CHANDRAKANTA JAYRAMBHAI AMIN AND ANR. Vs. PRAVIN MANGALDAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the owner and insurer of a truck bearing registration No. GTB -5043. who were held liable for the disengages in sum of Rupees 30,000 under the Fatal Accidents Claims Act by the Tribunal of Baroda, which passed the award of compensation on July 23, 1969 in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, being, respectively widow and daughter of the deceased Mangaldar, Vanmalidas, whose life came to an abrupt end on April 14, 1968 as a result of the head -on collision between the aforesaid truck and the truck bearing registration No. GTG -244, in which, the deceased was travelling, as it belonged to his son -respondent No. 1 herein. The Tribunal found the driver of the truck No. GTB -5043 rash and negligent in driving his vehicle as he tried to overtake near a curve adjoining to Kumetha bus stand, a State Transport bus which was going from Pavagadh to Baroda and while doing so, it collided head -on with the truck No. GTG -244, which was coming from the opposite direction on Baroda -Kalol road running from west to east having asphalt carpet of 24 feet width with metal shoulders of 4 feet width on each side. The Tribunal held the appellant No. 1 vicariously liable for the tortious act of her servant. The Tribunal valued the annual dependency of the widow the respondent No. 2 for Rs. 3,120 and following the method of calculation laid down by this court in Bai Nanda v. Patel Shivabhai Shankerbhai, (1966) 7 Guj LR 662, the Tribunal, having regard to the age of the deceased of 42 years, who was serving as a Deputy Superintendent in the Central Excise Department drawing a salary of Rs. 650 per month in the grade of Rs. 320 -575, was of opinion that, since the deceased would have provided dependency for 12 years upto his age of retirement, the amount of compensation should be assessed at Rs. 37,440, which he reduced by 33 per cent for a number of imponderables and after the adjustment awarded that the amount of Rupees 24,960 would be the fair and just compensation. The Tribunal added Rs. 5,000 as the amount which the deceased would have spent for the maintenance of his dependants for a period of five years after his retirement on the above basis, as he would have been entitled to pension of Rs. 300 per month. The Tribunal also found that as respondent No. 3 was the daughter of 17 years of age, her dependency would complete at the age of 18 years and her unit out of the allowances by the deceased for the family would be 1/5th of the annual income of the deceased, which the deceased would have spent after her. Respondent No. 2 being the widow would be entitled to Rupees 29,960 and the daughter -respondent No. 3 would be entitled to Rs. 1,560. The Tribunal, however, by its operative part of the order held that respondent No. 2 would be entitled to Rs. 28,960 and respondent No. 3 -the daughter would be entitled to Rs. 1,040. It is this order of the Tribunal which is the subject -matter of this appeal before us.

(2.) AT the time of hearing of this appeal, Mr. S. B. Vakil, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailed this order of the Tribunal on two grounds, namely, (1) the Tribunal was in error in holding that the aforesaid Mangaldas Vanmalidas died as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing No. GTB -5043 by respondent No. 4 herein, who was the driver of that truck; and (2) in any case, the amount of Rs. 30,000 awarded by the Tribunal as compensation was unreasonably excessive as the Tribunal did not follow the correct legal principles for assessing the same.

(3.) MR . Vakil, however, strenuously assailed the assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal. It should be noted that the Tribunal has followed the method laid down by this High Court in the case of, ((1966) 7 Guj LR 662) (supra) for purposes of assessment of the compensation under the Fatal Accidents Claims Act. However, this method has not been approved fully by this court in the later decision of the Division Bench consisting of Mr. justice J. B. Mehta and Mr. Justice D. A. Desai in M/s. Hirji Virji Transport v. Basiranbibi, (1971) 12 Guj LR 783. In the later decision the Division Bench has for purposes of assessing compensation on account of annual dependency suggested a simpler method of multiplying the amount of annual dependency with a suitable multiplier and assessing the compensation on that count. It is the simpler method which has been strenuously assailed by Mr. Vakil as not a scientific method for assessing compensation. In his broad submission, this method is a very crude method of assessing compensation, as it ignores the relevant principles and proceeds on the premises which are no principles at all for purposes of assessing compensation for the loss of annual dependency. In submission of Mr. Vakil, the adoption of a common multiplier to be applied to the aggregate value of the annual dependency benefit of all the claimants and also for the purposes of performing the function of taking care of capitalising recurring annual benefits and the deductions required to be made on account of uncertainties and imponderables as well as the deductions on account of likely benefits such as accelerations of interest in the estate of the deceased, cannot be supported. According to Mr. Vakil, all the claimants may not be necessarily claiming dependency benefit as some claimants may claim interest in the estate while others may claim under both the heads. Even among the claimants entitled to claim under both the heads, the proportion in which the claim made may be different under different heads. The multiplier, according to Mr. Vakil, therefore, cannot perform the function of either assessing the value of likely benefits to the claimants from the death or the manner in which such benefit would affect the quantum of compensation. In any case, according to Mr. Vakil, the multiplier to be applied to the annual dependency benefit can never be either equal to or higher than the probable duration of expected dependency benefit or the remaining part of the likely span of the life of deceased.