IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:17.11. 2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.1049 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (M.V.2) Department, Secretariat,Chennai.9 .. Appellant/1st Respondent Vs. 1. N.Kanniammal 2. N.Boopathy 3. N.Suresh 4.N.Anusuyua .. Respondents/2 to 5 Petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the Judgement and decree dated 28.04.2006 in MCOP No. 5538 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(F.T.C.I), Chennai-1. For Appellant : Mr. V.Srikanth,AGP For respondents : Mr.A.L.Gandhimathi JUDGMENT The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Chief Secretary has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 28.04.2006 in MCOP No. 5538 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(F.T.C.I), Chennai-1. 2. This is a case of fatal accident. On 28.12.2000, the deceased Narasimman, a HeadConstable, said to be 45 years old was proceeding on a T.V.S.50 from Pazavanthangal to Chennai. While ne was nearing G.S.T.Road, a car bearing registration No.TN-04-G-1234 owned by the Government proceeding from Chennai to Meenambakkam driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the two wheeler and in that accident, the said Narasimman suffered serious head injuries. He was taken to the Government General Hospital and was treated there. He took treatment in that hospital for one year 7 months. Inspite of the medical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ treatment given, he died on 14.07.2002. Initially, the said Narasimman has filed a claim petition for the grievous injuries sustained by him and after his death, the legal representatives, namely, his wife aged about 36 years, two sons aged about 15 and 18 respectively and one daguther aged about 17 years were brought on record and the case was adjudicated as one of the fatal accident case. They claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.5,064/-, supported by Ex.P.8. 3. In support of their claim, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the son was examined as P.W.1. An eye witness, Yuvaraj was examined as P.W.2. One Arumugan and one Ravi were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4. The Documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11. On behalf of the respondent/appellant, one witness was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was let in by the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal. 4. Based on the First Information Report, Charge Sheet and the sketch filed against the driver of the car and also based on the oral evidence of the eye witness, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened on 28.12.2000 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant 's car. In the absence of any other material, to controvert such materials, the finding of the negligence on the apart of the driver of the appellant's car and the liability fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimants is confirmed. 5. The only serious contention raised by the appellant's counsel is with regard to the quantum of compensatiion. As regard the compensation, the same was decided by the Tribunal in answer to Point Nos.2 and 3. The medical expenses were supported by Exs.P.9. The salary earned by the deceased was supported by Ex.P.8. The Service Register was marked as Ex.P.4 and the Death Certificate was marked as EX.P.10. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed as compenstion. The Tribunal in this case, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, fixed the contribution to the family at Rs.4,322/- per month and Rs.51,864/- per year. By adopting 16 multiplier, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.8,29,824/- towards loss of pecuniary benefits to the family. In addition, towards loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.5,000/, towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.5,840/- and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses were granted by the Tribunal. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5%. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 8,29, 824/- 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 3 Medical expenses Rs. 5,840/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs. 8,42,664/- 6. The appellant's contention is that the age of the deceased in this case was 44 years and he has 14 years of service and two of his children are majors and not dependants and therefore, the multiplier, in this case should be less than 10 and not 16, as adopted by the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, on the other hand, contended that no amount has been granted to the wife for loss of consortium and meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- was granted for loss of love and affection and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal at 16, exceeds the table to the Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act by one point only and therefore, the award does not require any modification or reduction. 8. As far as the income of the deceased and the contribution to the family is concerned, there is no dispute. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Geneal Manager, Kerala Stae Road Transport Corporation VS Susamma Thomas and others reported in(1994) 1 ACC 346(SC) = AIR 1994 SC 1631 has set out as to how the multiplier should be adopted, which runs as follows: "11. 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 resutling sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific.For instance, if the deceased say, say, 25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the cost 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. These decisions cannot be said to have laid down a settled principle. They are merely instances of particular https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 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 capitalised. Take, for instance, a case where 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 dependents, whichever is higher) goes up." 9. In this case, except the wife and daughter, two sons are majors. The deceased was 44 years of age at the time of his death and he had 14 more years of service. Considering the lumpsum payment that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ will have to be paid to the dependants and also taking into consideration the improbabilty of life and further considering the Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act, the proper multiplier in this case that can be adopted is 14, and not 16 as adopted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Rs.4,322/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.7,26,096/- is awarded towards pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased. The wife of the deceased will be entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Three children will be entitled to Rs.7,500/- each for loss of love and afection on the death of their father. A sum of Rs.5,840/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is confirmed. For funeral expenses and transport expenses as against Rs.2,000/- granted by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted. In all, the claimants will be entitled to the compensation as follows: Sl.No. Head Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 7,26, 096/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs. 10.000/- 3. Loss of love and affection Rs 22,500/- 4. Medical expenses Rs. 5,840/- 5 Funeral expenses and transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 7,69,436/- Since the accident happened in the year 2000 and the award was passed in the year 2006, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% stand confirmed. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowede as follows: i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to 7,69,436/- from Rs.8,42,664/- ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% is confirmed. iii) As per the order of this Court dated 21.04.2007, 50% of the award amount was deposited by the appellants. Now, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the balance amount and the same is allowed. . On such deposit, the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Tribunal. No cost. iv) Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. PAL To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai. 1 cc to Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi,Advocate, SR.64002 1 cc to Government Pleader, High court, Madras, SR.64245 CMA No. 1049 of 2007 JSV(CO) EM/8.12.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/