SANGEETA DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The deceased Ranadhir Das met with an accident on 20.9.1995. At the relevant point of time, the deceased was in the profession of Chartered Accountant. The claim petition was filed in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati by the deceased's wife, son, father and mother. After trial of the proceedings, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased at the time of the accident to be 35 years and his income as Chartered Accountant at Rs. 8,750. After deducting one-third of the amount for the expenses incurred on the deceased himself, the court reached to the figure at Rs. 70,008 as the amount available yearly for spending towards the dependants. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12 and awarded compensation of Rs. 8,40,096 along with an amount of Rs. 15,000 for loss of consortium and an amount of Rs. 5,000 for meeting the expenses for performing the religious rites. The court directed that the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent with effect from 12.3.1996, i.e., the date of filing the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

(2.) Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by appellants (claimants). Learned counsel for the appellants submits before us only the question of application of the multiplier by the Tribunal. As per the learned counsel, considering the age and the profession of the deceased, selection of the multiplier of 12 by the Claims Tribunal cannot be justified.

(3.) We have noticed that the deceased was of the age of 35 years when the accident took place and as a result thereof he had lost his life. At the relevant time, he was engaged in the profession of Chartered Accountant and he is certainly expected to live for at least 65 years with the advancement of present medical facilities. The man of 35 years, who is expected to live up to the age of 65 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 15 and not 12 as has been held by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It is not the case of the respondents herein that the deceased was not keeping good health and, therefore, normal expectancy of life would not have been expected by him. Considering the overall factors, we are of the view that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal should have selected 15 as the appropriate multiplier in the present case.