Smt. Sukarma Kher And Ors. vs N.K. Nagin Chander And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 496 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Chopra, J.

1. The appellants challenge the computation as well as quantum of compensation awarded to them by learned MACT in Case No. 32/86 decided on 31.1.1990. The appellants are the parents of deceased, who was aged about 31 years at the time of his death in a road accident. The deceased was a practicing Advocate.

2. The appellants filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation of Rupees five lakhs with interest. According to them the income of the deceased was about Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of his death and was increasing regularly. The respondent No. 1 was alleged to be the driver and respondents No. 2 and 3 the owners of the offending vehicle.

3. The present appeal is confined to the prayer for enhancement of compensation. The findings given by the learned Tribunal in regard to the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and the claim of the appellants they were the only LRs of the deceased have become final in as much as there is no cross appeal on behalf of the respondents.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the records of the case.

5. In support of their averments that the deceased was aged about 31 years at the time of his death and his income was about Rs. 3000/- per month, the appellant's case was supported by PWs 5 and 6, the colleagues of the deceased and PW8, the appellant No. 2, the father of the deceased. According to these witnesses the age of the deceased was about 31 years and his income was about Rs. 3000/- per months. However, they admitted that there was neither any documentary proof in support of the income nor the deceased was an income tax assessed. The appellant No. 2, the father of the deceased appearing as PW8 asserted that the deceased was paying him Rs. 2000/- per month. Learned Trial Judge after considering the evidence and material on record concluded that the income of the deceased was about Rs. 1500/- per month and after deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses held that the financial assistance from the deceased to the appellants was only Rs. 1000/- per month. Applying a multiplier of ten the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Interest @ 6 per cent per annum was ordered to be paid to the appellants on the awarded amount from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of the award and @ 12 % per annum from the date of the judgment till realisation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- per month was erroneous and submits that there was no grounds for disbelieving the evidence on record that the appellant's income was Rs. 3000/- per month. He submits that future income prospects also ought to have been taken into consideration. He also challenges the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal and submits that it was on extremely lower side. The interest @ 6 per cent per annum is stated to be unjust. On the other hand learned Counsel for the Respondents contends that in the year 1985-86 the income tax exemption was up to an income of Rs. 18000/- per annum and as such in the absence of income tax returns of the deceased the income could not have been taken beyond Rs. 1500/- per month.

7. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellants relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Donat Louise Machado and Ors. v. L. Ravindra and Ors. reported in II (2000) ACC 602(SC) in which the prospects of advancement of carrier of the deceased and future increase in his income were taken into consideration for computing the financial loss to the parents and sister on account of death of deceased. The Court after finding that at the time of his death, the deceased, a Journalist aged about 31 years was earning Rs. 2500/- per month, estimated that his income would have gone up to atleast 7500/- P.M. by the time he would have rested on his oars and given up his work as a Journalist. The total income during his whole span of career was worked out at Rs. 7500/- per month, 50 per cent of which was taken as his average income. The sum of Rs. 3750/-, which was 50 per cent of his estimated income of Rs. 7500/- per month, was multiplied by 12 to arrive at his annual earnings and thereafter by applying a multiplier of 15 his total income was calculated. 2/3 was left out for the deceased's own expenditure and his own family which he would have raised and the 1/3 was taken as the economic loss to his parents and sister on account of his unfortunate demise in the accident. In General Manager Kerala State Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Smt. Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav and Ors. also the Supreme Court had taken into consideration the prospects of future increase in the income of deceased.

8. This Court, therefore, taking guidance from the aforesaid judgments of Apex Court in regard to method of computing compensation in the case of a deceased dying young holds that only the last income of the deceased cannot be the sole criteria for computing compensation and ascertaining the loss to his family. The prospects of future advancement in the career and increase in the income must be taken into consideration for finding out eh financial support the claimants would have received from the deceased but for his death.

9. In case of deceased belonging to the salaried class there should be no difficulty in calculating the last income keeping in view the pay scale as well as reasonable chances of promotions and then finding out his average income by applying the aforesaid formula laid down by the Apex Court. In the case of self-employed professionals, like the deceased in this case, the future advancement of career and increase in income has to be upon estimated basis. However, difficulty may arise in the cases of businessmen for the reason that there are more uncertainties and ups and downs in their income graphs. Therefore, in the case of a deceased businessman, the Court would be more circumspect and careful in making estimates and would take into consideration the nature, size and growth graph of his business in the light of prevailing market and economic conditions.

10. The plea of learned counsel for the appellants that the multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied in this case also in as much as in Donat Louis case (supra) even the age of the deceased was 31 years cannot be sustained for the reason that the Apex Court judgment does not disclose as to what was the age of the parents of the deceased. The choice of multiplier depends not only upon the age of the deceased but upon the age of the dependants also who are claiming compensation. In case the dependants are too old, a higher multiplier may bring a wind fall to them instead of just and fair compensation. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra reported in 1996 ACJ page 831 it was clearly observed by Apex Court that selection of multiplier cannot be solely dependant upon the age of the deceased but age of dependants also has to be taken into consideration. Possibility cannot be ruled out that in the case of Donat Louis's the age of the parents of the deceased was less and as such a multiplier of 15 was invoked. However, in the present case the age of the father of the deceased was about 58 and his mother also must have been of same age and as such the multiplier of 15 could take their dependency upon the deceased beyond the age of 70 years or so. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that in the present case the multiplier of 10 as applied by the Trial Court was on a lower side but the multiplier of 15 would be on a higher side in view of old age of the dependants. Accordingly, a multiplier of 12 appears to be a just and reasonable multiplier to be applied to the multiplicand in this case.

11. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record shows that the assessment of the income of deceased at Rs. 1500/- per month at the time of his death was justified for the reason that during the relevant period income above Rs. 18000/- per annum was subject to income tax but the deceased has into been shown to be an income tax assessed. The findings of act arrived at by the learned Tribunal in this regard call for no interference. However, the learned Tribunal Court had not at all taken into consideration the chances of future increase in the income of the deceased which ought to have been considered in view of the fact that the deceased was a young Lawyer and the evidence on record shows that he was getting good work and had fair chances of advancement in his career. It can be reasonably assumed that income of the deceased would have gone up to atleast up to Rs. 7500/- per month by the end of his career. By adding up his last income before his death and his ultimate income at the end of his career and taking 50 per cent thereof as average income during the rest of his life a sum of Rs. 4500/- per month can be taken as his average monthly income during the entire span of his career. His annual income thus comes to Rs. 54000/- and on application of a multiplier of 12 the total income of the deceased during the career comes to Rs. 6,48,000/-.

12. Considering the fact that the deceased was a divorcee aged about 31 years it can be safely assumed that the chances of his remarriage were slim and the major part of his earning would have gone to his parents. If 2/3 is kept apart which the deceased would have required for his ownself and the family which he would have raised in case of his re-marriage the balance of Rs. 2,16,000/- was the financial assistance which the appellants would have received from him but for is unfortunate death in the accident in question. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the compensation to which the parents were entitled on account of the death of their son was not Rs. 1,20,000/- as held by the learned Trial Judge but a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- as calculated above by this Court.

13. This Court is further of the view that the learned Tribunal had no justification in awarding interest @ 6 per cent per annum only to the appellants from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of the award because in 1985 or so the usual rate of interest was about 12 per cent per annum and for this reason itself the future interest was awarded @ 12 per cent per annum by Trial Court itself. This Court is of the considered view that the interest on the awarded amount from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of the award also ought to have been @ 12 per cent per annum and not @ 6 per cent per annum.

14. This appeal, therefore, is partly allowed and the appellant are held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,16,000/- on account of death of their son. The appellants are also held entitled to interest @ 12 per cent per annum on the awarded amount from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of the award. The payment of balance amount shall be made to both the appellants in equal shares. After deducting the amount already paid to the appellants, the respondents shall pay the balance amount within two months. In case the respondents fail to pay the balance amount within two months the appellants shall be entitled to future interest @ 9 per cent annum on the unpaid amount from the date of this order till realisation.

15. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.