IMPORTANT POINT
The multiplier in accordance with 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be 10 and not 13. The amount of compensation will be calculated accordingly and it will bear interest of 9 p.a. instead of 12 p.a. awarded by Tribunal and High Court.

Headnote:(i) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 163A, 166, 165 and Second Schedule-Choice of multiplier-Case law reviewed.
       Held : Second Schedule may provide a guide for application of multiplier but for valid and proper reasons, different multiplier can be applied, indeed not exceeding 18 in any case on the upper side. For some special reasons some deviation from the scheduled multiplier can be made. (Para 18)
       Therefore, where there is so much of disparity in the economic conditions and affluence of the two places viz. the place to which the victim belongs and the place where the compensation is to be paid, a golden balance must be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair mesne. Looking by the Indian standards they may not be much too overcompensated and similarly not very much under compensated as well, in the background of the country where most of the dependent beneficiaries reside. Two of the dependents namely, parents aged 69/73 years live in India, but four of them are in the United States. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee submitted that the amount of multiplicand shall surely be relevant and in case it is a high amount, a lower multiplier can appropriately be applied. We find force in this submission. Considering all the facts and factors as indicated above, to us it appears that application of multiplier of 7 is definitely on the lower side. Some deviation in the figure of multiplier would not mean that there may be a wide difference between the multiplier applied and the scheduled multiplier which in this case is 13. The difference between 7 and 13 is too wide. As observed earlier, looking to the high amount of multiplicand and the ages of the dependents and the fact that parents are residing in India, in our view application of multiplier of 10 would be reasonable and would provide a fair compensation i.e. a purchase factor of 10 years. We accordingly hold that multiplier of 10 as applied by the learned Single Judge should be restored instead of multiplier of 13 as applied by the Division Bench. We find no force in the submission made on behalf of the claimants that in no circumstances the amount of multiplicand would be a relevant consideration for application of appropriate multiplier. We have already given our reasons in the discussion held above. (Para 19)
       Held also : Therefore, for the purposes of fair compensation, a lesser multiplier can be applied to a heavy amount of multiplicand. A deviation would be reasonably permissible in figure of multiplier even according to the observations made in the case of Susamma Thomas where a specific example was given about a person dying at the age of 45 leaving no heirs being a bachelor except his parents. (Para 20)
       Held finally : We therefore, hold that ordinarily while awarding compensation, the provisions contained in the Second Schedule may be taken as a guide including the multiplier, but there may arise some cases, as one in hand, which may fall in the category having special feature or facts calling for deviation from the multiplier usually applicable. (Para 22)
       (ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166-Claim petition under-Assessment of compensation-Deduction on account of social security system prevailing in USA-Tribunal allowed deduction but Single Judge and DB disallowed it-Who is right? (The High Court)-Case law reviewed.
       Held : We are in full agreement with the observations made in the case of Helen Rebello (supra) that principle of balancing between losses and gains, by reason of death, to arrive at amount of compensation is a general rule, but what is more important is that such receipts by the claimants must have some co-relation with the accidental death by reason of which alone the claimants have received the amounts. We do not think it would be necessary for us to go into the question of distinction made between the provisions of the Fatal Accident Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this Judgment, it is clear that amount on account of social security as may have been received must have nexus or relation with the accidental injury or death, so far to be deductible from the amount of compensation. There must be some co-relation between the amount received and the accidental death or it may be in the same sphere, absence the amount received shall not be deducted from the amount of compensation. Thus the amount received on account of insurance policy of the deceased cannot be deducted from the amount of compensation though no doubt the receipt of the insurance amount is accelerated due to pre-mature death of the insured. So far other items in respect of which learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently urged for example some allowance paid to the children, and Mrs. Patricia Mahajan under the social security system no co-relation of those receipts with the accidental death has been shown much less established. Apart from the fact that contribution comes from different sources for constituting the fund out of which, payment on account of social security system is made one of the constituent of fund is tax which is deducted from income for the purpose. We feel that the High Court has rightly disallowed any deduction on account of receipts under the Insurance Policy and other receipts under social security system which the claimant would have also otherwise entitled to receive irrespective of accidental death of Dr. Mahajan. If the proposition "receipts from whatever source" is interpreted so widely that it may cover all the receipts, which may come into the hands of the claimants, in view of the mere death of the victim, it would only defeat the purpose of the Act providing for just compensation on account of accidental death. Such gains may be on account of savings or other investment etc. made by the deceased would not go to the benefit of wrong doer and the claimant should not be left worse of, if he had never taken an Insurance Policy or had not made investments for future returns. We therefore, do not allow any deduction as pressed by the Insurance Company on account of receipts of Insurance Policy and social security benefits received by the claimants. (Paras 37 & 38)
       (iii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166-Claim petition under-Compensation assessed-Question of rate of interest payable on the amount of compensation-Tribunal and High Court awarded @ 12 p.a.-Whether be reduced? (Yes to 9 p.a.)-Case law reviewed.
       Held : In our view the reason indicated in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (supra) is a valid reason and it may be noticed that the rate of interest is already on the decline. We therefore, reduce the rate of interest to 9 in place of 12 as awarded by the High Court. (Para 40)
       (iv) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166-Claim petition under in terms of US dollars-Question of determining exchange rate of the Dollar in Rupees-Tribunal applied exchange rate of 30/- per dollar-Single Judge applying Rs. 47/- per dollar-Prayer was @ 30/- per dollar-Held Rs. 30/- per dollar is proper exchange rate. (Para 41)
       (v) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166-Claim petition u/s 166-Finding that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the troller by Tribunal and High Court-Whether can be disturbed in appeal under Article 136 of Constitution? (No) (Para 42)-Net result-Appeal partly allowed.
       Held : In view of the discussion held above, we partly allow the appeals of the Insurance Company (SLP (C) Nos. 20875 and 21858/2001) and set aside the part of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court by which it applied the multiplier of 13 in accordance with 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. We restore the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent it applied the multiplier of 10. The amount of compensation shall be calculated and be payable accordingly. So far rate of interest on the enhanced amount is concerned, we set aside the order passed by the High Court awarding interest at the rate of 12 per annum and we reduce it to 9 per annum. The appeal of the Insurance Company challenging the award against the finding of negligence (S.L.P. (C) No.20874/2001) on the part of the driver of the Troller is dismissed. So far the appeal of the claimants (SLP (C) No.22304/2001) for applying the conversion rate at Rs. 47 is concerned, it is dismissed and the order passed by the Division Bench for applying conversion rate at Rs.30 is upheld. The appeal for allowing the deduction on account of receipt of the sums received by the claimants on social security system is dismissed and the order passed by the High Court dis-allowing any deduction is upheld. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Tis Hazari, Delhi shall calculate the amount of compensation in accordance with the judgment passed above that is to say it shall take the dependency amount as $226297 and shall apply the multiplier of 10. The conversion rate shall be @ Rs. 30. The amount shall bear interest @ 9 per annum as awarded instead of 12 . Parties to bear their own costs. (Paras 43, 44 & 45)

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-Leave granted.

2. The above noted four appeals arise out of the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tis Hazari, Delhi in Suit No. 325 of 1995. Since in all the appeals the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court has been challenged and the matters relate to the same accident, all these appeals have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this order.

3. The brief facts are that Dr. Suresh K. Mahajan aged 47-48 years a medical graduate went to America and established himself in the medical profession and became an American National. He established his own hospital in Michigan, U.S.A. He was on visit to India and on February 3, 1995 while proceeding to Jaipur from Delhi in a Maruti Car No.DL-4CB-1926 belonging to one of the two brothers travelling with him, a truck No.HR-29D-1125 hit the rear part of the Maruti Car. Dr. Mahajan was sitting on the back seat was injured and succumbed to his injuries. The Dependents of Dr. Suresh K. Mahajan filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation, on account of death of Dr. Mahajan. According to the claimants Dr. Mahajan had specialized in the field of Nephrology and had set up his good practice and a hospital in Michigan USA. According to the claimants, income of the deceased was progressively increasing every year out of his practice and the hospital and in the year 1994 his income was to the tune of 9 lacs US dollars. At the time of his death Dr. Suresh K. Mahajan left behind his wife Patricia Jean Mahajan, two daughters, a son and his parents residing in Delhi. According to the claimants, he was providing good education to his children and had also been sending a sum of Rs. 8,000/- to his parents in Delhi. A compensation for a sum of Rs. 54 crores was claimed.

4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of the evidence and the material on the record and on detailed discussion therefor, recorded the finding that Dr. Mahajan received injuries and died because of the rash and negligent driving of the Troller No.HR 29-D-1125. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the carry home income of the deceased was 3,09204 US Dollars. Out of which, 2/3rd amount was set apart on account of self expenses of the deceased and 1/3rd amount was held to be the amount of dependency which came to 1,03068 US Dollars. A multiplier of 7 was applied to arrive at the figure of compensation, the amount came to 7,21,476 US Dollars, out of which deduction on account of benefits of social security system/LIC was deducted which included an amount of 2,50,000 US Dollars received by the claimants on account of personal life insurance of Dr. Mahajan. The other amounts paid to Mrs. Mahajan and two of her children on account of social security coming to a sum of 51,300 US Dollars were also deducted. The Tribunal deducted a total amount of 3,22,900/- dollars. Applying the exchange rate of Rs.30/- a sum of Rs.1.19 crores was awarded with interest at the rate of 12 from the date of filing of the petition up to the date of payment, the total amount thus come to about Rs.1.62 crores.

5. The claimants approached the High Court in appeal. The learned Single Judge found that carry home income of the deceased was 3,39,445 US Dollars and out of the said amount, 1/3rd of it instead of 2/3rd was liable to be deducted on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the amount of dependency thus, was fixed at 226297 US dollars. The learned Single Judge applied the multiplier of 10 and disallowed any deductions on account of social security system. The same rate of interest was maintained as awarded but the rate of exchange at Rs. 47/- was applied being the current rate as then prevailing. The total amount of compensation thus arrived at, came to Rs. 10.38 crores. The FAO No.273 of 1998 preferred by the claimants was thus allowed in the manner indicated above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 665

IMPORTANT POINTThe multiplier in accordance with 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be 10 and not 13. The amount of compensation will be calculated accordingly and it will bear interest of 9 p.a. instead of 12 p.a. awarded by Tribunal and High Court.

Cases Referred (11)

IMPORTANT POINT
The multiplier in accordance with 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be 10 and not 13. The amount of compensation will be calculated accordingly and it will bear interest of 9 p.a. instead of 12 p.a. awarded by Tribunal and High Court.