Case: Smt Sarla Dixit &amp; Anr Vs. Balwant Yadav &amp; Ors

2. A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted at the outset. Appellant No. 1 is the widow of late Captain Rama Kant Dixit who died on 16th March 1975 in a road accident. Appellant No. 2 was the minor daughter of appellant No. 1 who by now has become major as she was aged 14 years in 1985 when Petition for Special Leave to Appeal was moved in this Court. It is the case of the appellants that late Capt. Rama Kant Dixit was hit by the offending truck owned by respondent No. 1 which was driven at the relevant time by respondent No. 2. The truck was insured against third party risk by respondent No. 3. That on the relevant date of the accident the deceased was aged 27 years and was serving as Captain in Indian Army. He was going on 16th March 1975 at about 11.00 a. m. from Chandra Prasth Colony side towards Mall Road, Morar, within the city of Gwalior. That at that time respondent No. 2 was driving the aforesaid truck and was coming from the side of Gola-Ka-Mandir and was proceeding towards a locality known as J. and K. The said road was a public road admeasuring 25 ft. in width and was running from west to east. The truck was proceeding from west to east going towards eastern side where locality J. and K. was situated. On the said road intersection No. 7. another public road, was proceeding from north to south and it was known as Indraprastha Road. The deceased at the relevant time was driving a scooter carrying a pillion rider, appellants witness No. 7 one Ramji Sharma. It is the case of the appellants that while the scooter had entered the intersection and was proceeding southwards on the said road respondent No. 2 driving the truck from the western side came in high speed and dashed against the scooter resulting in instantaneous death of appellant No. 1 husband Capt. Rama Kant Dixit. On account of the said accident the appellants having lost the sole bread winner filed the aforesaid Claim Petition before the Gwalior Tribunal under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939. In the said Claim Petition originally appellant No. 1s mother-in-law, that is, mother of deceased Rama Kant Dixit was also joined as one of the claimants but pending the proceedings, she expired and the appellants continued the Claim Petition also as her heirs with the result that thereafter remained as claimants only the present two appellants. The claimants put forward total claim of Rs. 6,12,524/- on various heads against the respondents. However, the Tribunal after computing the compensation payable to the appellants sliced it down by 75% on the ground that deceased Rama Kant was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 75% and the truck driver was negligent only to the extent of 25% and awarded in all Rs. 42,569/- to the appellants. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were made liable to make good the said amount. Respondent No. 3. the insurance company was exonerated by the Tribunal as it was found that at the relevant time the offending truck was being driven by respondent No. 2 who was not having any driving licence. The appellants being aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal preferred the aforesaid appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench Gwalior. It may be noted that so far as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned they preferred Cross First Appeal No. 178 of 1977 challenging the award of the Tribunal against them and also to the extent respondent No. 3 was exonerated of its liability to meet the awarded claim. Appellants did not press their challenge to the finding of the Tribunal exonerating respondent No. 3, the insurance company, of its liability to meet the claim of the appellants. So far as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, their challenge to the award of the Tribunal exonerating respondent No. 3, the insurance company, was rejected by the High Court. Consequently, the only contest in appeal before the High Court centered round the question about the computation of proper compensation to be awarded to the appellants which in its turn also included the question whether any amount could be sliced down from the computed compensation on the ground of contributory negligence of deceased Rama Kant.3. The High Court, therefore, addressed itself on these two main issues and came to the conclusion that the appellants were entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 54,000/- and that nothing was required to be sliced down from the said amount as deceased Rama Kant was not guilty of any contributory negligence and the entire negligence rested on the shoulder of respondent No. 2 driver of the truck and consequently respondent No. 2 and the owner of the truck, respondent No. 1 were liable to meet the claim of compensation awarded to the appellants. The High Court ordered that Rupees 54,000/- shall carry simple interest @ 6% from the date of the Claim Petition, that is 10th July 1975 till 13th October, 1975 and then from 19th January 1976 until full realisation. The claimants rest of the claim against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed. Appellants appeal was also dismissed with costs against respondent No. 3, the insurance company. It was also ordered that the appellants shall receive onehalf costs of the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal and one-half costs of the appeal from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 while they had to pay the cost of insurance company, respondent No. 3, in proceeding before the Claims Tribunal. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had to bear their own costs throughout.

Reasoning:
In our view on the peculiar facts of that case the Court had adopted multiplier of 24. In paragraph 10 of the Report no special reasons were assigned for adopting thatWe 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 inconsistency 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, insofar 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 certainly 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% 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 annum and not 10% 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 dependants, whichever is higher) goesfar as the adoption of the proper multiplier is concerned, it was observed that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. While the chance of the multiplier is determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant whichever is higher, the ascertainment of the multiplicand is a more difficult exercise. Indeed, many factors have to be put into the scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future. All contingencies of the future need not necessarily be baneful. Applying these principles to the facts of the case before this Court in the aforesaid case it was observed that the deceased in that case was of 39 years of age. His income was Rs. 1,032/- per month. He was more or less on a stable job and considering the prospects of advancement in future career the proper higher estimate of monthly income of Rs. 2,000/- as gross income to be taken as average gross future income of the deceased and deducting at least 1/3rd therefrom by way of personal living expenses, had he survived the loss of dependency, could be capitalised by adopting the multiplicand of Rupees 1,400/- per month or Rs. 17,000/- per year and that figure could be capitalised by adopting multiplier of 12 which was appropriate to the age of deceased being 39 and to that amount was added the conventional figure of Rupees 15,000/- by way of loss of consortium and loss of estate. Adopting the same scientific yardstick as laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the computation of compensation in the present case can almost be subjected to a well settled mathematical formula. Deceased in the present case, as seen above, was earning gross salary of Rs. 1,543/- per month. Rounding it up to figure of Rs. 1,500/- and keeping in view all the future prospects which the deceased had in stable military service in the light of his brilliant academic record and performance in the military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view the other imponderable like accidental death while discharging military duties and the hazards of military service, it will not be unreasonable to predicate that his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i. e., up to Rs. 3,000/- per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his future military career till the time of superannuation. The average gross future monthly income at the time of death, namely, Rs. 1,500/- per month to the maximum which he would have otherwise got had he not died a premature death, i. e. Rs. 3,000/- per month and dividing that figure by two. Thus the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs. 4,500/- divided by 2, i. e. Rs. 2,200/-. Rs. 2,200/- per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family of the deceased had he survived as a bread winner. From that gross monthly income at least 1/3rd will have to be deducted by way of his personal expenses and other liabilities like payment of Income-tax etc. That would roughly work out of Rs. 730/- per month but even taking a higher figure of Rs. 750/- per month and deducting the same by way of average personal expenses of the deceased from the average gross earning of Rs. 2,200/- per month balance of Rs. 1,450/- which can be rounded up to Rs. 1,500/- per month would have been the average amount available to the family of the deceased, i. e., his dependents, namely appellants herein. It is this figure which would be the datum figure per month which on annual basis would work out to Rs. 18,000/-. Rs. 18,000/- therefore, would be the proper multiplicand which would be available, for capitalisation for computing the future economic loss suffered by the appellants on account of untimely death of the bread winner. As the age of the deceased was 27 years and a few months, at the time of his death the proper multiplier in the light of the aforesaid decision of this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum, (1994 AIR SCW 1356) (supra), would be 15. Rs. 18,000/- multiplied by 15 will work out to Rs. 2,70,000/-. To this figure will have to be added the conventional figure of Rs. 15,000/- by way of loss of estate and consortium etc. That will lead to a total figure of Rs. 2,85,000/-. This is the amount which the appellants would be entitled to get by way of compensation from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 subject to our decision on point No. 2.Point No.the facts of the present case it is well established from the evidence of pillion rider Ramji Sharma, appellants-witness No. 7 that while entering the intersection from the northern side of road No. 7 deceased had already sounded the horn and had also given a hand signal to indicate that he intended to go across road No. 7. There was no occasion for him to halt and give way to the truck coming from the western side and proceeding towards the eastern side of Road No. 7 for the simple reason that Rama Kant had already entered the intersection and had travelled almost half way across the breadth of Road No. 7. In the meantime the offending truck came with great speed from the western side and dashed against the scooter. Regulation (7) could have been pressed in service against deceased Rama Kant if it was shown that while entering the intersection, having seen the on-coming truck from his right hand side he had not taken due precaution. Such a situation, on the facts of the present case, is found to be absent. On the other hand respondent No. 2 driving the offending truck on the main road No. 7 from west to east is shown to have committed breach of Regulation (6) of the very sameNo. 2 was required to slow down while approaching the road intersection or junction and as he had not done so but went on driving with full speed the offending truck which threw off the scooterist who was already in the middle of the intersection, he was guilty of breach of Regulation (6) of Tenth Schedule and had endangered the safety of the persons crossing the said road at the relevant time. Consequently the recklessness and negligence in driving the offending truck at the relevant time wholly rest on the shoulder of respondent No. 2, Point No. 2 is, therefore, answered in the negative. Hence there is no question of slicing down any amount from the compensation held payable to the claimants as per our findings on point No. 1