- (1.) IN this appeal, the deceased is the victim of a road accident. The claim petition preferred by the claimants was contested by the other side. The impugned award has been passed by the tribunal relying upon the evidence led by the parties. The impugned award has been challenged on the sole ground that the proper multiplier, according to the Second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988'), has not been made applicable for determining just compensation.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) THERE is not much to be dilated upon by the court as the controversy is specific with regard to the application of multiplier. By inserting Act 54 of 1994, section 163-A was incorporated in the Motor Vehicles act introducing Second Schedule and the apex Court has approved the multiplier as a structured formula for determining just compensation vide its judgment delivered in the case of General Manager, Kerala state Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC ). To determine just compensation, the emphasis has been laid by the Apex Court for application of multiplier structured formula. It is noticed in the judgment that the deceased was of 38 years of age. The claim petition was filed by the widow, parents and children of the deceased. The Tribunal determined the compensation as Rs. 58,760 and the high Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,64,000. The Supreme Court disagreed with the reasoning of the High Court and relying upon various judgments such as Pickett v. British Rail Engineering Ltd. , 1980 ACJ 261 (HL, England) and summarised the issue in para 11 of the judgment which reads as under: " (11) It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and awarded the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was, say 25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years-virtually adopting a multiplier of 45-and even if one-third or one-fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible. We are aware that some decisions of the high Courts and of this court as well have arrived at compensation on some such basis. These decisions cannot be said to have laid down a settled principle. They are merely instances of particular awards in individual cases. The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure except in exceptional and extraordinary cases would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Some judgments of the high Courts have justified a departure from multiplier method on the ground that section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939, insofar as it envisages the compensation to be 'just', the statutory determination of a 'just' compensation would unshackle the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a 'just' compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view. We indicate that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extra-ordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. ";