by dividing the income into 7 units. In addition to it, the deceased would be required to spend something more for coming and going to his office. If we take into account this aspect, the deduction of Rs. 400/- is not illogical.

2. So far as the question of enhancement of multiplier is concerned, I find it difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, for if we calculate interest at the rate of 5%, then the multiplier of 20 years was said to be justified in terms of the judgment in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas, . In case the interest is higher, then the multiplier comes to 10 years. Seeing the present rate of interest the learned Tribunal might have been justified in placing it at the level of even twelve years. But the learned Tribunal has awarded multiplier of 13 years. It would not be proper to reduce the multiplier, for there is no cross-objection of the Insurance company, respondent No. 5. Moreover, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter 13 years multiplier can be justified also. Thus, the total compensation come to Rs. 1,24,800. If this amount of Rs. 1,24,800/- is deposited in F.D. then it would fetch interest @ of about 12% per annum, meaning thereby that the appellants would be getting nearly Rs. 1,200/- per month in lieu of their dependency.

3. One of the contentions is that 15% should not have been deducted by the learned Tribunal on lumpsum payment.

"15. In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance also, first the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplied by the estimated useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as, premature death of the deceased or the dependent, remarriage, accelerated payment and increased earing by wise and prudent investments, etc., would become necessary. It is generally felt that discounting on various imponderable made assessment of compensation rather complicated and cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready measure, one-third to one-half of the dependency was reduced, depending on the life-span taken. That is the reason why Courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies, formula as being simple and more realistic. However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas, case, usually English Courts rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently when Tribunals/Courts began to use a hybrid method of using Nance's method without making deduction for imponderable."

4. Since the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance has not been approved, any deduction one account of accelerated payment or lumpsum payment also stands disapproved. The lumpsum payment has long ceased to be any further criteria for justifying any deduction. This is consistent view of this court. Karnataka, M.P. High Court, Allahabad High Court also took similar view. (See Mohinder Kaur Vs. Manphool Singh, 1981 ACJ 231 (DB) Delhi, Ganga Devi Vs. Randhir Singh, 1996 I ACJ 99; Raj Rani Vs. Bawan Lal, 1996 (I) ACJ 179; Krishna Gupta Vs. Madan Lal, 1996 (I) ACJ 165, Rama Bai Vs. H.N. Karnath, 1986 (II) ACJ 561; Santi Bai Vs. Mishri Lal, 1995 (II) ACJ 1233; Vijai Vs. Lakshmi Chand Jain, 1995 (II) ACJ 755). This is essential to offset the loss of future prospective increased income. Consequently, it appears that the lumpsum deduction @ 15% cannot be sustained.

5. Learned counsel further contends that the appellant should have been awarded interest from the date of application till the date of payment. By not awarding interest on the amount, the Tribunal has deprived the appellants and the widow and the daughter of the deceased of the compensation which should have been otherwise made available to them. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Suri, that in those days interest was being given @ 6 per cent though in certain cases interest @ 9% was also given. This High Court, Gujarat High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court, M.P. High Court, Patna High Court, Madras High Court and Kerala High Court have awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition. I feel that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is justified that the appellants and other claimants should have been granted interest at least @ 9% per annum from the date of the application till the date of payment to take care of reduction in monetary value in real terms.

6. Ld. counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant may be given enhanced amount but not the widow and the minor who had just filed cross-objection, for none of them is present to press those objections. I am not inclined to accept such a proposition, for if an ex parte suit can be dismissed, then ex parte claim which finds support from the co-claimants on a egal point can also be allowed.

"One of several plaintiffs or defendants may obtain reversal of whole decree where it proceeds on ground common to all.

4. Where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all the plaintiffs or to all the defendants, any one of the plaintiffs or of the defendants may appeal from the whole decree, and thereupon the Appellate Court may reserve or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be."

7. In so far as apportionment is concerned, it is submitted that the mother as well as the widow both are alive and the widow has not remarried. The daughter of the deceased Ms. Bhawana Vidhani has reached the age of 20 years and she is required to be married. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant agree to the suggestion that all the three should be awarded compensation in equal share and the amount already paid has to be adjusted towards the amount which would fall due now after requisite modifications after disapproval of deduction of 15% on account of lumpsum payment and grant of interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount of compensation Rs. 1,24,800/- from the date of the petition till the date of payment after adjusting the amount already paid.

8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.