Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Uttaranchal High Court holding that the respondents were entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,16,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. Before the High Court the claimants had questioned the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital (in short 'MACT'). Factual scenario in a nutshell is as follows: 1]. On 7.6.1999 at about 9.50 p.m. Vijay Singh Dogra (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was coming from Nandpur to Haldwani on his vehicle No. UP 01-3962. He was driving the said vehicle. When the vehicle reached near the Block Office, Haldwani, it dashed with a Truck No. URN 9417 which was parked on the road in violation of the traffic rules. In the accident the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to the Base Hospital, Haldwani from where he was referred to Bareilly for better treatment. But he died on 9.6.1999. He was about 33 years of age at the time of accident. Claimants i.e. respondents 1 to 4 filed claim petition claiming compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). It was indicated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month by driving a taxi and also had agricultural income. On that basis a sum of Rs. 14,88,000/- was claimed as compensation. The opposite party in the claim petition i.e. the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurer') disputed the claim. The MACT on consideration of the evidence brought on record dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased. An appeal was filed before the High Court by the claimants. It was stated that the vehicle was loaded with logs of Eucalyptus trees and these logs were protruding outside the truck. There was no indicator on the truck to indicate that the truck was parked so that any person coming from behind could be cautious. It was, therefore, contended that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. With reference to Section 81 of the Act, it was indicated that the necessary care and caution was not taken. The High Court found that the vehicle was the subject matter of insurance with the insurer. It was not a case where the vehicle was stationary. On the contrary it was parked on a running condition without any indicator. The High Court, therefore, held that the insurer is liable to pay compensation. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, taking into account the fact that there was no definite material to throw light on the actual income of the deceased, it was taken at Rs. 4,000/- per month and multiplier of 17 was applied and accordingly the compensation was fixed. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has erroneously fixed compensation by applying multiplier of 17. It was pointed out that the MACT itself noted that no evidence was led to show as to what was the actual income of the deceased. In any event, the multiplier is high. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the order of the High Court.
(3.) CERTAIN principles were highlighted by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti 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 dependents 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 ascertainment of which to some extent may depend on the regularity of his employment. Then there is an estimate of how much was required or expended for his own personal and living expenses. The balance will give a datum or basic figure which will generally be turned sum (?), however, has to be taxed down by having due regard to uncertainties, for instance, that the widow might have again married and thus ceased to be dependent, and other like matters of speculation and doubt." There were two methods adopted to determine and for calculation of compensation in fatal accident actions, the first the multiplier mentioned in Davies case (supra) and the second in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd.;