IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO. No.599/1999
Judgment reserved on: 7.1.2008
Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009
Sh. L.N. Suri & Ors. ..... Appellants.
Through: Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Advocate
versus
Sh. Ramesh Kumar Katyal & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
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 22/9/1999 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,76,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows: FAO No. 599/1999 Page 1 of 9
On 6/8/1995, the deceased Sh. Dinesh Suri, aged 18 ½ years, was driving a two-wheeler scooter and going to Kirti Nagar Railway Reservation Office along with Sh. Pankaj, who was pillion rider on the said scooter. When, the said scooter reached near property no. A-21/15, Loha Mandi, Naraina, the said scooter was hit from behind by a bus bearing registration no. DL 1P 1135. as a result, Sh. Dinesh fell down and was run over by the wheels of the aforesaid bus. Sh. Dinesh died on the spot.
A claim petition was filed on 22/12/1995 and an award was made on 22/9/1999. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
3. Sh. Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellants assailed the said award on five grounds. Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month and would have increased to Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- pm in the future. 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 when the deceased was spending only FAO No. 599/1999 Page 2 of 9 Rs. 200-250pm on himself. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 10 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 40 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 18 ½ yrs of age only and would have lived for another 50 yrs had he not met with the accident. It was also alleged by the counsel that the tribunal did not consider the fact that due to high rates of inflation the deceased would have earned much more in near future and the tribunal also failed in appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are revised twice in an year and hence, the deceased would have earned much more in his life span. The 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 @ 18% per annum in place of only 12% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the FAO No. 599/1999 Page 3 of 9 appellants. The counsel has relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions:
(1) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jai Prakash Tripathi & Anr. - 2004 ACJ 1377 (All) (DB); & (2) Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India,(2003) 3 SCC 148.
4. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
6. The appellants claimants examined Sh. Kaka Singh Ahuja, PW2 and Sh. L.N. Suri, father of the deceased, PW3. The aforesaid witnesses deposed that the deceased was working with M/s. Smiling Roses as an Executive Assistant and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 3,500/-. The witness Sh. Kaka Singh Ahuja, PW2 had also brought on record the appointment letters and salary certificate, Ex PA & Ex PB, respectively. 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. 3,500/-.
7. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there is sufficient material on record to award future prospects. The deceased started working with M/s. Smiling Roses in April 1995. He FAO No. 599/1999 Page 4 of 9 aspired to do his graduation through correspondence as well, as per the deposition of his father, Sh. L.N. Suri, PW3. Although, it has been brought on record that the deceased had appeared for XII standard compartment exams on 5/8/1995, but the employer of the deceased, Sh. Kaka Singh Ahuja, PW2 deposed that the deceased was a good worker and had he been alive, his salary would have been increased to Rs.9,000-10,000 per month in the near future. Therefore, the tribunal committed error in not granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal is on the higher side when the deceased was spending only Rs. 200-250pm on himself. In catena of cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances made 1/3rd deductions. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the award on this ground and modify the award by deducting 1/3rd expenses towards personal expenses.
9. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 10 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year 1995 and at FAO No. 599/1999 Page 5 of 9 that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act had been 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 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 death the deceased was of 18 ½ years of age and the claimant, father of the deceased was of 61 years of age. In the facts of the present case, I am of the view that after looking at the age of the claimants and the deceased the multiplier of 8 should have been applied. But the tribunal has applied multiplier of 10 and in the interest of justice, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the same. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 10 shall be applicable. 10 . 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 18% 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 FAO No. 599/1999 Page 6 of 9 forbearance or detention of money and that interest is awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money, which ought to have been paid to him. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. 11 . On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not granting compensation towards non-pecuniary damages, I am of the view that the same should have been awarded by the tribunal. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 20,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 5,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-.
12 . As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the appellants due to the sudden demise of their only son and the loss FAO No. 599/1999 Page 7 of 9 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 are not conventional heads of damages.
13 . On the basis of the above discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 5,250 after doubling Rs. 3,500 to Rs. 7,000 and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/3 rd deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,500 and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 42,000 per annum and after applying multiplier of 10 it comes to Rs. 4,20,000/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,20,000/-. After considering Rs. 35,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 4,55,000/-. 14 . In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,55,000/- from Rs. 2,76,000/- 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 equal proportion by the respondent insurance company.
FAO No. 599/1999 Page 8 of 9
With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.
13.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
FAO No. 599/1999 Page 9 of 9