Smt. Sushila Goel And Others vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 170 Del

ORDER

Anil Dev Singh, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in FAO No.202/87, dated May 6, 1991. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated are as follows:-

2. On 17th July, 1974 at about 7.45 p.m., Mr.P.G.Goel, who was working as Under Secretary in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, was crushed to death by a bus being driven by respondent no.2. The accident took place while the deceased was going towards Lodi Colony on his scooter. The bus belonged to respondent no.3 and was insured with respondent no.1. At the time of this unfortunate accident, the deceased was fifty years of age and he had still eight years of service left before his retirement.

3. The first appellant, who is the wife, and appellants 2, 3, 4 and 5, who are the sons and daughter of the deceased, moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) claiming a sum of rupees ten lakhs as compensation from respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the death of the deceased in the aforesaid accident. On consideration of the case of the parties the Tribunal was of the following view :-

1. At the time of the accident the deceased was drawing basic salary of Rs.1,600/- per month.

2. The deceased on the date of the accident still had eight years of service left.

3. The deceased was spending Rs.1,200/- per month on his family out of his salary of Rs.1,600/- per month.

4. The accident was caused by the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.2.

5. As per family history the deceased would have lived up to the age of 70 years.

4. The Tribunal selected a multiplier of six and came to the conclusion that the respondents were liable to pay compensation of Rs.86,400/- to the appellants. The learned Single Judge in appeal was of the view that the Tribunal should have applied a multiplier of eight instead of six. Consequently, the learned Single Judge enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the appellants from Rs.86,400/- to Rs.1,15,200/-.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The deceased at the time of his death was Under Secretary in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. He had fair chances of promotion. PW-7, Sh.K.S.Venkataraman, Chief Personnel and Executive Officer, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, in his statement clearly brought out the fact that had the deceased lived, he would have been eligible for promotion to the cadre of Chief Examiner of Bills, Motions and Resolutions/Chief Personnel and Executive Officer (equivalent to the post of Dy.Secretary) and would have been placed in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2000. PW-7 also adverted to the fact that from February 1, 1979 the deceased would have been placed in the pay scale of Rs.2,000-2250 and from March 1, 1979 he would have been promoted to the post of Additional Secretary carrying a pay scale of Rs.2,500-3,000. The witness also alluded to the fact that at the time of superannuation of the victim, if he would have lived, his basic salary would have been Rs.2,625/-.

6. Having regard to the statement of PW-7, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge should have taken into consideration the future prospects of advancement of the victim in his career. Thus keeping in view the fact that had the victim survived he would have been promoted in due course of time. It seems to us that for the purpose of calculating the compensation payable to the appellants, the monthly salary of the deceased and the monthly dependency of his heirs should be taken as Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- respectively.

7. There is another aspect of the matter. It appears to us that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge should have applied a multiplier of 'fifteen' instead of a multiplier of eight. There is ample evidence to show that but for the untimely demise of the victim there was likelihood of his having lived up to the age of seventy years and above. Besides, the victim after his retirement would have been in a position to work and earn his livelihood. In the circumstances it seems to us that the multiplier of 'fifteen' will meet the ends of justice. While coming to this conclusion we have kept in view the observations of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs) and others, , and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, .

8. Therefore, the compensation payable to the appellants would be Rs.2,70,000/- as per the following details :-

Annual emoluments of the deceased X multiplier = Rs.1500 X 12 = 18,000 X 15 = Rs. 2,70,000/-

9. Accordingly, we enhance the compensation from Rs.1,15,200/- to Rs.2,70,000/-. The appellants will be entitled to the aforesaid sum with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, instead of 10% per annum awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim before the M.A.C.T. till the date of payment except for the period from December 22, 1979 to December 9, 1980, i.e., from the date the application before the MACT was dismissed for default to the date of its restoration by the MACT. The respondents shall make the payment to the appellants within a period of six weeks after making adjustments on account of any amount which may have already been paid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.