JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the insurer appellant. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents who has put in appearance at this stage has also been heard.
2. Perused the record.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal determining an amount of Rs. 4,12,500 as just compensation to which the claimants-respondents were found entitled to on account of the death of Seema Jain, the wife of respondent No. 1 and the mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the insurer, appellant, has now approached this court seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the impugned award.
4. The relevant facts shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass.
5. Seema Jain, aged about 32 years met her untimely death in an accident which took place on 11.11.2000 involving the offending motor vehicle, a truck. She left behind her husband Sanjiv Jain aged about 33 years and a minor daughter Ekta Jain aged about 10 years and Sunni Jain, minor son aged about 4 years.
6. The husband and the minor children of the deceased filed a petition giving rise to the impugned award claiming an award of Rs. 12,00,000 along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount. According to claimants the deceased had a monthly average income of Rs. 3,000 which she earned by tuition. The claim was contested by the insurer appellant on various grounds denying the assertions made by the claimants.
7. The Claims Tribunal after carefully considering the evidence and the material brought on record believed the case of the claimants about the deceased having an income of Rs. 3,000 per month. It was observed by the Tribunal that PW 1, Sanjiv Jain, husband of the deceased in his examination-in-chief had asserted that his wife Seema Jain was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and had obtained M.A. degree and she used to take tuition at her residence and from this tuition, she had an income of Rs. 3,000 per month. The Tribunal has indicated that no evidence had been brought on record by the contesting defendant to controvert the aforesaid facts. The Tribunal drawing support from the observation made by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC), had determined the compensation taking the extent of dependency to be Rs. 3,000 per month and applying the multiplier of 17. The claimant was found entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,000 to meet the expenditure incurred towards the last rites of the deceased and an amount of Rs. 25,000 towards loss to estate, thus, a total amount of Rs. 4,12,500 was found to be just compensation on which amount the claimant was entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Out of the total amount determined to be paid to claimants as compensation, an amount of Rs. 50,000 was set apart for Ekta Jain and another amount of Rs. 50,000 was set apart to the minor son Sunni Jain which was to be kept in a fixed deposit account till the attaining of majority by the minors.
Learned counsel for the insurer, appellant, has strenuously urged that the Tribunal has erred in determining the amount of compensation taking the extent of dependency to be Rs. 3,000 per month and has also urged that the multiplier applied was also unreasonable.
8. We have given our anxious consideration of the aforesaid submissions.
9. In the present case, what is apparent is that the Tribunal had accepted as reliable, the evidence of the husband of the deceased showing that the deceased was having an income of Rs. 3,000 per month which she earned as tuition fee. Apart from that the Tribunal had also taken notice of the implications arising under the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision in the case of Lata Wadhwa, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC), which indicated that considering the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family for estimating the value of the services even on a modest estimation, it should not be less than Rs. 3,000 per month. This, it was indicated was to apply to all those housewives who fall between the age group of 34 and 59 and are active in life.
10. In its aforesaid decision, the Apex Court had observed as follows:
"On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs. 12,000 per annum in cases of some and Rs. 10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration, the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs. 3,000 per month and Rs. 36,000 per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 and 59 and as such who were active in life."
11. From what has been noticed herein-above, it is apparent that while taking the extent of dependency to be an amount of Rs. 3,000 per month, Claims Tribunal has given a margin of 50 per cent of the income of the deceased which had been excluded from consideration.
12. In the aforesaid connection it cannot be overlooked that the husband of the deceased was also an earning member of the family of the deceased. On his own showing he had an income of Rs. 5,000 per month. Where both the husband and wife are earning members of the family, in normal course both must have been contributing towards the household expenditure. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the husband would in any way be dependent on the wife though the wife in the ordinary course of nature would have shared a part of the burden of the household.
13. It must be emphasized that while determining the 'just compensation' it should not be lost sight of that an unfortunate tragedy is not expected to lead to windfall for heirs or legal representatives of the deceased. Where wife is an earning member of her family, getting an income much less as compared to the income of her husband, it is not unreasonable to hold that she in the normal course would have contributed to the household expenditure about 50 per cent of her income and the remaining amount would have been utilized by her for expenditure on herself. The contention of, the learned counsel for the appellants that only 1/3rd of the amount of the income should have been excluded and not one-half, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case is not at all acceptable.
14. So far as the use of multiplier is concerned, it may be noticed that for the purpose of calculating the just compensation, the annual dependency of the dependants has to be determined in terms of the annual loss due to the abrupt termination of life. The suitable multiplier has to be determined by taking into consideration the number of years of the dependency of various dependants as well as the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors such as the early natural death or the deceased becoming incapable of supporting the dependants due to illness or other natural handicap or calamities, the age of the dependants and their developing, their independent sources of income, etc., excluding, however, the amount of insurance policies of the deceased to which the dependants would become entitled on account of its maturity on account of the death. It must further be emphasized, however, that the method of multiplying the amount of annual loss to the dependants with the number of years by which the life has been cut short without anything else cannot be sustained.
15. In our considered opinion it would be safe to proceed to assess the compensation by adopting the method of multiplier making a judicious use of the appropriate number of years' of purchase. The multiplier is to be chosen having regard to the peculiar facts of each case. If it is found that the deceased prematurely died at a very young age and if it is further revealed that the longevity in his/her family was more, then it would be safe to take a higher multiplier with a view to arrive at a figure of total compensation.
16. The choice of multiplier has, however, to be made by the court using its own experience and having due regard to the peculiar facts of each case because the ultimate goal is not to adhere to any rigid formula but to award a compensation which is just. The age of the deceased person cannot be taken to be either a conclusive or a paramount factor in the determination of the compensation, except in those cases where the remaining years of the life expectancy are less than the multiplier which is sought to be applied.
17. As the determination of the question of compensation depends on several imponderables and there is always a likelihood of there being a margin of error, if the assessment made by the Tribunal is not considered to be unreasonable it will not be proper to interfere in the same.
18. Since it is the just compensation which is required to be awarded no method of calculation of compensation would be justified if it does not result in awarding the amount which is not 'just' looking to the peculiar facts of each case.
19. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned award cannot be held to be vitiated in law so as to warrant an interference by this court in the present proceedings.
20. This appeal consequently fails and is dismissed in limine.