Judgment:
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. The claimant-respondent herein applied under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act'), seeking compensation for the death of her son, which, according to the claimant, occurred on 7th November, 2003 at about 11.50 a.m., when claimant's son, namely, Nipendra Singh, aged about 21 years, was proceeding towards Bawngkawn and ran over by the wheels of the public bus bearing registration No. MZ-01/C-1401 at Red Rose, Bawngkawn.
2. As the owner of the said bus did not contest the claim proceeding, the present appellant, as insurer of the said bus, was allowed to contest the claim in terms of Section 170 of the M.V. Act and the insurer accordingly took ail such defences, which were available to the owner of the said bus.
3. By its award, dated 3rd March, 2005, passed in M.A.C. Case No. 123 of 2003, (learned Member, M.A.C.T., Aizawl, granted, in all, Rs. 4,45,000 as compensation in favour of the claimant and directed payment thereof to be made by the present appellant, as insurer, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of presentation of the claim application until realisation of the entire amount. It is this award, which stands impugned in the present appeal by the insurer.
4. We have heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant, and Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent.
5. On perusal of the materials on record including the impugned award and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, what attracts our eyes, most prominently, is that in the present case, while the said deceased was aged about 21 years, his mother, who is the claimant, was aged about 50 years at the time of the death of her said son. The learned Tribunal had, while working out the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant, used 17 as the multiplier and, in the said process, overlooked the fact that when compensation is sought by the parent, it is the age of the parent, which is the relevant factor for the purpose of determining the use of multiplier, for, it is well-settled that between the life expectancy of the deceased or the beneficiary, whichever is shorter, shall be treated as the relevant factor. In a case in which the father and mother both make the claim, it is the age of that parent, who is the younger of the two, has to be taken into account for the purpose of choosing the multiplier, the reason being that the compensation has to be awarded to the claimant depending upon his or her own life expectancy. Reference may be made, in this regard, to the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain and Anr. v. Irfan Ahmmed and Anr. reported in : [2002]SUPP1SCR78 , wherein, the Apex Court has observed. 'It is well-settled that life expectancy of the deceased or the beneficiaries, whichever is shorter, is an important factor. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaranlata Das II (1993) ACC 372 (SC), it was observed that:
The appropriate method of assessment of compensation is the method of capitalisation of net income choosing a multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased or the age of the dependents whichever multiplier is lower.
6. What logically follows from the above discussion is that between the claimant, as beneficiary, and his said son, as the deceased, the life expectancy of the claimant being shorter, it is the claimant's age, which ought to have been made the basis for choosing the multiplier.
7. Turning to the case at hand, what we notice is that since the age of the claimant as mother of the said deceased, was 50 years at the time of her said son's death, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied 13 as the multiplier by taking into account the age of the mother. The use of the multiplier, therefore, needs to be corrected in the present case. This apart, the learned Tribunal has awarded funeral expenses to the tune of Rs. 12,000; whereas the outer limit for funeral expenses to be awarded, under Section 163A, is Rs. 2,000. The learned Tribunal has, however, not awarded any compensation for the loss of estate of the said deceased; whereas, while acting under Section 163A the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500 as loss of the estate.
8. Coupled with the above, the conventional amount for general damages has been awarded by the learned Tribunal; whereas the question of general damages will arise only when the person, who sustains injuries, suffers as a result of the injuries and, then, either succumbs to the injuries or survives. The present one is a case, where the injured died on the spot; hence, the question of taking resort to general damages, in the present case, could not have arisen.
9. In view of the fact that the loss of income in respect of the claimant has been determined by the learned Tribunal at Rs. 2,000 per month, it logically follows that the annual loss of dependency of the claimant was to the tune of Rs. 24,000. If 13 is used as multiplier, the compensation for loss, so suffered, comes to a sum of Rs. 3,12,000. To this amount needs to be added a sum of Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 2,500 as loss of estate. The total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs. 3,16,500.
10. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, the present appellant, as insurer, is hereby directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 3,16,500 as total compensation to the claimant with interest @ Rs. 9% p.a. from the date of presentation of the claim application until payment of the entire awarded amount. For the part of the amount, which the insurer-appellant has already deposited and/or paid to the claimant, the insurer-appellant shall be at liberty to deduct the said amount for the purpose of determining the interest Whatever amount has been deposited by the insurer-appellant shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimant. As regards the disbursement of the remaining part of the compensation amount, which is yet to be deposited by the insurer in terms of the directions given hereinabove, the learned Tribunal shall have the liberty to pass appropriate order(s).
11. With the above observations and directions, this appeal shall stand disposed of.
12. No order as to costs.