Important point
In motor accident claim where injured had suffered 100% the logic applicable to a deceased could in appropriate cases taking note of all relevant factors be reasonably applied.

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Insurer’) calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court holding that the appellant was liable to pay compensation to the respondent No. 1 for the injuries sustained by him in an automobile accident. The accident took place on 14.12.1997 at about 3.10 A.M. It was claimed by the claimant that he sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KL-7Q/9101) driven by the respondent No. 2. The claimant’s stand was that he was travelling as a pillion rider. Total compensation of Rs. 9,00,000 was claimed. After considering the evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor (in short the ‘MACT’) awarded Rs. 4,68,825 with 9% interest from the date of application till payment. The figure was arrived at in the following ­manner:—­

1. Rs. 2,88,000/- for loss of earning;

2. Rs. 2,600/- towards transport to hospital;

3. Rs. 4,000/- for extra nourishment expenses;

4. Rs. 250/- for damage to clothing;

5. Rs. 1,18,975/- for medical expenses;

6. Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering;

7. Rs. 40,000/- towards compensation for continuing or perma­- ­nent disability.

Total Rs. 4,68,825/-

3. In appeal filed by the insurer-appellant the amount granted for permanent disability was deleted.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submit­ted that the age of the injured was about 37 years and a multiplier of 16 was adopted on the ground that there was permanent disability and, therefore, deprivation of contribution is on the higher side. Strong reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs. And Ors. (1994(2) SCC 176); and U.P. State Road Transport Corpo­ration & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. (1996(4) SCC 362) to contend that the multiplier is on the higher side. It is also submitted that whatever be the earning, a portion of it is spent for personal expendi­ture and normally 1/3rd deduction is made therefrom. But in the in­stant case after taking into account the fact that the income of the injured was Rs. 18,000/- per year, the multiplier of 16 has been applied without making any deduction.

5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the injured has ­totally crippled and has been almost rendered ­immobile by the 100% disability. Even at the time of discharge he was not in a conscious condition. Taking into account this factor the quantum as awarded cannot be said to be on the higher side.

6. What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula by ­universal applica­tion. It would depend upon ­circumstances of each case. In the instant case the claimant was nearly 37 years of age and was married. There­fore, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, 1/3rd deduction has to be made for personal ­expenditure.

7. Certain principles were highlighted by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966(3) SCR 649) in the matter of fixing the appropriate multiplier and computation of compen­sation. In a fatal accident action, the accepted measure of damages awarded to the dependants is the pecuniary loss suffered by them as a result of the death. “How much has the widow and family lost by the father’s death?” The answer to this lies in the oft quoted passage from the opinion of Lord Wright in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. which says:

“The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the as