CHHANO DEVI Vs. HET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 299 and 300 of 1979 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 251 of 1979. The first two appeals, which are in fact a duplication, have been filed on behalf of the claimants, Chhano Devi and others, the legal representatives of the deceased, Constable Kanwar Singh, who died in an accident caused by truck No. HRK-6955 on Hissar-Tohana road at 4 p. m. on May 15, 1975. The judgment of the learned single judge dated September 10, 1979, in F. A. O. No. 30 of 1977 is impugned in these appeals, in which the prayer is for enhancement of compensation allowed in the case. The third appeal is by Het Ram and Nathu Ram, driver and owner, respectively, of the truck in question in which the judgment of the learned single judge is impugned with a prayer that the compensation awarded in the case should be ordered to be paid by the insurance company, respondent in the appeal, which had been absolved of its responsibility.

(2.) THE matter having already received attention in two forums, i. e. , Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), and the learned single judge, only a brief reference to the facts would suffice. As already noticed, Constable Kanwar Singh died as a result of the accident with the truck No. HRK-6955 of which Het Ram was admittedly the driver while Nathu Ram was the owner of the vehicle. After striking the necessary issues and recording the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000 in favour of the claimants and against Het Ram and Nathu Ram. The learned single judge dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants but the appeal filed by the driver and the owner of the truck (F. A. O. No. 30 of 1977) was partly allowed in that the compensation amount of Rs. 18,000 allowed by the Tribunal was reduced to Rs. 13,500 by holding that a multiplier of ten would be a proper multiplier to determine the compensation and on that basis the compensation payable was worked out at Rs. 24,000. From this amount, the learned single judge made a deduction of Rs. 10,875 on account of the total pension which the family of the deceased was expected to receive for ten years. Thus, the net compensation payable to the claimants was held to be Rs. 13,500.

(3.) IN the two appeals filed on behalf of the claimants, their learned counsel, Mr. B. S. Shant, has made three submissions all of which require a favourable consideration. It is submitted in the first instance that the learned single judge had erred in applying a multiplier of ten, whereas the normal multiplier has been held by this court to be sixteen. The counsel has referred to Asha Rani v. Union of India, AIR 1982 P and H 435; [1984] 56 Comp Cas 268 (P and H), wherein the matter received the attention of a Division Bench to which both myself and the learned Chief Justice were parties. The relevant observations made in the said case may be extracted (p. 275 of 56 Comp Cas): "to conclude it is held that the age of the deceased person is neither a conclusive nor a paramount factor in the determination of the compensation except in those cases where the remaining years of life expectancy are less than the multiplier which is sought to be applied. . . . . . . . . No other imponderable or special factor which could warrant the reduction of the normal multiplier in the present case exists. The only thing that seemed to have weighed with the learned single judge was the age factor which, as opined above, was not relevant in the context of the remaining life expectancy of as much as 25 years. Therefore, it appears to us that there is no warrant for applying a multiplier of less than the normal one of 16. It deserves to be recalled that the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh's case, AIR 1979 P and H 50 [fb], itself had determined the suitable multiplier at 16. It bears repetition that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have applied a multiplier as high as 20 though this must be considered as virtually the outer limit. Consequently, we see no reason why in this case the norm of 16 should at all be deviated from. "