NIRMAL CHANDRA SENGUPTA Vs. BELARANI GUHA NEOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment and order, dated 2nd September, 1975 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Calcutta and 24 -Parganas in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 57 of 1970. The parents of the victim are the Appellants in the instant appeal. After the matter was heard in part and before conclusion of hearing the Appellant No. 1, Nirmal Chandra Sengupta, had died leaving behind the Appellant No. 2. Lilabati Sengupta, the mother of the victim as the sole survivor or legal representative.

(2.) MR . Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has given information about the death of Nirmal Chandra Sengupta and made an oral prayer to record the date of death of the said Appellant No. 1. Since the sole heir arid legal representative of the said Appellant No. 1 is also on record, no formal application for substitution is needed and let the report of the death of Appellant No. 1 be noted. It appears from the impugned judgment and order of the learned Judge of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that Prithwish Chandra Sengupta, a young man aged about 33 years, had died due to an accident which occurred at about 9.15 p.m. at the junction of Creek Row and Acharyya J.C. Bose Road. It transpires from the evidence adduced in the said M.A.C. case that the said victim was a Commercial Manager of B.B.R. World Trade Corporation, Calcutta and he was earning Rs. 1,000/ - per month and the income -tax from his salary was being deducted at source by his employer. The vehicle involved in the said accident was bearing No. WBT 3837 belonging to the Respondent No. 1, Belarani Guha Neogi. Respondent No. 2 is M/s. Indian Mutual General Insurance Society Ltd. since merged with the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and the said insurance company was the insurer of the Respondent No. 1, Belarani Guha Neogi in respect of the said taxi cab. It is the case of the claimant -Petitioner, namely, the Appellant in the instant appeal that due to rash and negligent driving of the said taxi cab, the victim suffered serious injuries as a result of which he died in the hospital on 22nd February, 1970 and because of such accident, the life of the victim was cut short at an early age. He lost all possibility of a bright future and it also appears from the evidence of the employee of the said B.B.R. World Trade Corporation, Calcutta that the victim was due to become a director of the said company. There were eye -witnesses to the said accident and from their evidence it transpires that the taxi cab was running at a high speed near the said junction and also near the footpath of the Lower Circular Road and the victim was knocked down when he wanted to step on the road from footpath. The learned Judge after considering the age of the victim and his income at the relevant time came to the finding that after giving allowance of 1/3 income for maintenance of the victim and 10% for the benefit of the acceleration to the estate, the claimant Petitioners were entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/ -. But the learned Judge was of the view that the accident had occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of the victim and as such by the impugned order the entire claim petition was dismissed on contest. As aforesaid, against the said order of the learned Tribunal, the instant appeal has been preferred by the parents who were the claimants Petitioners.

(3.) MR . Majumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 however, has contended that the accident occurred in a busy thoroughfare and the pedestrian should have been quite alert in getting down on the road from the footpath in such a busy thoroughfare. He has submitted that considering the nature of the accident the learned Judge has come to the finding that such accident had occurred due to the negligence of the victim and there is no reason to take any contrary view in this appeal. We have considered the evidence adduced in this case. It appears to us that the said accident had been caused due to the rashness and negligence of the taxi driver and it cannot be contended that the victim had also contributed to the negligence. Even assuming for the argument's sake that such accident was also due to some contribution of negligence on the part of the victim, there is no reason to disallow the claim altogether when the said accident has been proved to be a fatal one. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we have come to the conclusion that the said accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving, of the taxi cab and the victim had no contributory negligence for the said accident. It, however, appears to us that in computation of the amount to be awarded as compensation for the said accident, the learned Judge has simply multiplied the annual income by 15 and thereafter had disallowed 1/3rd by way of maintenance of the victim and 10% for the benefit of acceleration to the estate. It appears to us that recently, following the decision of the English court made in the case of Mallett v. Mc Monagle, 1969 ACJ 312 (HL, England), a multiplier table has been approved by the Supreme Court and also by the other High Courts. According to such multiplier table which has been calculated after taking into consideration of all imponderable factors, for a victim dying at the age of 33 years, the multiplier to be applied is 14.95. But in the instant case, the claimants were the old parents and as such in our view the said multiplier of 14.95 should not be applied. We therefore, reduce the multiplier to 12 after deducting the annual income of 1/3rd towards maintenance. The net annual income of the victim after such deduction of maintenance works out to Rs. 8,000/ - and if multiplier of 12 is applied, the total amount comes to Rs. 96,000/ -. Since the multiplier takes into consideration of all imponderable factors, no further deduction is required to be made on the said figure.