* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 317/99
Judgment reserved on: 7th January, 2008
% Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009
Shanti Devi ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. O. P. Mainee, Advocate.
versus
Shri Ashok Kumar ..... Respondents
Through: None.
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 dated 20 th February 1998 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,75,206/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.
FAO NO. 317/99 Page 1 of 7
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
On the fateful day of 9th July 1988, the deceased Sh. S.C. Talwar was going on his scooter with his wife Smt. Shanti Devi and son Master Gaurav Talwar aged 6 years. They were going from Azad Market to their residence at Malviya Nagar. At about 2 P.M. at Tughlak Road, a Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HYU 6687 came in a fast speed from the front, in order to overtake rashly; the bus came on the wrong side of the road and rammed the passengers riding the scooter. Sh. Talwar, his wife and his son sustained fatal injuries and they died on the same day in the Hospital where they were taken from the accident site.
3. A claim petition was filed on 22nd October 1988 and an award was made on 20th February 1998. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
4. Sh. O.P. Mannie, counsel for the appellants has assailed the said award on quantum of damages. Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal has erred in making the deduction to the tune of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal FAO NO. 317/99 Page 2 of 7 expenses when the deceased was supporting a large family at the time of accident. His son and wife have died in the same accident but still he is survived by his one son, one daughter and his aged mother. His mother died during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal and therefore, 4 sisters and one brother of the deceased Mr. S.C. Talwar were impleaded as party. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 11 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 15 should have been applied. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased would have earned much more in near future as he was of 44 yrs of age only and was on a technical job and had he survived his full natural life he would have been earning a salary of Rs. 20,000 at present. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding the non-pecuniary compensation towards 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. 317/99 Page 3 of 7
5. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
7. The deceased Sh. Talwar aged 44 years was working as an Assistant Director (Engg.) in All India Radio. The appellants claimants had produced PW2, an Officer of Ministry of Information & Broadcast, who had brought on record the salary certificate of the deceased. According to the record of service brought on the record, the deceased drew Rs. 3,100/- in the month previous to his death, which is supported by Ex. PW2/1. The PW2 also deposed that had Sh. Talwar not died his untimely death, he would have been promoted to the grade of Deputy Director in the pay scale of Rs.3,000 to 4,500. After considering all these factors I am of the view that the tribunal has not erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 4350, which was his last drawn salary. On perusal of the award it comes in to light that the tribunal had considered future prospects of the deceased and had calculated the income after considering the future prospects, at FAO NO. 317/99 Page 4 of 7 Rs. 6525/-pm. In view of the above discussion I do not find any infirmity in the award on this count.
8. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher side as a big family depended on the sole income of the deceased. Two of the members, namely Late. Smt. Shanti Talwar, deceased's wife and late Master Gaurav Talwar also died in the same grotesque accident in which Mr. Talwar died, leaving behind one son, one daughter and an aged mother. In catena of cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances made 1/3 rd deductions. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the award on this ground. The 1/3rd deductions towards personal expenses do not require any interference.
9. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 11 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year 1988 and at that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles act was not brought on the statute books. The said schedule came on the statute book in the year 1994 and prior to 1994 the law of the land was as laid down FAO NO. 317/99 Page 5 of 7 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. The deceased was 44 years of age and the claimants children was 13 years and 9 years. 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 taking a balanced view after considering applicable multiplier under II Schedule to the M.V. Act, the multiplier of 12 should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 12 shall be applicable.
10. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 35,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 5,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-.
FAO NO. 317/99 Page 6 of 7
11. As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of amount towards the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants is concerned, I do not feel inclined to award any amount as compensation towards the same as the same is not a conventional head of damages.
12. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 52,200/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 12 it comes to Rs. 6,26,400/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 6,26,400/-. After considering Rs. 50,000/-, which is awarded towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 6,76,400/-.
13. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 6,77,552/- from Rs. 5,75,206/-. The differential amount shall be paid with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the surviving children of the deceased in the equal ratio by the respondent insurance company.
14. With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.
13.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
FAO NO. 317/99 Page 7 of 7