JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava and M.P. Singh, JJ.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The appellant feels aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 1,89,500 as just compensation to which the claimants were found entitled to on account of the untimely death of Sadat All in the accident involving the offending motor vehicle which was insured with the present appellant.
3. The Tribunal has found that the deceased was a young man, aged about 25 years and his income at the time of accident was Rs. 15,000 per annum which was notional income contemplated under the schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings returned against it by the Tribunal but could not demonstrate that these findings can be taken to be suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify interference by this Court.
5. The aforesaid findings are amply supported and warranted by the evidence and materials brought on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the multiplier of 18 adopted by the Tribunal for computing the amount of compensation is highly excessive. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been taken.
6. 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 dependents 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 dependents and their developing, their independent sources of income, etc. excluding, however, the amount of insurance policies of the deceased to which the dependants may 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.
7. 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 the 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that in the present case, the Tribunal has not accepted the plea raised by the Insurer-appellant about breach of the terms and conditions only on the ground that the owner of other offending motor vehicle had not denied the fact that the offending motor vehicle was being driven by the person having valid licence. It is not disputed that the owner of the motor vehicle in his written statement had made such assertions but the contention is that the aforesaid assertion was incorrect and could not be held to be binding on the Insurer. It is urged that this controversy between the insurer and the owner of the offending motor vehicle should have been left open.
11. The status of the insurer in law so far as the statutory liability sought to be fastened upon him under the Act cannot be more than that of a guarantor and he acts as a security for the third party with respect to its realizing damages for the injuries suffered or death, as the case may be, but a right to get any amount paid in excess is refunded to it by the insured, stands secured. The ultimate burden always remains cast or fastened on the insured/owner of the motor vehicle.
12. In any view of the matter, since the insurer was bound under law to discharge the statutory liability cast upon it under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the mere fact that there was an alleged breach of the terms and conditions subject to which the policy had been issued, cannot exonerate the insurer from its liability as against the third party or the victim.
13. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case in their totality and the ratio of the decision of this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 2184 of 2002, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Naina Devi and Ors., decided on 12.11.2002, this appeal is dismissed as against the claimants leaving it open to the insurer-appellant to agitate its grievance in regard to the breach of the terms and conditions in the proceedings under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act where this aspect can be determined after affording an opportunity to the owner of the vehicle of being heard.
14. As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited in this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act be remitted to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal so that it may be adjusted against the amount liable to be paid to the claimants.