IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No. 343/2002
Judgment reserved on :14.3.2008
Judgment delivered on:27.4.2009
Padma Thapa ..... Appellants.
Through: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Adv.
versus
Rakesh Kumar & 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 NO
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
FAO NO. 343/2002 Page 1 of 8
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 23/2/2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,46,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants.
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. On 27.10.99 at about 7.10 a.m. in the morning Krishan Bahadur Thapa on his two wheeler scooter was going to his place of work when on the crossing of Moti Nagar, Matador bearing registration No. DL-2CR-2502 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Rakesh Kumar hit against his scooter, resulting into the death of the deceased.
4. A claim petition was filed on 14/1/2000 and an award was passed on 23/2/2002. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
5. Sh. O.P. Goyal counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the FAO NO. 343/2002 Page 2 of 8 income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune of 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses when the deceased was supporting his wife and aged parents. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 14 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 17 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 33 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 30-35 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 FAO NO. 343/2002 Page 3 of 8 interest @ 12% per annum in place of only 9% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding 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.
6. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
8. As regards the income of the deceased, the widow of the deceased deposed that he was earning Rs. 3,000/- pm as salary. PW2 Jr. Distt. Staff Officer, Home Guard who had brought the salary record of the deceased deposed that at the time of the death, the deceased was earning Rs. 3041/- pm. The appellants claimants had brought on record Pw2/A & B to prove the income of the deceased. 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. 3,000/-pm. Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this court.
9. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there is no sufficient material on record to award future prospects. FAO NO. 343/2002 Page 4 of 8 Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in not granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the 1/3 deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher side as the deceased is survived by his widow and aged parents, In catena of cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances made 1/4 deductions. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the award on this ground and make deductions to the tune of 1/4.
11. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 14 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year 1999 and at that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act had already been brought on the statute book. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 33 years and he is survived by his widow and aged parents. 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 considering the multiplier applicable as per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 17 shall be applicable.
12. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of 9% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the FAO NO. 343/2002 Page 5 of 8 same should be enhanced to 12% 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, 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 @ 9% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with.
13. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not granting adequate compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of estate, whereas, no compensation has been granted towards funeral expenses, loss of love & affection and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and FAO NO. 343/2002 Page 6 of 8 affection is awarded at Rs. 20,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- 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 awarding 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 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 total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,59,000/- (3,000 x 3/4x12x17). After considering Rs. 90,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 5,49,000/-.
16. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 5,49,000/- from Rs. 3,46,000/- with interest on the differential amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation and the same shall be paid to the appellants by the respondent nos. 1 & 2, jointly and severally, in FAO NO. 343/2002 Page 7 of 8 the same proportion as awarded by the tribunal within 30 days of this order.
17. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of.
April 27, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
FAO NO. 343/2002 Page 8 of 8