FAO No.2142 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2142 of 1994 (O&M) Date of Decision 03.11.2009 Rajasthan Roadways through General Manager, Jhoonjhnoo District Jhoonjhnoo through Sh.Prehlad Singh ADM. ...... Appellant VERSUS Rekha and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Munishwar Puri, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondent(s). ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Assailed in this appeal is the order dated 22.11.1993, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak,(herein referred as 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- in favour of the claimants-respondents No.1 to 5 and against the appellant and respondents No.6 and 7 jointly and severally, on account of the death of Raj Kapoor in a motor vehicular accident. The only question argued in this case is regarding the excessive multiplier of 20 applied by the Tribunal in this case where Raj Kapoor died at the age of 23 in the motor vehicle accident. It is further urged that as per settled formula, the outer limit of multiplier has been fixed at 16 but the Tribunal was not corrected while applying the multiplier of 20 and awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-. The counsel has also placed reliance on Supreme Court judgment delivered in case U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others versus Trilok Chandra and others 1996 (2) P.L.R. 537, which is reproduced as under:- “We thought it necessary to reiterate the method of working FAO No.2142 of 1994 2 out 'just' compensation because of late, we have noticed from the awards made by Tribunals and Courts that the principle on which the multiplier method was developed has been lost sight of and once again a hybrid method based on the subjectivity of the Tribunal/.Court has surfaced, introducing uncertainty and lack of reasonable uniformity in the matter of determination of compensation. It must be realized that the Tribunal/Court has to determine a fair amount of compensation awarded to the victim of an accident which must be proportionate to the injury caused. The two English decisions to which we have referred earlier provide the guidelines for assessing the loss occasioned to the victims. Under the formula advocated by Lord Wright in Davies, the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus assessing the loss to the dependents of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier. While proceeding further, the Apex Court in Trilok Chandra's case (supra), further observed that they proposed to emphasize that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchased factor and this is an improvement over the earlier position that ordinary, it should not exceed 16. The Tribunal while opting wrong and imaginary notions are using higher multiplier as in the present case where it used the multiplier of 20, thereby showing lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system in Davies' case. FAO No.2142 of 1994 3 As such, it appears that in Trilok Chandra's case (supra), the Apex Court was of the view that the outer limit to assess the income to fix the higher limit to 18 years purchase factor and setting aside the earlier decision where it was proposed as 16 years purchase factor. Having examined the impugned judgment, the deceased in the present case was 23 years old young man and to survive for nearly about 50 years. He was married and having two children besides his two parents, therefore, while applying the ratio as envisaged in Trilok Chandra's Case (supra), the multiplier of 18 to be applied in this case would be most appropriate. Thus, while assessing the compensation on the aforesaid terms, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.1,44,000/-. On scrutiny of the award, it further transpires that nothing was paid to the widow on account of the consortium. Similarly, no compensation on account of transporting the dead body from the hospital to house and from house to cremation ground and nothing on account of funeral expenses and last rites was awarded. Therefore, I need to add Rs.16,000/- on such heads. Since the Tribunal, has already awarded Rs.1,60,000/-, though without awarding anything on the aforesaid heads, therefore, I am reluctant to disturb the award passed by the Tribunal while adjusting the excess amount towards the aforesaid heads. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 03.11.2009 mamta-II