ROCHI VIDHANI Vs. HARMINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no dispute in between the parties that the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,200.00 There were two major dependents, namely, the mother/appellant and the wife (who has also filed cross-objection) and the minor daughter of the deceased in the family of the deceased apart from the deceased. Taking into consideration the overall facts, it appears that the learned Tribunal was justified in deducting a sum of Rs. 400.00 per month in all. In case we apply the formula laid down by the Supreme Court in U.P. States Road Transport Corpn. & Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors. 1996 ACC 592 (SC), then Rs. 354.00 were required to be deducted by dividing the income into 7 units. In addition to it, the deceased would be required to spend something more for coming and going to his office. If we take into account this aspect, the deduction of Rs. 400.00 is not illogical.

(2.) So far as the question of enhancement of multiplier is concerned, I find it difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, for if we calculate interest at the rate of 5%, then the multiplier of 20 years was said to be justified in terms of the judgment in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994(2) SCC 176 = I (1994) ACC 346 (SC). In case the interest is higher, then the multiplier comes to 10 years. Seeing the present rate of interest the learned Tribunal might have been justified in placing it at the level of even twelve years. But the learned Tribunal has awarded multiplier of 13 years. It would not be proper to reduce the multiplier, for there is no cross-objection of the Insurance company, respondent No. 5. Moreover, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter 13 years multiplier can be justified also. Thus, the total compensation come to Rs. 1,24,800.00 If this amount of Rs. 1,24,800.00 is deposited in F.D. then it would fetch interest @ of about 12% per annum, meaning thereby that the appellants would be getting nearly Rs. 1.200.00 per month in lieu of their dependency.

(3.) One of the contentions is that 15% should not have been deducted by the learned Tribunal on lump sum payment. "15. In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance 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 dependent, remarriage, accelerated payment and increased earing by wise and prudent investments, etc., would become necessary. It is generally felt that discounting on various imponderable made assessment of compensation rather complicated 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, formula as being simple and more realistic. However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas, case, 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's method without making deduction for imponderable."