IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1446 of 2001 in FAO No.263 of 1998 Date of decision: 24.2.2009 Aradhna Bedi & others. -----Appellants Vs. Sumer Singh and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ----- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants under Clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment of the learned Single Judge, awarding compensation of Rs.5,12,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim till the payment. 2. Claim petition was filed by the mother, widow, sons and daughter of Sarabjit Singh Bedi, who died on 23.11.1995 in a road LPA No.1446 of 2001 accident. The accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Sumer Singh, driver of Haryana Roadways. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- with interest. The same has been enhanced to Rs.5,12,000/-. The learned Single Judge held that as per last Income Tax Return filed before the death of the deceased, the income declared was Rs.45,540/-. Out of the said income, dependency was taken to be Rs.32,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 16, compensation was worked out. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was the sole proprietor of M/s V.S. Bedi Knitwear and he had prospects of earning more amount in his business. His age was around 30 years. The learned Single Judge was not justified in disregarding income disclosed in the return filed after the death having regard to the fact that the income would have increased compared to the previous years. Multiplier should be 18 or atleast 17, as per the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). He further submitted that compensation for loss of consortium and loss of estate should be not less than 15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- should also be awarded for transportation of dead body from the site of accident and funeral expenses. He relied upon 2 LPA No.1446 of 2001 judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Kaushnuma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Co.Limited and others, AIR 2001 SC 485, M.S.Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, AIR 2001 SC 3660 and United India Insurance Co.Limited v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, AIR 2002 SC 2607, in support of the submission that Second schedule to the Act, though referable to Section 163-A of the Act, could be taken into account even for applications under section 166 of the Act and multiplier should have, therefore, been 18 or atleast 17. 6. Learned counsel for the State supported the finding of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the said finding was not perverse and was thus, not liable to be interfered with in Letters Patent appeal. Learned Single Judge rightly disregarded the income disclosed after the death. He also submitted that even if Second Schedule was taken into account, the multiplier should not exceed 16 except when the deceased was in the age group of 21-25 years. He relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UP State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala and others, (2006) 6 SCC 249. 7. We are of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on the assessment of the income and dependency does not call for any interference. Similarly, finding on 3 LPA No.1446 of 2001 the question of applicability of multiplier also calls for no interference. Even if the Schedule is taken into account, the highest multiplier has to be 18, which is applicable to the age group of 21- 25 years. 8. The issue of right multiplier to be applied has been gone into by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas, AIR 1994 SC 1631, UP State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, (1996) 4 SCC 362, Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jashuben and others, (2008) 4 SCC 162 and Krishna Bala (supra). In Triolk Chandra (supra), it was observed:- “16. In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance, 1951 AC 601, also, first the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplied by the estimated useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as, premature death of the deceased or the dependant, remarriage, accelerated payment and increased earning by wise and prudent investments, etc., would become necessary. It was generally felt that discounting on various imponderables made assessment of compensation rather complicated 4 LPA No.1446 of 2001 and cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready measure, one-third to one-half of the dependency was reduced, depending on the life span taken. That is the reason why courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies, 1942 AC 601, formula as being simple and more realistic. However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas case, 1994 (2) SCC 176, usually English courts rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently when tribunals/courts began to use a hybrid method of using Nance, 1951 AC 601, method without making deduction for imponderables. 17. The situation has now undergone a change with the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by Amendment Act 54 of 1994. The most important change introduced by the amendment insofar as it relates to determination of compensation is the insertion of Sections 163-A and 163-B in Chapter XI entitled “Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks”. Section 165-A begins with a non obstante clause and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of the deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we find a table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party accident injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. The first column gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate 5 LPA No.1446 of 2001 the quantum of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim. According to this table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule the maximum multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas case, (1994) 2 SCC 176. 9. In view of above, the maximum multiplier has normally to be 16. In S.Kaushnuma Begum (supra), the only question is that second Schedule can be seen for arriving at just compensation even where Section 163-A is not applicable. Same is the position in M.S.Grewal (supra), except that, therein after referring to earlier judgment in Trilok Chandra (supra), it was mentioned that applying multiplier exceeding 18 was not called for. In Krishna Bala (supra), the principle laid down in Susamma Thomas and Trilok Chandra (supra) was reiterated. 10. Now coming to the question of claim for loss of consortium and loss of estate and funeral expenses, learned counsel for the State is unable to show any reason why claim under the said heads should not be accepted. We are of the view that in the interest of justice, the appellants will be entitled to compensation of Rs.15000/- for loss of consortium and loss of estate and sum of 6 LPA No.1446 of 2001 Rs.10,000/- towards cost of transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the appellants will be entitled to further compensation of Rs.25,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the learned Single Judge. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. 11. The appeal is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 24, 2009 (Jitendra Chaudhan) ashwani/gs Judge 7