(Per Mr Justice JN Bhatt) By this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act, for short) the, only, question agitated before us on behalf of the appellant-original opponent No.3, is referable to the quantification of damages made by the Tribunal, while awarding an amount of Rs.6,40,640/- to the respondents Nos.1 to 8, original claimants, by way of compensation, on account of the premature and untimely demise of their breadwinner, Daljibhai, aged about 30, a Police Constable, in a violent and unfortunate road mishap, which occurred in the early morning at 2.30 a.m. on 20th January, 1995, on the main premise that the prospective earning figure adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous.
In support of the sole contention, it has been submitted that the Tribunal is obliged to consider, while making assessment under the head of prospective loss of earning, only the income of the deceased prevalent or available at the time of road accident and only in a case of salaried person, what he would have got maximum in the scale, as being case of employee are to be added and divided by two, and thereafter on ascertaining the datum figure, compensation can be awarded. This submission, ipso facto, runs diametrically opposite to the principles laid down in relation to the law of damages to reimburse and compensate the harm or injury arising out of the use of motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act as non-salaried case future prospects must be considered. The main anxiety of the Tribunal while making assessment of compensation in a case of fatal injury, like the one on hand, is, always, to see that what the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased would have been able to get, had there been no unfortunate road accident. In other words, the annual utility of the deceased to the common family fund has to be ascertained. We may make it clear that what is being compensated is the economic loss suffered by the heirs and legal representatives since the loss of life or loss of limb arising out of road accident is, otherwise, invaluable. It is, in this context, in case of earning member of the family, the Tribunal is required to ascertain the appropriate multiplicand and after the appropriate multiplicand is ascertained, it is required to be multiplied by appropriate multipliers. In order to ascertain the multiplicand, it is necessary to ascertain the prevalent income of the victim at the time of road mishap and also what he would have earned had he completed his full tenure of service, if the person is employed. Precisely, in so far as ascertaining the multiplicand is concerned, the Tribunal has made the correct approach. No doubt, in selecting the multiplier considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has committed an error in selecting lower number of multipliers. However, one thing is certain that the amount which is ascertained as the annual utility of the deceased to the common family fund considering the evidence led by the parties has remained unquestionable.
It is in this context, we would like to refer to the relevant evidence on record. The deceased was working as a police constable, at the relevant time and he was 30 years old. His total earnings, at the relevant time, when the unfortunate road accident occurred was Rs.2140/-. The Tribunal has considered what he would have maximum got in the service career, had he continued and, had his life not been cut short at the cruel hands of Providence in the unfortunate road accident. The Tribunal has, therefore, taken an amount of Rs.9,000/which the deceased would have got, had he continued in the job. No doubt, this amount which is ascertained has many ponderables. However, it cannot be said that the Tribunal is obliged to consider only the income deriving from the next promotional grade or scale. The length of service, which otherwise, deceased would have enjoyed and what he could have earned, at the end of service will have to be considered by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. We may add, here, that in case of salaried person, as per the avowed and pronounced policy of the Government, since deceased was in the Home Department, even pension after retirement would be no less than 50 per cent of the last pay. It is, absolutely, necessary to keep all these facts in mind.
The Tribunal has, therefore, taken into consideration the income which was available at the relevant time, when the accident occurred, at Rs.2140 and what he would have earned, lastly, at Rs.9,000/- and the total comes to Rs.11,140/- which is divided by two and it came to Rs.5570/- and an amount of Rs.1260 is deducted therefrom being personal expenses and the one-third amount. The Tribunal ultimately has taken an amount of Rs.4310/-, which the deceased would have been able to give to the widow and minors and aged parents in course of his life. So, the annual utility of the deceased is multiplied by
12. In other words, an amount of Rs.4310 x 12 x 12 (multiplier) comes to Rs.620640/. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of expectation of life and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the amount worked out by the Tribunal comes to Rs.640640/-. In our opinion, the amount worked out by the Tribunal under the head of personal as well as pecuniary loss, in a case of death, could not be said to be excessive or exorbitant requiring our interference in this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
At this stage, it would be interesting to mention that what was submitted before us was that the deceased would not have been able to reach to the office of DSP. Actually, what is taken into consideration by the Tribunal is only to the extent of normal promotional avenue to the post of Police Inspector. A police constable, obviously, and evidently, would expect to reach, if everything goes normal, to the stage of the post of Police Inspector. The aforesaid figures and calculations worked out by the Tribunal are based on these considerations. In our opinion, the consolidated figure which is worked out by the Tribunal in both the heads representing the amount of compensation is just and reasonable and it cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant requiring our interference. The certificate of income showing what would have been the income, had he become PI has been brought on record. The father of the deceased, Nathabhai, is also examined. Deceased was 30 years, at the time of accident, is also not disputed. It is a celebrated proposition of law, apart from the legislative scheme incorporated in the provisions of section 163-A read with schedule that in in case of death of 30 years old, young, promising person, the multiplier of 12 is far below than the normally adopted multiplier. Be that as it may, the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Daljibhai, who was a police constable, at the relevant time, could not be said to be in any way excessive, warranting our interference in this appeal. Therefore, the only fate this appeal deserves is the dismissal at the admission stage. Accordingly, it is dismissed, at the admission stage.
No order in the Civil Application.
(J.N.Bhatt, J.) (K.M.Mehta, J.) (vjn)