9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ak directing the appellant herein to pay compensation with interest to the respondent, was dismissed. 3. One Joginder Singh, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, while riding a two wheeler met with an accident on 29.11.2003 as it collided with a truck. The said truck was insured with the appellant by its owner who is respondent No.5 herein. 4. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The deceased was an employee of Maruti Udyog Limited and had been drawing a sum of Rs. 16,110/- per month. The Tribunal determined his income at Rs. 17,244/- per month by its award dated 3.2.2006. His age was determined as 41 years 10 months and 9 days. A multi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs and 9 days. 9. It has not been denied or disputed that the multiplier method can be applied for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation in a motor accident in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. We have, however, do not mean to suggest that the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule should be applied automatically. In Rani Gupta v. United India Insurance Company & Ors. [2009 (5) SCALE 439] this Court observed that in an appropriate case, the matter may require consideration by larger Bench keeping in view paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Note appended to the Second Schedule of the Act in terms whereof the multiplier was to be adopted only in a case of permanent total or partial disability. 10. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the Second Schedule may not be decisive for calculating compensation in cases of death. In fact, the word multiplier has been used only for the purpose of calculating damages in the case of permanent disability and not in the case of death as would appear from note 5 and 6 appended thereto. 20. The Second Schedule provides for payment of the amount of compensation to the persons whose income is from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per annum, depending upon the age of the deceased; as for example if the age of the deceased is 15 years, the amount of compensation payable would be 60,000/-, but where the annual income is Rs. 3,000/-, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been specified therefor even if the age of the deceased is between 35 to 65 years. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 years when an ordinary Indian Citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age. 13. Keeping in view the parameters indicated above it would be appropriate to fix the multiplier at 13 and the rate of interest at 6% p.a. The MACT shall work out the entitlements on the aforesaid basis." 13. Reliance has been placed by Dr. Agarwal on a decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors. [(2002) 6 SCC 281], wherein multiplier of 10 has been used where the deceased used to get salary in US $. Yet again in The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu & Ors. [(2005) 8 SCC 473], this Court held : "14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to last." 14. The amount of compensation which is required to be determined by the Tribunal must be just. In certain situations as for example in the case of the death of only son to a mother, no monetary compensation would be sufficient. Whereas the court, while determining the amount of compensation, should consider the amount of monetary loss which had been and would be suffered by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, the same should not be a windfall. It is for the aforementioned purpose, not only the take home salary is to be taken into consideration but also other allowance and perks which would have benefited the entire family. [See National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava & Ors. [(2008) 2 SCC 763]. 15. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, we do not think that application of multiplier of 16 was on a higher side. 16. Submission of Mr. Agarwal that the Court should have awarded only the sum claimed by the claimant, in our opinion, is not correct. 17. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the claimant had not disclosed as to what amount they had received from the insurance company with whom the scooter driven by the deceased was insured cannot be considered by us for the first time as no such contention has been raised before the courts below. The legal representatives of the deceased examined themselves as witnesses. They should have cross-examined on the said question. The insurance company could have found out from other insurance company also as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
