R.K Patra, J.:— The insurer is in appeal challenging the award of Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, granting compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation.
2. Respondent No. 1 is the widow and the respondent No. 2 is the mother of the deceased, late Mahibub Saha. Their case is that the deceased was a bus driver and was earning Rs. 800/- per month. On 15.12.1989 in the morning while he was going on the left side of the road at Badambadi bus stand, the offending bus bearing registration No. OSU 7614 came from link road side being driven rashly and negligently in high speed and dashed against the deceased who died at the spot.
3. Respondent No. 3, the owner of the vehicle, contested the case by filing the written statement. It was stated in the said written statement that the accident took place on account of carelessness of the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle had no contribution to it. It was further stated that the bus in question had valid insurance covering the period of the accident. The appellant also contested the matter by filing a separate written statement denying the allegation made in the claim application.
4. There were three witnesses examined in this case. PW 1 is the widow. PWs 2 and 3 are eyewitnesses to the accident. Their clear evidence is that the offending bus came in high speed without blowing any horn and dashed against the deceased resulting in his instantaneous death. On the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal came to hold that the driver of the offending vehicle was not careful in driving the vehicle which resulted in the accident leading to death of S.K Mahibub Saha. This finding of fact is not challenged by the appellant in this present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant seriously challenges that the quantum of compensation is heavy and the Tribunal should not have applied the principle of multiples in computing the compensation. In this connection he relies on a Full Bench decision of this court in Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd. v. R.K Das, 1990 ACJ 631 (Orissa). The ratio of that case has absolutely no relevance in this case in asmuch as what came up for consideration before the Full Bench was whether in assessing compensation under section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the prevailing interest rate payable by the banks can be taken into consideration so as to limit the lump sum compensation. In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), observed in para 11 as follows:
“It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and awarded the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was, say, 25 years, of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years—virtually adopting a multiplier of 45—and even if one-third or one-fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible. We are aware that some decisions of the High Courts and of this court as well have arrived at compensation on some such basis. The decisions cannot be said to have laid down a settled principle. They are merely instances of particular awards in individual cases. The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Some judgments of the High Courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in so far as it envisages the compensation to be ‘just’, the statutory determination of a ‘just’ compensation would unshackle the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a ‘just’ compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view. We indicate that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.
The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalized. Take, for instance, a case where the annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,000/-. If a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is invested at 10 per cent annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5 per cent per annum and not 10 per cent, then the multiplier needed to capitalise the loss of the annual dependency at Rs. 10,000/- would be 20. Then the multiplier, i.e, the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last, etc. Usually in English courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependants, whichever is higher) goes up.”
6. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the matter, no exception can be taken to the invocation of multiplier in the present case. In the case of Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), the Apex Court took note of the fact that usually in English courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. In the case at hand, the evidence discloses that the age of the deceased was about 35 years at the time of death. He had a heavy vehicle driving licence vide Exh. 5. PW 3 was a coworker being the conductor in the bus of which the deceased was the driver. He stated that he worked as a conductor with the deceased in buses bearing registration Nos. OSU 8752 and OSU 8753. His evidence is that the deceased was earning Rs. 60/- per day as driver. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of PW 3 to disbelieve the statement. The widow as PW 1 stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. In view of such evidence on record, the Tribunal fixed Rs. 1,500/- as monthly average income of the deceased and his contribution to the family was determined at Rs. 800/- per month. No fault can be found with the aforesaid view taken by the Tribunal. In assessing the compensation, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and assessed the total loss of dependency at Rs. 1,53,600/- and after making deduction of Rs. 33,600/- towards uncertainty of life, he determined the compensation payable to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at Rs. 1,20,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium and mental agony sustained by the widow and the mother of the deceased. In total thus a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- has been awarded as compensation. I do not find any legal flaw in computing the aforesaid compensation by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the vehicle in question had valid insurance at the time of accident. The appellant has rightly been held liable to pay the compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal should not have directed payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the failure of the appellant in paying the awarded compensation within one month. In this connection, he places reliance on a Bench decision of this court in Oriental Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Buli Dei, 1993 ACJ 1119 (Orissa). In view of the aforesaid decision, I hereby modify that part of the order and state that the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum shall be payable on the principal amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation without higher rate of interest as stipulated by the Tribunal. Save and except the aforesaid modification, the award stands confirmed.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit with costs.
9. Appeal dismissed.