P.P Naolekar, J.:— This Appel is heard alongwith S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 437/93. ‘The new India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Kamla, S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 452/93 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Verda Ram and S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 459 of 1993,’ Oriental Insurance Co. v. Kamla’.

2. With the consent of the advocates appearing for the parties common judgment is delivered in all these appeals as the questions involved are inter-linked and are in regard to one accident.

3. In an accident two passengers of Jeep, Chhagan Lal and Babu Lal have died. Chhaganlal's dependents, Verda Ram, father, Hemi Bai, mother Lila, widow and Late, daughter have filed a claim petition no. 42/88 and claim petition No. 47/88 was filed by Babulal's dependents, Kamlabai, widow, Nitibai, mother, Balkishan, Raju, Chetan, sons and Meena, daughter against the New India Assurance Company, which is the insurer of Jeep No. RRT 7286 and the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.-, which is the insurer of Truck No. RJW 3329 and Smt. Mangubai, the owner of the jeep, Nijammudin, driver of the Jeep and Jawana Ram, owner of the truck and Shantilal, driver of the truck.

4. The Misc. Appeal No. 452/93 and Misc. Appeal No. 437/93 are filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. challenging the extent of the liability imposed over Insurance Company and the Misc. Appeal No. 460/93 and Misc. Appeal No. 459/93 are filed by the Oriental Insurance Company and by the owner challenging entire award passed by the Claims Tribunal in two Claim Petitions, (i) in Claim Case No. 42/88 and (ii) in Claim Case No. 47/88.

5. In Claim Case No. 42/88, filed by the dependents of Chhaganlal, the Tribunal has awarded compensation taking dependency 1800 per month and applying the multiplier of 30. The award was made for Rs. 6,48,000/- and Rs. 14,000/- for loss of love and affection, total amount of Rs. 6,62,000/- with 12% interest from the date of application till realisation.

6. In Claim Case No. 47/88 filed by Babulal's dependents, the Tribunal has held that at the time of the death of Babulal, his age was 45 years. His salary was Rs. 5,600/- and dependency of the claimants was Rs. 2,000/- per month. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal was 15 and the claimants were awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- for loss of consortium and for loss of love and affection, total Rs. 3,80,000/-.

7. In both the claim petitions, the apportionment of the liability was made on Truck 75% and on Jeep 25%. As regards to the New India Assurance Company, its plea for statutory liability of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger only, was rejected. It is held that the Insurance Company's liability is unlimited. On these findings it has been held that the respective Insurance Companies alongwith its owner of the vehicles and the drivers are jointly and severally responsible for payment of the compensation.

8. Facts in brief are that Chhangan Lal, aged about 28 years and Babu Lal, aged about 45 years, died in an unfortunate motor accident that occurred on 21.2.1988 at 5.30 a.m, near Village Veerwara in Sirohi District, involving a Jeep No. RRT 7286 and Truck No. RJW 3329. The deceased Chhagan Lal was engaged at the relevant time as daily collection agent of the Bank and as an agent of L.I.C and was earning about Rs. 2,700/- per month and Babu Lal was engaged as the Development Officer in the Life Insurance Company, was drawing the salary of Rs. 5,600/-.

9. The facts emerged from the evidence of the witnesses, A.W 3 Mana Ram, M.A.W 3, Nijjamudin, Ex. A/6 and A.W 7 Spot Inspection Note and Ex. A/1, A/2 photo graphs, which is not seriously challenged by the appellants and found by the Tribunal are that Chhaganlal and Babulal were travelling in a Jeep. The Truck No. RJW 3329 was standing on Jack-Knife on the road on account of the break-down, covering about 6 feet of the tar road, which has a breadth of 24 feets. The truck was put on a jack removing the back wheels. The truck was standing for 12 hours on that position. There was no tail lights, nor the stones were put around the truck, to indicate that the truck is stationary. The Jeep has not dashed the standing truck from rear, but back side of the Jeep brushed back side of the standing truck while passing. The truck was put only on jack, which slipped, truck tilted and fell on the passing jeep. It has come in evidence that when jeep reached near the place of incidence, driver of the jeep spoted incoming vehicle from opposite direction and to avoid head on collision, he tried to squeeze through the road available and in the process back portion of the jeep hit the back portion of the standing truck. The truck was not put stationer on solid support after removal of back wheels.

10. Counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company and the owner of the truck has contended that the apportionment done by the Tribunal is not correct. At the relevant time, the truck was stationary and the jeep driver has not taken sufficient care to drive his vehicle carefully to avoid any accident, particularly so when admittedly standing truck was visible from a distance to the driver of the jeep.

11. In apportioning the blame, the court should take into consideration the respective blame of the parties as also consentive potency of their acts or omissions. In case where the negligence of both parties contributes to the damage, the court can apportion the fault between the parties contributing the damage.

12. The standard of reasonable man is a relevant factor in case of jeep drivers part as much as truck drivers in assessing contributory negligence. In the words of Denning L.J “A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might be hurt himself and in his reckenings, he must take into account the possibility of other being careless. Jones v. Livax Quarries Ltd. (1), but if the safety precautions are prescribed by statutory regulations, the party can assume that regulations have been complied with as held in Westwood v. The Post Office (2).

13. Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which reads as under:—

“Leaving vehicle in dangerous position - No person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailier to remain at rest on any road in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or be likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the roads.”

Rule 151 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 provided that a vehicle shall carry one rear lamp showing red light visible from 500 feet. These statutory provisions have been made for safety of the traffic and their violation endangers the lives as well as the property.

14. The driver of the truck has placed his truck covering 6 feets width of metal roads obstructing the highway which constitute a danger to other road users. If parking of a vehicle, however, recklessly, so as to cause needless obstructions to other road users, is to hold blameless, merely because the other motorist still have a room to pass, provided they keep a proper look out, the deliberate parking of vehicle anywhere even in the middle of the road should be considered equally excusable regardless of the facts that the other motorist had come to grief by reason of their not being fully alert. In this age of fast motor transport, it is required that every motorist should observe the golden rule of showing due consideration for other road users or suffer the consequences of his failure to do so. It is true that the truck was stationary and was visible to the driver of the jeep as come in his evidence, but when vehicle is parked on the road, it is the duty of the driver to park the vehicle in such a position so that the road will be kept open for the regular traffic. There is no evidence on record as to why the vehicle could not be moved out of the tar road when there is a Kachha road of 5 feet breadth available and why sufficient and adequate precautions have not been taken to keep the vehicle on a solid support when vehicle was standed for 12 hours. As already noticed from the evidence on record, the truck was parked negligently covering 6 feet width of the metal road. The parked truck was on the jack-knife and there was no other support to keep the truck stable. There was no tale lights indicating that the truck is standed. No stones have been put around the truck so as to avoid danger to passing vehicles. The truck driver has not followed the regulations made for parking of the vehicle and thus, has played the major part in contributing the road accident.

15. Considering entire circumstances it cannot be said that the driver of the jeep was not at all negligent. He was not stopped the jeep when he has noticed incoming vehicle and standed truck. The act of the driver of the jeep in not stopping his vehicle when he saw the incoming vehicle from the other direction and standed truck, is certainly a relevant factor to the apportionment of the blame. Although, the jeep driver was within his rights to presume that necessary precautions must have been taken by the driver of the standed vehicle, but not taking the reasonable precautions while driving the vehicle particularly so when he has seen the stationary vehicle, from a distance, he cannot be absolved from his responsibility.

16. Considering all these facts and circumstances of this case, it is just and equitable that liability of the parties should be apportioned in the ratio of 75% by the truck owner, its insured and the driver and 25% by the jeep owner, its insured and driver of the jeep respectively.

17. The next question for consideration is, what is the liability of the New India Assurance Company, where the vehicle in which the passengers re carried for hire or reward is insured in view of the provisions under Statute in Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as it stood at the relevant time, wherein no award more than Rs. 15,000/- for each accident in respect of a passenger could have been made by the Tribunal against Insurance.

18. The Supreme Court in a case reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore (1), has explained as to what is the comprehensive policy and has held as under:—

“Even though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under an “Act” only Policy it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured. In case however, it is got comprehensively insured a higher premium that for an “Act only” policies payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle. Such Insurance entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered upto the estimated value of the vehicle calculated according to the rules and regulations framed in this behalf. Comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this score, however, do not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. For this purpose a specific agreement has to be arrived at between the owner and the insurance company and separate premium has to be paid on the account of liability undertaken by the Insurance company in this behalf.

19. Thus, no award of compensation more than fixed in the statute can be made only on the footing that the policy covering the risk is comprehensive policy.

20. It is true that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 95(b) providing the statutory liability it is open to the insured to take policy covering a higher risk on payment of additional premium or otherwise, it is therefore, necessary to look into the policy produced in the case and find out whether there is specific agreement covering higher risk and liability then the statutory liability. A policy was issued by the New India Assurance Company on 12.10.87 for jeep texi of sitting capacity of 7 passengers i.e 6 passengers and 1 driver, in the left top corner, the words are shown “comp.’ i.e comprehensive. Under Schedule of premium the premium of Rs. 800/- paid for “own damages basis” i.e for covering the risk of the vehicle. Premium of Rs. 120/- is shown to have been paid for liability to public risk and Rs. 72/- for legal liability to passenger, as per Endorsement Indian Motor Tariff, 13. Limit per passenger and maximum rupees as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are left blank. Motor Tariff provides that it is compulsory to cover legal liability to fare payment passengers. The liability for accident to per passenger on total licensed passenger carrying capacity is fixed and limited to Rs. 15,000/- to any one passenger on one accident on premium of Rs. 12/- per passenger Rs. 20,000/- for premium of Rs. 23/-, for 30,000/- premium of Rs. 30/- and for covering unlimited risk, premium rate per passenger is Rs. 50/-. The vehicle in question is jeep licensed to carry six passengers and the premium paid covering the legal liability is Rs. 72/- only that is 12 rupees per passenger. Under the policy only statutory risk is covered by payment of premium of Rs. 12/- for six passengers of Rs. 72/- only.

21. It is apparent from the policy that no extra or additional premium was paid covering the additional limit then the statutory limit. The limit of per passenger and in the bracket “maximum Rs. as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and add for increased limits, is kept blank because no extra premium was paid to or charged by the Insurance Company covering the additional liability than statutory liability fixed under the Act, no particular significance can be attached for keeping columns blanks as suggested by the counsel for owner of the jeep.

22. For the reasons aforesaid, I hold that the New India Assurance Company's liability is only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each for the death of Chhaganlal and Babulal.

23. As regards the compensation awarded to the applicants it has been found by the Tribunal that Chhaganlal at the time of the death was 28 years of age, he was earning Rs. 2700/- per month, monthly dependency was calculated Rs. 1800/- per month, applying the multiplier of 30, the award was made.

24. The tribunal found that at the relevant time Babulal was 45 years' old, he was earning Rs. 5600/- per month, monthly dependency was Rs. 2000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation award was made.

25. It is challenged by the counsel for the appellants on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the basis of aggregating, the entire future earnings for over the period of life expectancy was lost, deducting a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and award resulting sum as compensation is not in accordance with law. The multiplier applied, representating the number of year purchased on which the loss of dependency is capitalized is not correctly taken, and thus, the award of compensation of the claimants is not correct as is not based on correct principle of law.

26. The assessment of the damage to compensate the dependents is not free from difficulties, as much of the calculation is based on hypothesis, because from the nature of the things, many factors are required to be taken into consideration, the life expectancy of the deceased and dependency, enhancement of the earning or loss of income, the amount which would have earned by the deceased during reminder of his life, contribution of the amount by the deceased for the dependents, the chance that the deceased may not live for the entire period of life expectancy or the dependents may not live up to the estimated period of life expectancy. The damages shall be ascertained on the basis of net income of the deceased available to support himself, and his dependents and deducting there from the amount normally expected to spend by the deceased on himself. Then, to capitalize that by multiplying it by proper number of years' purchased. The amount so arrived would normally be sufficient to support the dependents as it would have been during the life-time of the deceased.

27. In a case “General Manager, Kerala State R.T.C v. Susamma Thomas (4), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:—

“It is necessary to reiterate that the multipliar method is logically sound and 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 expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage there from towards uncertainties of future life and award 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 40. 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. These 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 inconsistancy 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 mutiplier 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.”

28. When the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 30 and 15 in case of Chhaganlal and Babulal respectively, it has adopted method of aggregating entire future earning for over the period of life expectency and deducting therefrom the percentage towards the uncertainty of future life, which is strongly dis-approved by the Supreme Court.

29. Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court what multiplier should be applied in the present case for the death of Chhaganlal and Babulal.

30. In General Manager, Kerala State R.T.C v. Susamma Thomas (5), the deceased was aged 39 years and the Supreme Court has adopted the multiplier of 12 years.

31. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swarnlata Das (supra), the deceased was aged 26 years and the Supreme Court has adopted the multiplier of 15.

32. Considering the cases of Supreme Court, the multiplier in case of Chhaganlal would work out to be 15 and not 30 as applied by the Tribunal, an in case of Babulal, who was aged 45 years at the relevant time, the multiplier should be applied as 10 and not 15 adopted by the Tribunal.

33. The Tribunal in case of Chhaganlal has said that at the relevant time his income was Rs. 2700/- and he was spending the amount of Rs. 1800/- towards his dependents. The trial court has not taken into consideration the future expectancy of increase in the earnings of the deceased. The deceased was only 26 years of age at the time of the accident. Taking liberal view of future prospects of the deceased for which there is evidence on record, it would be unreasonable to estimate loss of dependency on the present earning of the deceased, considering these facts I feel that the income of the applicant should be taken to Rs. 4000/- and deducting therefrom about ⅓rd of the amount spend on himself and applying multiplier of 15 years, the calculation should be 2700 × 12 × 15 i.e 5,16,000/- adding the amount of Rs. 14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for loss of consortium, the total amount comes to Rs. 5,30,000/-, 75% of this amount i.e about Rs. 4,00,000/- shall be paid by Jeevan Ram, owner of the truck, Shantilal, driver of the truck and the Oriental Insurance Company. 25% liability i.e Rs. 1,30,000/- is that of the jeep. Out of this amount, the amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid by the New India Assurance Co. and the balance amount Rs. 1,15,000/- shall be paid by the owner of the Jeep Smt. Mangubai and the driver of the vehicle Nizammudin. Claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.

34. Babulal at the time of his death was aged 45 years and was permanent job.

35. Considering his future prospects, the amount of dependency shall be Rs. 3000/- per month and the considering age of deceased, the number of years purchased shall be 10. Thus, the damage worked out are 3000 × 12 × 10 i.e Rs. 3,60,000/- + 20,000/- for loss of consortium and love and affection, total Rs. 3,80,00/-. 75% of this i.e 2,85,000/- shall be paid by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Jeevan Ram, owner of the truck and Shantilal, driver of the truck, jointly and severally. 25% of the amount i.e Rs. 95,000/- shall be the liability of the jeep out of this amount Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid by the New India Assurance Co. and the balance of Rs. 80,000/- by Mangubai, owner of the jeep, and Nizammudin, the driver of the jeep. The claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.

36. Out of the award made considering age of the claimants and their relation with deceased Babulal and Chhaganlal, I apportion the amount of award as follows:—

Award of Rs. 3,80,000/- Tiji Bai (mother) Rs. 30,000/- Kamla (widow) Rs. 1,00,000/- Balkishan) Rs. 50,000/- Raju) Sons Rs. 50,000/- Chetan) Rs. 1,00,000/-

The half of the amount of award of minors should be kept in fixed deposit in Nationalised Bank for 7 years.

Award of Rs. 5,30,000/- Verda Ram (father) Rs. 3,000/- Hemi Bai (Mother) Rs. 75,000/- Lila (Widow) Rs. 2,50,000/- Lata (daughter) Rs. 2,02,000/- Total Rs. 5,30,000/-

Half of the amount of compensation shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank for 7 years.

37. For the reasons aforesaid the appeal filed by the Insurance Companies and owner are partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.