Order
1. Leave granted. India is acclaimed for achieving a flourishing constitutional order, an inventive and activist judiciary, aided by a proficient Bar and supported by the State. However, the courts and tribunals, which the citizens are expected to approach for redressal of their grievance and protection of their fundamental, constitutional and legal rights, are beset with the problems of delays and costs. In a country where 36% of the population lives below the poverty line, these deficiencies in the justice-delivery system prevent a large segment of the population from availing legal remedies. The disadvantaged and the poor are deprived of access to justice because of the costs of litigation, both in terms of actual expenses and lost opportunities, and the laudable goal of securing justice—social, economic and political enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution of India remains an illusion for them.
2. The infrastructure of courts and the processes which govern them are simply inaccessible to the poor. The State, which has been mandated by Article 39-A of the Constitution to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice by providing free legal aid and that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, has not been able to create an effective mechanism for making justice accessible to the poor, downtrodden and disadvantaged. In the last two-and-a-half decades the institution of the Legal Services Authorities has rendered yeoman's service in the field of providing legal aid to the poor but a lot is required to be done for ensuring justice to economically deprived section of the society and those who suffer from other disabilities like illiteracy and ignorance.
3. We have prefaced the disposal of this petition, filed against the order dated 22-3-2007 Special Appeal Civil (SAC) No. 49 of 2005, dated 22-3-2007 (Raj) passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the special appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was dismissed as not maintainable, by making the aforementioned observations because in last almost 20 years the claimants—the aged parents, wife and five children of Nanag Ram, who became a victim of road accident in 1992, must have exhausted all their resources in prosecuting and contesting the litigation till the stage of the High Court and they must not have been left with money sufficient for engaging an advocate in this Court and also because in last almost five years, during which the special leave petition remained pending in this Court, they must have lost all hopes to get justice.
4. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had allowed the appeal filed by the dependants of Nanag Ram under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) by an amount of Rs 4,85,000 and directed the appellant to pay the enhanced compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till 31-12-2000 and at the rate of 9% from 1-1-2001 till the payment thereof, but on account of ex parte interim order passed by this Court on 23-7-2007 SLP (C) No. 11345 of 2007, the claimants could get only a paltry sum of Rs 2 lakhs and they perhaps thought that it will not be worthwhile to spend money for contesting the special leave petition filed by the appellant. This is perhaps the thinking of many thousands of poor litigants, who succeed in the courts below and the High Courts, but cannot afford the cost and expenses of contesting litigation in the highest court of the country and suffer silently in the name of the Almighty God by treating it as their destiny.
5. Nanag Ram died in a road accident which occurred on 9-3-1992 when his motorcycle was struck by a truck owned by Respondent 10, Ram Chandra Paliwal and driven by Raghu Nath, whose name was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 2-4-2009 SLP (C) No. 11345 of 2007. At the time of accident, Nanag Ram's age was about 36 years and he was employed as a machine operator in National Engineering Company Ltd., Jaipur on a salary of Rs 4000 per month.
6. The dependants of Nanag Ram filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act for award of compensation to the tune of Rs 24 lakhs by alleging that their bread-winner had died due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Shri Raghu Nath. While the owner of the truck and its driver did not file a reply to contest the claim petition, the appellant raised all possible objections. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant it was prayed that the claimants be directed to prove whether the driver of the offending vehicle was in the employment of the owner and had a valid and effective driving licence. The appellant also sought a direction to the owner for production of the original insurance policy and, as is usually done in such cases, it claimed that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. An alternative plea taken by the appellant was that if an award is passed, the contributory negligence of both the drivers be determined.
7. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The Tribunal also accepted the claimants' assertion that the deceased was employed as a machine operator in National Engineering Company Ltd., Jaipur. The Tribunal then referred to the evidence produced by the claimants on the issue of monthly income of the deceased and held that it could be taken as Rs 3000 per month. After deducting ⅓rd towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 10, the Tribunal concluded that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs 2,55,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f 5-9-1992.
8. The learned Single Judge of the High Court took cognizance of the fact that the employer was annually paying bonus to the deceased at the rate of 20% of his salary, referred to the judgment of this Court in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 and held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs 6,45,300. The learned Single Judge made additions of small amounts towards pain and sufferings, loss of love and affection, consortium, security and protection and directed the appellant to pay an additional amount of Rs 4,85,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The special appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by relying upon Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
9. On 23-7-2007 SLP (C) No. 11345 of 2007 this Court ordered notice on the special leave petition and indirectly stayed the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. For the sake of reference that order is extracted below:
“Issue notice. Without prejudice to the claims involved, let the petitioner deposit a sum of rupees three lakhs with MACT concerned within four weeks from today. A sum of rupees two lakhs shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant without furnishing security.”
10. As is the fate of a large number of other special leave petitions, this petition was not listed before the Court for next five years for effective hearing and the appellant continued to enjoy the benefit of ex parte interim order. For the first time, the case was listed before the Registrar on 15-10-2008 i.e after almost one year and three months of the issue of notice. The Registrar noted that notice has not been served upon Respondents 1 to 8 and 10 and an application has been filed for deleting Respondent 9 from the array of parties. On 2-4-2009, the application was allowed SLP (C) No. 11345 of 2007 by the Chamber Judge. For next two years and five months, the file of the case did not see the light of the day. On 14-9-2011, the case was listed before the Registrar, who recorded SLP (C) No. 11345 of 2007 the statement of the appellant's counsel that he does not want to bring on record the legal representatives of Respondents 1 and 3.
11. On 12-10-2011, the matter was again listed before the Registrar, who directed SLP (C) No. 11345 of 2007 that the matter be placed before the Chamber Judge. When the matter was listed before the Chamber Judge, he noted SLP (C) No. 11345 of 2007 that the legal representatives of Respondents 1 and 3 are already on record. It should be a matter of concern for those who are associated with this institution as to why an ex parte interim order passed by the Court should continue to operate for years together without the matter being listed for effective hearing. If the claimants had been members of economically affluent sections of the society, they would have engaged an eminent advocate and taken steps for hearing of the matter at an early date but, as noted earlier, they do not have the financial capacity and resources to engage any advocate for contesting the special leave petition.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the record. In our view, the appellant's challenge to the impugned order is meritless and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. We are also convinced that this is a fit case in which the Court should exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution and enhance the compensation determined by the High Court by applying appropriate multiplier.
13. We shall first consider whether the High Court was justified in not applying the rule of ⅓rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased.
14. In Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 the two-Judge Bench made an endeavour to standardise the parameters for determination of the compensation payable by the insurer and/or the owner of the offending vehicle. While dealing with the issue of deduction towards personal expenses, the Court made the following observations:
“25. We have already noticed that the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependants. No evidence need be led to show the actual expenses of the deceased. In fact, any evidence in that behalf will be wholly unverifiable and likely to be unreliable. The claimants will obviously tend to claim that the deceased was very frugal and did not have any expensive habits and was spending virtually the entire income on the family. In some cases, it may be so. No claimant would admit that the deceased was a spendthrift, even if he was one.
26. It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition to produce evidence to show that the deceased was spending a considerable part of the income on himself or that he was contributing only a small part of the income on his family. Therefore, it became necessary to standardise the deductions to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact one-third deduction got statutory recognition under the Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the MV Act’, for short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline.”
15. The Bench then referred to the judgments in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176, U.P SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory (2004) 2 SCC 473 and held: (Sarla Verma case (2009) 6 SCC 121)
“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.”
16. The issue was recently considered in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421 and it was observed:
“19. It is also not possible to approve the view taken by the Tribunal which has been reiterated by the High Court albeit without assigning reasons that the deceased would have spent ⅓rd of his total earning i.e Rs 500 towards personal expenses. It seems that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court were totally oblivious of the hard realities of the life. It will be impossible for a person whose monthly income is Rs 1500 to spend ⅓rd on himself leaving ⅓rd for the family consisting of five persons. Ordinarily, such a person would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself or use that amount as personal expenses and leave the rest for his family.”
17. National Sample Survey Report No. 527 on Household Consumer Expenditure in India, 2006-2007, which has been prepared after conducting thorough research on the subject contains the figures of monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) for various classes. These are extracted below:
Table 5R: Break-up of total monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) by groups of items for households in different MPCE classes
All-India
Rural
Item group
Monthly per capita expenditure (Rs) on item group for households in MPCE class (Rs)
No. of hhs. reporting consumption
0-235
235-270
270-320
320-365
365-410
410-455
455-510
510-580
580-690
690-890
890-1155
1155 and more
All classes
Per 1000 hhs.
Sample hhs.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Cereals
67.12
76.36
88.88
95.46
96.64
102.97
107.42
114.03
120.46
125.43
129.52
144.23
114.80
986
32847
Gram
0.27
1.04
0.68
0.50
0.68
0.85
0.64
0.88
1.03
1.33
1.73
2.91
1.18
199
7489
Cereal substitutes
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.12
0.20
0.21
0.41
0.45
0.83
1.94
0.46
71
2837
Pulses and their products
5.14
8.11
11.62
13.34
14.45
16.95
18.96
20.54
22.68
27.02
31.42
40.18
22.67
973
32383
Milk and milk products
2.86
9.39
8.73
12.07
19.43
27.73
31.27
39.97
52.41
75.89
96.72
151.72
56.23
766
26380
Edible oil
7.85
11.47
15.38
16.82
18.93
21.50
23.16
25.36
27.37
32.01
36.68
44.49
27.22
982
32649
Egg, fish and meat
3.38
6.31
7.44
10.39
13.29
15.00
17.75
19.79
24.31
29.50
38.74
52.13
24.32
616
23272
Vegetables
14.91
20.67
25.39
28.91
30.20
34.50
36.62
40.01
44.79
49.98
56.44
67.88
43.06
986
32826
Fruits: fresh
1.11
1.46
2.01
2.82
3.70
4.18
5.19
6.17
8.99
11.75
16.75
32.28
10.02
773
27530
Fruits: dry
0.04
0.08
0.30
0.81
0.74
1.04
1.14
1.56
1.87
2.69
4.30
8.82
2.45
298
10146
Sugar
3.21
5.06
6.16
7.07
8.10
9.05
10.77
12.04
14.07
17.12
20.61
27.87
14.04
957
31880
Salt
0.69
0.79
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.14
1.14
1.21
1.38
1.51
1.77
1.99
1.34
985
32772
Spices
5.32
7.50
8.30
9.70
10.77
11.63
12.54
13.90
15.28
17.18
20.19
24.27
14.96
985
32761
Beverages, etc.
5.09
7.46
10.29
11.72
14.78
16.27
19.10
22.21
25.79
33.65
46.72
92.60
30.67
982
32800
Total: food
117.01
155.76
186.10
210.63
232.76
262.53
285.92
317.88
360.84
425.50
502.44
693.32
363.42
999
33123
Pan
0.23
0.41
0.96
1.44
1.87
1.65
1.74
1.99
2.92
3.26
4.67
4.43
2.64
305
10407
Tobacco
1.91
3.84
4.80
5.97
5.68
6.05
7.40
8.71
9.02
9.89
11.05
15.17
8.70
618
19528
Intoxicants
1.92
2.28
3.58
3.40
4.91
4.11
4.22
4.53
5.90
6.35
7.77
17.63
6.36
181
6278
Fuel and light
31.32
36.04
35.25
39.35
43.42
47.66
51.54
58.75
65.74
75.82
90.22
123.85
66.07
995
33093
Clothing
15.69
17.42
20.07
23.48
26.64
27.53
32.96
36.54
41.49
49.31
60.54
85.99
42.42
997
33076
Footwear
2.26
2.08
2.14
2.71
3.50
3.62
4.36
5.07
5.98
7.97
10.27
15.73
6.53
972
32368
Education
1.91
2.14
2.98
5.32
6.07
7.19
8.70
11.03
15.74
24.54
33.70
95.17
22.16
615
21722
Medical—Institutional
0.25
0.58
0.80
1.57
4.07
4.14
3.67
4.42
5.40
11.31
24.02
94.38
15.55
127
5076
Medical—Non-institutional
5.26
5.63
9.85
11.75
11.90
17.98
19.29
23.94
28.05
42.80
57.93
125.53
36.74
685
23349
Entertainment
0.64
0.69
0.50
0.81
1.71
1.34
2.40
2.34
3.80
4.68
8.76
18.36
4.74
279
11404
Goods for personal care
0.23
0.34
0.24
0.29
0.92
0.59
1.08
1.41
1.44
1.99
2.52
4.61
1.63
153
5460
Toilet articles
5.42
6.32
7.60
9.41
10.25
11.42
12.79
14.49
16.79
20.18
24.61
43.52
17.87
944
32966
Sundry articles
3.98
5.45
5.95
7.14
8.10
9.31
10.38
12.18
14.26
17.12
22.46
31.90
14.65
993
32916
Cons. services excluding conveyance
4.31
5.46
7.29
8.20
9.96
11.85
14.33
16.21
21.56
30.51
48.92
109.15
29.09
968
31867
Conveyance
2.60
4.07
3.26
4.59
7.16
7.57
10.11
12.04
15.42
26.39
44.51
114.97
25.77
754
27051
Rent
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.34
0.23
0.37
0.77
0.65
0.94
0.48
4.31
19.31
3.00
63
2648
Taxes and cesses
0.05
0.09
0.22
0.47
0.38
0.58
0.84
0.90
1.16
1.85
2.74
6.46
1.65
347
13380
Durable goods total
2.45
6.20
4.59
6.45
6.26
7.44
8.54
11.57
15.76
17.77
40.57
138.13
26.18
844
27399
Total: non-food
80.44
99.05
110.10
132.70
153.03
170.40
195.11
226.78
271.40
354.40
499.56
1064.28
331.75
1000
33145
Total expenditure
197.45
254.81
296.20
343.33
385.79
432.93
481.03
544.66
632.23
779.69
1002.01
1757.60
695.16
1000
33146
Clothing: second hand
0.29
1.12
0.36
0.29
0.39
0.40
0.50
0.26
0.21
0.33
0.27
0.19
0.33
69
2761
Footwear: second hand
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.02
8
409
Second-hand durable goods
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.34
0.94
5.00
0.65
8
305
Estd. no. hhs. (00)
19254
27459
57024
72159
107622
118332
146398
170830
242565
259952
186193
200894
1608681
Estd. no. pers. (00)
93943
159161
336277
402184
628541
646317
769698
88179
1133508
1197816
799958
733037
7783617
No. of sample households
228
299
698
1137
1559
1888
2413
3190
4580
6029
4654
6471
33146
No. of sample persons
1167
1785
4262
6569
9053
10427
13327
16902
23846
29967
21960
25820
165085
Table 5U: Break-up of total monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) by groups of items for households in different MPCE classes
All-India
Urban
Item group
Monthly per capita expenditure (Rs) on item group for households in MPCE class (Rs)
No. of hhs. reporting consumption
0-335
335-395
395-485
485-580
580-675
675-790
790-930
930-1100
1100-1380
1380-1880
1880-2540
2540 and more
All classes
Per 1000 hhs.
Sample hhs.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Cereals
72.87
85.96
90.75
99.71
105.84
107.86
114.19
117.79
124.64
131.56
142.38
151.16
118.80
948
29024
Gram
0.42
0.47
0.56
0.74
0.94
1.02
1.40
1.73
2.02
2.44
2.55
3.00
1.68
271
8232
Cereal substitutes
0.06
0.09
0.20
0.34
0.26
0.44
0.44
0.46
0.52
0.60
0.75
1.02
0.50
88
2256
Pulses and their products
12.12
15.17
17.13
20.62
22.74
25.13
27.37
29.24
32.13
36.60
40.93
47.25
30.06
938
28697
Milk and milk products
11.25
20.39
25.29
33.76
46.68
57.50
69.83
89.31
107.14
138.01
161.88
235.62
97.49
893
27409
Edible oil
14.12
18.39
20.81
23.42
27.76
30.42
33.38
36.21
42.06
46.33
52.12
59.81
37.52
941
28810
Egg, fish and meat
6.93
10.97
15.13
19.44
24.33
25.20
29.93
30.71
37.40
41.02
51.46
67.53
34.20
571
17945
Vegetables
20.84
27.36
30.75
37.88
39.80
43.50
50.49
54.18
62.46
70.31
77.18
98.71
56.87
943
28884
Fruits: fresh
2.63
3.59
4.62
7.01
8.63
10.16
13.03
15.39
21.44
29.66
40.18
71.11
21.97
887
27616
Fruits: dry
0.44
0.87
1.31
1.35
1.73
2.54
2.78
3.62
4.81
7.18
13.28
23.46
6.03
419
13278
Sugar
7.14
8.67
10.65
11.01
13.41
14.71
16.05
17.94
19.17
20.20
22.76
25.53
17.25
933
28576
Salt
0.88
0.96
1.10
1.21
1.37
1.47
1.57
1.68
1.82
1.88
2.03
2.35
1.66
942
28847
Spices
7.70
10.20
12.02
13.98
14.97
16.37
17.37
19.08
20.40
21.50
23.75
28.40
18.82
941
28825
Beverages, etc.
13.00
16.89
18.39
25.11
29.26
35.05
41.58
50.99
66.57
91.22
126.27
271.33
74.42
997
30485
Total: food
170.42
219.98
248.70
295.59
337.73
371.37
419.42
468.31
542.58
638.49
757.51
1086.28
517.25
999
30562
Pan
0.72
1.30
1.88
2.66
2.21
2.62
2.78
3.02
3.82
3.66
4.41
4.09
3.12
199
7097
Tobacco
3.81
4.36
5.90
8.08
6.78
8.22
8.81
9.26
8.85
10.00
9.92
17.03
9.22
356
10914
Intoxicants
1.50
1.69
3.44
4.38
5.06
4.28
5.40
4.49
6.31
7.21
6.73
16.04
6.24
99
3164
Fuel and light
38.42
47.01
56.77
64.68
73.68
85.05
92.24
107.32
123.75
143.54
171.36
255.81
117.44
993
30384
Clothing
19.05
22.96
28.70
31.85
37.90
43.39
49.12
59.90
67.98
85.86
114.21
188.80
70.25
997
30498
Footwear
2.59
3.12
4.21
4.67
5.95
7.22
8.53
10.36
12.49
16.94
23.06
38.19
13.07
985
30137
Education
5.27
6.35
11.39
13.21
21.68
26.58
38.02
48.73
68.44
110.25
182.02
424.68
91.60
721
22518
Medical—Institutional
2.34
1.10
2.43
6.17
3.94
8.64
10.39
12.16
16.90
24.35
40.18
128.41
24.35
140
4199
Medical—Non-institutional
8.69
12.90
18.23
24.15
25.34
34.30
44.93
46.19
55.71
73.29
95.96
167.96
58.23
718
21973
Entertainment
0.77
1.60
2.91
4.97
7.14
9.09
12.55
16.06
22.37
32.77
48.10
87.27
24.05
581
19683
Goods for personal care
0.22
0.37
0.51
0.59
0.67
1.15
1.41
2.36
2.08
3.30
6.58
10.97
2.88
133
5258
Toilet articles
8.77
10.66
12.76
15.53
18.44
21.17
24.14
27.43
32.82
41.09
52.05
72.65
31.82
998
30516
Sundry articles
6.18
8.35
9.75
12.27
14.40
16.87
19.41
21.50
26.65
33.32
43.24
63.92
26.09
992
30388
Cons. services excluding Conveyance
7.04
9.85
13.50
15.78
21.54
29.19
38.73
54.04
75.79
118.46
201.07
447.68
98.57
979
29926
Conveyance
4.61
4.88
7.09
10.77
18.12
23.05
29.58
45.66
67.06
103.32
162.52
369.38
81.63
842
26258
Rent
3.25
5.98
7.08
12.33
14.33
24.18
32.43
46.06
59.31
91.58
125.05
264.55
66.96
365
10449
Taxes and cesses
0.65
1.56
1.96
2.31
3.41
5.00
5.68
7.42
8.76
11.72
18.93
42.49
10.52
521
16087
Durable goods total
2.59
3.85
5.71
7.37
9.53
12.40
15.83
20.77
28.46
51.14
96.82
382.12
59.21
818
24981
Total: non-food
116.48
147.88
194.23
241.77
290.24
362.40
439.97
542.72
687.55
961.82
1402.21
2982.06
795.25
1000
30583
Total expenditure
286.90
367.85
442.94
537.36
627.96
733.77
859.40
1011.04
1230.14
1600.31
2159.72
4068.34
1312.50
1000
30583
Clothing: second hand
0.82
0.53
0.39
0.31
0.32
0.34
0.30
0.22
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.09
0.25
38
1587
Footwear: second hand
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.02
9
276
Second-hand durable goods
0.00
0.08
0.04
0.08
0.20
0.32
0.23
0.21
0.50
1.08
0.87
6.14
0.92
11
304
Imputed rent
50.98
60.83
73.44
91.30
107.16
123.44
143.57
170.39
211.24
284.56
472.82
826.60
245.22
653
20248
Estd. no. hhs. (00)
6764
9524
23316
37046
38559
46300
58647
62420
78203
82775
58892
75987
578434
Estd. no. Pers. (00)
36334
59014
138395
195388
207808
228906
275815
275004
324424
312892
209981
219963
2483925
No. of sample households
265
335
837
1259
1423
1795
2269
2561
3939
5885
4739
5276
30583
No. of sample persons
1539
2101
4983
6902
7623
9220
11009
11810
17022
23096
16372
15151
126828
18. Here, we are dealing with a case in which the deceased had 8 dependants including four sons and one daughter. The question which arises for our consideration is: whether in 1992 a person having an income of less than Rs 3000 and a family of 9 could think of spending ⅓rd of his income on himself. On a conservative estimate, it is possible to say, he would have spent at least 50% of the income on the purchase of foodgrains, milk, etc. and for payment of water, electricity and other bills. 25% of the income would have been spent on the education of children which would have included school/college fee, cost of books, etc., 15% of the income would have been used for meeting other family necessities, like clothes, medical expenses, etc. He would have then been left with 10% of his income, a portion of which could be used to meet unforeseen contingencies and on the occasion of festivals. In this scenario, any deduction towards personal expenses would be unrealistic. In any case, where the family of the deceased comprised of 5 persons or more having an income of Rs 3000 to Rs 5000, it is virtually impossible for him to spend more than 1/10th of the total income upon himself.
19. What we have observed hereinabove may not apply to rich people living in urban areas who can afford to spend a substantial amount of their income in clubs, hotels and on drinks parties. In those cases, there may be a semblance of justification in applying the rule of ⅓rd deduction but it would be wholly unrealistic to universally apply that rule in all cases.
20. On the basis of the above discussion, we hold that the learned Single Judge of the High Court did not commit any error by not following the rule of ⅓rd deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased. We are also of the view that the High Court was justified in determining the amount of compensation by granting 100% increase in the income of the deceased. In the normal course, the deceased would have served for 22 years and during that period his salary would have certainly doubled because the employer was paying 20% of his salary as bonus per year.
21. The issue which remains to be considered is whether the Tribunal and the High Court committed an error by applying the multiplier of 10.
22. In Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 this Court considered the question relating to selection of multiplier, referred to the judgments in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176, U.P SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 and the Second Schedule appended to the Act and held: (Sarla Verma case (2009) 6 SCC 121)
“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column 4 of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176, Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 and Charlie (2005) 10 SCC 720), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
23. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 36 years. Therefore, the Tribunal and the High Court were not right in applying the multiplier of 10. They should have adopted the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.
24. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, with a view to do complete justice to the claimants, we suo motu redetermine the amount of compensation in the following terms by applying the multiplier of 15 and hold that the claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs 10,63,040:
Amount of compensation with 12 month's salary and 15 as multiplier
Rs 5378 × 12 × 15 = Rs 9,68,040 (Rs 2689 per month × 2 = Rs 5378 per month
Compensation to family members for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security, etc.
Rs 70,000
Compensation to the widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pain and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social security, etc.
Rs 25,000
Total compensation (Rs 9,68,040 + Rs 70,000 + Rs 25,000
Rs 10,63,040
The claimants shall also get interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.
25. The appellant is directed to pay the enhanced/additional compensation and interest to the claimants within a period of six weeks by getting a demand draft prepared in the name of Respondent 2, that is, the widow of the deceased. The latter shall invest 50% of the amount in a fixed deposit of three years term in a nationalised bank. Since the appellant had enjoyed the ex parte interim order SLP (C) No. 11345 of 2007 passed by this Court for a period of five years, it is directed to pay costs of Rs 5 lakhs to the claimants.
26. The appellant shall submit compliance report in the Registry of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The Registry shall list the matter before an appropriate Bench for perusal of the report. If the Bench finds that the appellant has failed to comply with the directions contained in this order, it shall initiate proceedings against the officers of the appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and also order recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue.