* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 354/99
% Judgment reserved on: 21.2.2008
Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009
Kamlesh Yadav ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Adv.
versus
Sh Rajbir Singh & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award of compensation passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 11th March 1999 for enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded FAO No. 354/99 Page 1 of 9 a total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- with an interest @ 12% PA for the injuries caused to the claimant appellant in the motor accident.
2. The brief conspectus of facts is as under:
3. The deceased Sh. Mohinder Singh Yadav was employed as Inspector with Central Industrial Security Force. On 21 st March 1993 at about 8:15 P.M. the deceased was proceeding from Rohtak Road on his two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DL 4S G 6318, while going to his village Madipur. On reaching near Shri Ram Food & Fertilizers Factory, a bus bearing registration No. DL 1P 3016 came from behind at a high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner. Firstly the first right portion of the bus struck against the scooter from behind due to which Sh. Yadav fell on the road and then the front right wheel of the bus ran over the head of the deceased and he died on the spot.
4. A claim petition was filed on 30th April 1993 and an award was made on 11th March 1999. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
5. The appellants have assailed the said award on quantum of compensation. Sh. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Shri Nitinjya FAO No. 354/99 Page 2 of 9 Chaudhry, Advocate for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month and did not take the aspect of future increase of income into account. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses while the deceased was supporting a large family at the time of accident and is survived by his widow, mother and two minor children. He urged that the said deduction should have been to the tune of 1/4th. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 12 while computing compensation, whereas, according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 16 should have been applied. The learned counsel also raised the contention that the rate of interest allowed by the tribunal is on the lower side and the tribunal should have allowed simple interest @ 15% per annum in place of 12% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal erred in not awarding adequate and just compensation towards non pecuniary damages like loss of love & affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants.
FAO No. 354/99 Page 3 of 9
6. From the side of the insurance company, advocate Shri Pradeep Gaur appeared and refuted the submissions of the counsel for the appellants and contended that the award passed by the MACT is just and fair in its entirety and deserves no interference.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. As regards income of the deceased the appellant wife of the deceased PW2 deposed that the deceased was working as Inspector (Executive) with Central Industrial Security Force at New Delhi and was drawing a salary of Rs. 4500/-pm. Sh. Suresh Chand PW5, S.I. from the office of the deceased proved the copy of the last pay of the deceased exhibited as PW5/1, according to which the salary of the deceased was Rs. 4490/-pm. After considering all these factors, I am of the view that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 4500/-pm.
FAO No. 354/99 Page 4 of 9
9. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there was sufficient material on record to award future prospects. The tribunal rightly considered the future prospects of the deceased but erred in computing the same. The PW5 as well as PW2 both deposed that the deceased was promoted to the rank of Inspector in 1989 and would have soon become an Assistant Commandant. I feel that the tribunal should have doubled the income and then taken the mean of the same. Thus, the award is modified in this regard.
10. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher side as the deceased is survived by his widow, two minor children and an aged mother. I feel that the interest of justice will be best served if the deduction to the extent of 1/4th is made. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the award on this ground and modify the award by deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased.
11. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 12 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year 1993 and by that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was not yet introduced on the statute book. The FAO No. 354/99 Page 5 of 9 said schedule came on the statute book in the year 1994 and prior to 1994 the law of the land was as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1994 SCC (Cri) 335, G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas. In the said judgment it was observed by the Court that maximum multiplier of 16 could be applied by the Courts, which after coming in to force of the II schedule has risen to 18. At the time of the accident the deceased was or 40 years of age and was survived by his widow wife, two minor children and the widow mother. In the facts of the present case I am of the view that after looking at the age of the claimants and the deceased and after taking a balanced view considering the applicable multiplier under the II schedule to the MV Act the multiplier of 16 should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 16 shall be applicable.
12. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of 12% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the same should be enhanced to 15% p.a., I feel that the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is just and fair and requires no interference. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest is awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money, FAO No. 354/99 Page 6 of 9 which ought to have been paid to him. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the rate of interest to be awarded should be just and fair depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and taking in to consideration relevant factors including inflation, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time and other economic factors. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the award regarding award of interest @12% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with.
13. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not granting compensation towards non-pecuniary damages, I feel that the same should have been awarded. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 30,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 5,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-. Further, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium.
14. As far as the contention pertaining to the award of amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the appellants due to the sudden demise of the deceased and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants is concerned, I do FAO No. 354/99 Page 7 of 9 not feel inclined to award any amount as compensation towards the same as the same are not conventional heads of damages.
15. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 6750 after doubling Rs. 4500 to Rs. 9000 and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/4th deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5062.50/- and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 60750 per annum and after applying multiplier of 16 it comes to Rs. 972000/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 972000/-. After considering Rs. 95000/-, which is granted towards non- pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 10,67,000/-.
16. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 10,67,000/- from Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the appellants, in the same proportion as awarded by the tribunal, by the respondent/insurance company. FAO No. 354/99 Page 8 of 9
17. With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.
13th April, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
FAO No. 354/99 Page 9 of 9