IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily the multiplier should not exceed 16.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. One Ravi Kumar (deceased) son of Respondent no. 1 was travelling in a bus belonging to the appellant on 25.11.1998. It met with an accident. The deceased sustained injuries. He subsequently succumbed thereto. He was unmarried. He was aged about 18 years. He left behind the respondent No. 1 as his only heir and legal representative. A claim petition was filed in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”). The Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.3,84,000/-, wherefor the multiplier of 16 was applied. The Tribunal estimated the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. One-third was deducted from the said amount towards his personal expenses. An appeal was preferred thereagainst by the appellant. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court while allowing the multiplier of 15 instead of 16 increased the rate of interest from 7% to 10%. Respondent No. 1 was held to be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 3,64,500/- (Rs. 3,60,000 + 2,000 + 2,500).

3. Mr. R.S. Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit :

(i) There was no evidence to show that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m.

(ii) The age of the respondent No. 1 being 45 as on the date of accident, the High Court committed a serious error in applying the multiplier of 15; as the deceased was a bachelor

(iii) The claimant being his mother, the Tribunal as also the High Court should have deducted 50% of the amount from his income.

(iv) The High Court committed a serious error in enhancing the rate of interest from 7% to 10% wherefor no justification has been shown.

4. Ms. Kiran Suri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would urge :

(i) It is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) Keeping in view the fact that the mother has lost her only son, the Tribunal should have awarded compensation towards loss of estate and loss of love and affection.

(iii) As deduction of one-third towards personal expenses is applied in all cases, the impugned judgment should not be interfered with.

(iv) Keeping in view the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 1998, grant of 10% interest was wholly justified.

5. Section 163-A of the Act was inserted by Act No. 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. For invoking the said provision, it is not necessary for a claimant to establish any act of negligence on the part of the driver. It is not necessary even to plead that the death had occurred owing to any wrongful act or neglect or default of owner of the vehicle.

6. Quantum of compensation is to be determined in terms of the Schedule II appended thereto. In terms thereof, apart from the amount of compensation as provided for therein only funeral expenses, loss of consortium (if beneficiary is the spouse), loss of estate, medical expenses, would be payable.

7. As the Schedule II provides for a structured formula, ordinarily, the same has to be adhered to. The structured formula itself stipulates reduction of income of the deceased by one-third in consideration of the expenses which he would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive.

8. Whereas in determining an application for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Act, the Tribunal may be entitled to find out actual loss of damages suffered by the claimants, the formula having not envisaged such a contingency, we are of the opinion that ordinarily one-third should be deducted from the income of the deceased and not the half thereof.

For determining the amount of compensation, the most relevant factor, therefore, is the income of the deceased. He was a tutor. He was admitted in the Army Teachers Training institute. He had the requisite potential of becoming a teacher. His income, thus, having been estimated at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. cannot be said t