ISH KUMAR Vs. BHAGWANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Judgment of Anand, J., in F.A O. No. 103 of 1971. The relevant facts of the case are that one P.C. Sharma had died because of injuries received in an accident which took place on 3.3.1965. A claim was made by the legal representatives for Rs. 40,000.00 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi which gave an award of Rs. 20,500.00 on 148.1971. The said amount was arrived at after deducting Rs. 6,500.00 on account of lump sum compensation, so it appears that the Tribunal would have allowed Rs. 27,000.00 if no lump-sum-payment was involved. Rs. 12,000.00 was disallowed from the claim on account of certain benefits stated to have been received by the legal representatives which were '(1) Rs. 2,400.00 for gratuity, (2) Rs. 3,600.00 for pension, (3) Rs. 3.000.00 for provident fund and (4) Rs. 3,000.00 for insurance. Thus if these amounts have not been disallowed, the Tribunal would have awarded Rs. 39,000.00. On appeal to the learned single Judge all the deductions made by Tribunal were struck down so that Rs. 39,000.00 were allowed on account of the factors considered by the Tribunal. In addition the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no justification to come to the conclusion that the deceased would have lived only to the age of 50 and it was reasonable to expect that the deceased who was quite healthy and aged 37 years, would have lived to the age of 55 and not 50. So an additional amount of Rs. 15.000.00 compensation was allowed making the total of Rs. 54.000.00.

(2.) The calculation made by the Tribunal was that the compensation would be Rs. 3,000.00 per year making a total of Rs. 39,000.00 from which the deductions made earlier were made. The learned Single Judge not only struck out the deductions but also allowed five years additional income as capitalised compensation making the total of Rs. 54,000.00. However, at the very end of the Judgment it was held that as the claim of the legal representatives was Rs. 40.000.00 only hence the final award in their favour would be Rs 40,000.00.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged various points decided against the appellant by the learned Single Judge. It is claimed that a sum of Rs. 6,500.00 was wrongly added back to the award. It is claimed that when a lump sum amount is awarded deduction has to be made. In this case this point does not arise, for the simple reason that even today the legal representatives have not received the compensation. The award had been stayed partly before the Single Judge and it has been also stayed in this Court to the extent of 50% and that stay order had continued for a very long time. The accident took place in 1965 and the legal representatives appear to have received only a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 whereas a sum of Rs. 20.000.00 is still to be paid to them. In such circumstances, it appears that the payment at this stage can hardly be made with this deduction, particularly, as the sum of Rs. 20,000.00 has been utilised all this time by the insurance company (Appellant). So from this point of view alone, we would disallow the contention regarding a deduction for lump sum payment. Concerning the next question it is submitted by learned Counsel that the age 50 years taken by the Tribunal was a proper basis for awarding compensation. There was no justification to take the age as 55 years. As the deceased was a government servant who was perfectly healthy he would normally be expected to live to the age of superannuation. No doubt statistics would show that the age to be taken in any particular case for calculating compensation may vary from case to case, dependant on the facts. In the present case the deceased would normally be expected to live upto the age of 55 and not 50. Keeping in view the nature of the work he was doing and the nature of the health and other circumstances relating to him as shown on the record. This would mean that we would uphold the increase of compensation by 15.000.00 on account of the age factor taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. Learned Counsel wants us to say something about the multiplier to be used for the purpose of computing the compensation. This multiplier was taken as 13 years by the Tribunal and 18 years by the learned Single Judge ; we are of the view that the multiplier which has to be used for calculating the compensation must depend on the expected age to which the deceased might have lived if he had not met with the fatal accident in question. The determination of this age must equally depend on the nature of the work performed by him and the general standard of his health and the health of the community. It must be accepted as a fact that the longevity of life has increased with improved standards of living. We find no exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge. We uphold the decision on this point and take it for granted that this sum of Rs 15,000.00 has been rightly allowed.