Shashi Jain & Ors Petitioners v. Rajinder Yadav & Ors S

S.K Mahajan, J.:— Since the only question involved in this case is whether the multiplier applied by the tribunal to arrive at just compensation payable to the appellants is correct and whether at the time of assessing compensation payable to the family of the deceased, the tribunal ought not have taken into consideratior the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased, learned counsel foi the parties state that as both these questions can be answered on the basis of the impugned judgment, it may not be necessary to requisition the file frorr the tribunal. I have, therefore, proceeded to decide this appeal without wait ing for the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. ADMIT.

3. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:—

That the husband of the appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3 diec in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The deceased at the time of his death was 41 years of age and wa employed as a Junior Engineer with the PWD. His salary at the time of the ac cident was Rs. 11,942/- per month. The tribunal taking the salary of th deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per month-deducted 1/3rd from this towards hi personal expenses and the loss of dependency to the family was taken at R; 8,000/- per month. Applying the multiplier of 12, the tribunal assessed th loss of dependency to the family of the deceased at Rs. 11,52,000/- awardin another sum of Rs. 19,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and funeral ex penses, etc., the total compensation of Rs. 11,71,000/- was directed to be pai to the appellants. The appellants have now filed this appeal for enhancemer of compensation. As already mentioned above, the only ground urged b learned counsel for the appellants is that while arriving at the loss of depenc ency to the family of the deceased, the tribunal ought to have taken into cor sideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased an unless there are special reasons to deviate, the tribunal ought to have applie the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. There is force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants is now well-settled that while assessing the loss of dependency to the fami of the deceased, the court taking into consideration the rising cost of livir and inflation must consider the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased and unless there are special reasons to deviate, the multiplier me tioned in the Second Schedule to the Act should be applied to arrive at tl loss of dependency. In the present case, the deceased was admittedly drawir a salary of Rs. 11,942/- per month. The deceased was only 41 years of age ar still had 19 years of service left before his retirement. This court will, ther fore, not be in error in estimating that the salary of the deceased at the time retirement would have at least doubled if not more. Applying, therefore, the principles laid down in Sarla Dixit and another v. Balwant Yadav and others, 1996 ACJ 581 the average income of the deceased would come to Rs. 17,913/- per month or say Rs. 18,000/- per month. Deducting 1/3rd from this towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency to the family of would come to Rs. 12,000/- per month or Rs. 1,44,000/- per year. Applying the multiplier of 15 in terms of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, as the deceased was 41 years of age at the time of the accident, the total loss of dependency to the family of the deceased would come to Rs. 21,60,000/-. Adding to this another sum of Rs. 19,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, etc., as awarded by the Tribunal, the total compensation to which the appellants would be entitled comes to Rs. 21,79,000/-.

5. I accordingly, allow this appeal, modify the award and direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 21,79,000/- to the appellants. The appellants will also be entitled to the interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the application before the tribunal till realisation. In the facts of this case, however, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.