Aic Srnt M lana Bai. v. The New India Assurance Co., Ltd

has been enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and Others Va JtaLakshml Kumar and others referred to above. In para Nos 16 and 17 of the judgment, it is stated as follows: 10 “16. Where the multiplier applicable higher than the number of years of service which the deceased had before superannuation. contribution to the family (or loss of dependencv cannot obviously be calculated with the reference to the salary income, the entire period of multiplier. Let us illustrate. If a person aged 56 years (whose age of superannuation is 60 years) dies in an accident, leaving him surviving his wife and two children, how should the total loss of dependency be calculated? Let us assume that his salary was Rs6,00000 and after retirement, his pension would be Rs3,00000. Under the Davies method accepted and adopted by the Supreme Court, the applicable multiplier will be ‘9’. But, deceased would have got salary for only 4 years and then he would get only pension. If deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is one third, the contribution to the nt crng ne nenog f e would have been Rs4,000/ (that is Rs600th 2000 But obviously the contribution to tite family \voulci not been RaP 000 / retirement, is from the 5 year onwards. c rnsicn sP •d.e.ducting one ti.ird as persona/i and i.ivi.n.g expenses, the contribution to the. family will only C II. -11- to be Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, the loss of dependency cannot be taken as Rs.4,000/- per month for the entire period of 9 years representing the multiplier. It has to be taken as Rs.4,000/- per month for the first four years (when he would have been in service) and Rs.2,000/- per month for the remaining five years (when he would have received pension). The method adopted in the above illustration will have to be applied in this case.

17. In this case the deceased was aged 53 years at the time of death and she would have attained the age of superannuation in about 7 years. The multiplier period is 9 years. After 7 years, Rs. 16,852.00 per month, but only roughly 50% of it as pension, and consequently the loss of dependency would income would 50% of annum. Thus, Rs. 1,20,000.00 dependency will have to be calculated with reference to the salary income for a period of 7 years and pension income for the remaining period of 2 years, as the multiplier period is ‘9 years’. The Rs.l,20,000/00 x 7 plus Rs.60,000/00 x 2 i.e., Rs.9,60,000.00.” dependency would therefore 3 - D D IC C ) D I I O )0t C ) D I O t 0 0 D C ) , C O t - ) D I 0 0 D C 0 0 0 D C , C t r ) D I D C D C ) C D C ) D I , i C D C D C 0 0 O0 t D C D C D C D C , 1 : - t C D C o 0 0 D C t ) C — D C 0 I t ) i C r o D C D C D C D C 1 D C 0 j D C J C j 0 2 : c D C D C , I I D C 0 0 0 D C D C D C 1 D 0 C 0 ) ! C D C ) C + r - C D D C t r D C 0 0 D C - ‘ 0 D : Dt C P D C D C D C O t D C ) l C D C ) C D C D C D C r D C ) ) l L P f C D C i c D C 0 0 r D C i J ( C - D C r o D C D C 0 D — C O t n r - o 0 0 o — C D * r ) D C O t D C I C 0 c D o 0 0 D C ) i C 0 0 D C - 0 D C r o D C D C - • D C R , + C D C 1 1 , C ) 0 , C l )‘ - C D0‘ C o O ; ) i Court in the case of K,R,Madhusudan and others Vs Administrative Officer and anthers, it would be necessary to advert to t.h.e said decision also in the said case. The said appeal was assailting the order of this Court. This High Court had observed as follows in para 6 of the judgmen “6. The appellants and the respondents both appealed against the award of the Tribunal to the High Court of Karnataka, The appellants appeared for enhancement and the respondents for reduction of the amount awarded, The High Court, impugned judgment, reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants to Rs, I i,82,OOO/. The relevant portion of High Court order reads as follows: “The deceased was working as Senior Assistant in KEB getting a salary of Es, i5,642’. After effecting deductions towards income tax, the net salary of the dece.ased would be Rs14,OOO/. The mother and sons of the dece.ased have filed claim petition. 1/5 is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Rs,I 1,2OO/ would enure to the be.nefit of the dependants. The deceased was aged about 52 yeara. The deceased would have retired by 58 years.. After superannuation, the deceaard would get pensionary incoinc in a sum of Rs.6OOO/... 1/5 to be. deducted towards personal expenses. 14 Rs480O/ would enure to the benefit of dependants. Split multiplier would apply. After superannuation, multiplier Therefore, the total 6 would apply. loss of dependency before superannuation Rs. 806 400 / - (Rs. 11200 (income) X 12 (months) X 6 (multiplier). The total loss of dependency from the pensionarv income would (Rs.4800/ (income) X 12 (months> X 6 (multiplier). The total loss of dependency would be Rs.11,52,000/ The petitioners be Rs.3,45,600/ entitled sum of a Rs.25,000/- towards of expectancy and Rs, 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. petitioners entitled for a in all the sum of RsJ1,82,000/- Rs.14,27,496/- awarded by the Tribunal. The petItioners are entitled for interest at 6% p.a. against and at para 14 has opined as follows: “14. in. view of this evidence the Tribunal •should have considered the prospect of future income while corn... puting compensatioi. but the Tribunal has not done that. In the appeal.. which was filed Ipi t,he ap].Deilants before the High Caurt, the High. Court instead of n.ia.i.ntai..niitg a.mou.nt o.f c.orn.ensation, gra,ntt..d by the Trib 1nai the same. in. doing so. t...he H.igh (inui1 ha.d not reduced given any reason, The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefore. The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence the prospect of future increment of deceased. between 5 When the age of the deceased is and 55 years the multiplier is ii, which is specified in the II Column in the II Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal has committed any accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6”

16. On understanding the observations of the Hon tble Apex Court, it becomes clear that the reason for applying split multiplier by this Court was not forthcoming in the reasons in the judument of this Court. Further, when the deceased was aged about. 53 years ai.d the multiplier of I I was to be applied, the High Court had applied only multiplier of 6 msca of ii. it is under those circumstances, the Hon’bic Apes. Court held that the Hihe Cou.rt had applied. tee concept of split multiplier with.out assigning saw reasons. The Apex Court rightly intervened, in t.he minter and held that the - S 4 4 - 4 — D C — 4 4 - D C ) C - 4 D C ) U D C - - 4 - - 4 - 4 C - - C D C - 5 4 - D C i p D C ) U D C ) U ) C 4 - D C D C $ 0 - 4 - D C - 5 ) U D C C S D C 4 C ) - - D C j z c - 4 l C q J U 4t 1 L f C - 4 3 D C / j — D C 4 r f D C D C Z 0 ) U p D C 4 3 - 4 D C c r c D D C D C D C H D C - + r D C ) U D C - 4 ) C t - U Z D C - 4 D C X j _ D C D C ) D C ) - U - r + 4 - D C 0 D C ) U z D C i - D C 1 - 4 D C ) C - D c C + x r i r 4 C + r Z — Q f ) P i D C i — g - 4 D C 1 ) ) U D C ) Z 0 D d + - D C + r - 4 D C Z ) C D C C D C ) U C 4 - ) U i ) C - 4 — j D C ) U ‘ , D C 4 - 4 D C ‘ - ‘ j - ) U D C - 0 ) C 8 ) U i g + r D C 4 . r t r 4 - 1 D C k x c _ ) g j - 4 - 4 4 - I : i ) C — D C — 4 L D C ) i ( 2 g 3 C + ) C 4 - 4 3 D C 1 • • p ° t P 0 . • 0 m 0’ D C b D C D0 C D C • 4 t 4 °. 4 - 4 . 0 I 0 B ; a 0 o B ; a o D C D C 0 s n s O 0