ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. CHHOTIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN support of this appeal by the insurance company seeking reduction of the amount of award, it was contended that the monthly income of the deceased Deendayal, who was a worker in permanent employ of J. C. Mills, Gwalior, was only Rs. 906. 40 as per income certificate, Exh. P-3, and not Rs. 1. 200/- or Rs. 1,300/- as wrongly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. Even so, the prospects of advancement in future career also needed to be taken into consideration in arriving at the figure of income of the deceased. [see General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC)]. There was evidence that had the deceased been alive, he would have got, like other permanent workers, monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/- on the date of the evidence adduced in the case. No exception can, therefore, be taken that the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 1,200/- or Rs. 1,300/- and deducting nearly 1/3rd as living expenses of the deceased, in estimating the loss of monthly dependency to be Rs. 800/- or Rs. 9,600/- on annual basis.

(2.) IT was further contended in support of the appeal that a lower multiplier of 12 should have been chosen instead of 16, as was done by the Tribunal. On the other hand, in support of the cross-objection filed by the claimants claiming enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs. 3,60,000/-, it was contended by the counsel for the claimants-respondents that the proper multiplier that should have been chosen should have been 24. Certain decisions were cited from both the sides to support their contention with respect to the multiplier. It is not necessary to refer to those decisions. They are decisions being instances of particular awards in individual cases. The latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), is specifically on the point of multiplier, wherein notice has been taken of the practice of the English courts, according to which the multiplier does not ordinarily exceed 16 as the maximum. There is also a Division Bench decision of this High Court in State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Jhabua v. Ashadevi 1988 ACJ 846 (MP), laying down that if the deceased was in his 20s the proper multiplier should be 16 while if the deceased was between 30s and 40s the proper multiplier should be 15. In the present case, the deceased was in his 30s at the time of the fatal accident. We do not think that the multiplier of 16 taken by the Claims Tribunal was either too low or too high to need interference.

(3.) THE above discussion disposes of the appeal. This brings us to cross-objection filed by claimants claiming enhancement, as already indicated, to Rs. 3,60,000/ -. We are not inclined to enhance, for reasons already given, the figure of the multiplier. But apart from the compensation on account of loss of dependency, claimants including the widow of the deceased, were entitled to compensation for loss to the estate as also for loss of consortium confined to the widow. In the case of Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), the Supreme Court awarded sums of Rs. 15,000/each towards loss to the estate and loss of consortium. We find it just and proper to award Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants for loss to the estate of the deceased and Rs. 15,000/- in place of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for loss of consortium in the case of claimant widow of the deceased.