IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No. 331/1999
Judgment reserved on : 5.3.2008
Judgment delivered on: 27.4.2009
Smt. Angoori Devi & Ors. ..... Appellants.
Through: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Adv.
versus
Amiri Lal & 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.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 29/4/1999 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 53,056/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.
FAO NO. 331/99 Page 1 of 9
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. That an accident took place on 16.2.1990 at about 12.30 p.m. while the deceased was going towards Loni (Home)side on his cycle after doing some purchase for his shop from Shahadara Market and when reached near Durga Mandir Loni Road Shahadara, Delhi, the respondent No. 1 came from back side (Shahadara side) in a very rash and negligent and careless manner by driving his truck Nissan bearing registration No. DEG 7160 and hit the cycle of the deceased from the back side. Due to the sudden and forceful hit by the truck the deceased received grievous injuries and died in the G.T.B. hospital on the same day on account of injuries received by him in the accident.
4. A claim petition was filed on 26/4/1990 and an award was passed on 29/4/1999. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
5. Sh. J. S. Kanwar counsel for the appellants contended 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 a large family at the time of accident and is survived by his widow and seven children. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier FAO NO. 331/99 Page 2 of 9 of 8 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 she was of 45 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 20-30 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 @ 15% 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, loss of consortium, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. FAO NO. 331/99 Page 3 of 9
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, the widow of the deceased deposed that the deceased was a kirana shop-keeper and was earning Rs. 60-70 per day. The appellants claimants had brought any documentary evidence on record to prove 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 by taking aid of the wages notified under Minimum Wages Act.
9. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions regarding the income of the deceased are of no help to the claimants in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought on record. The thumb rule is that in the absence of clear and cogent evidence pertaining to income of the deceased learned Tribunal should determine income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act.
10. Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this court.
FAO NO. 331/99 Page 4 of 9
11. It has been the consistent view of this court that whenever aid of Minimum Wages Act is taken while computing income, then increase in minimum wages should also be considered. It is well settled that future prospects are not akin to increase in minimum wages. To neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, the minimum wages are increased from time to time. A perusal of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act show that to neutralize increase in inflation and cost of living, minimum wages virtually double after every 10 years. For instance, minimum wages of skilled labourers as on 1.1.1980 was Rs. 320/- per month and same rose to Rs. 1,083/- per month in the year 1990. Meaning thereby, from year 1980 to year 1990, there there has been an increase of nearly 238% in the minimum wages. Thus, it could safely be assumed that income of the deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years.
12. Therefore, the tribunal erred in not considering increase in minimum wages, while assessing the income of the deceased and same should be considered while computing compensation towards loss of dependency.
FAO NO. 331/99 Page 5 of 9
13. 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 widow and seven children. Considering the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to interfere with the award on this ground and modify the award by deducting 1/5 expenses towards personal expenses of the deceased.
14. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 8 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year 1990 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 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 age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 45 years and he is survived by his widow and FAO NO. 331/99 Page 6 of 9 seven children. 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 multiplier applicable as per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 13 shall be applicable.
15. 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, 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 FAO NO. 331/99 Page 7 of 9 regarding award of interest @ 12% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with.
16. 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 affection is awarded at Rs. 35,000/-; 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.
17. 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.
18. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,150.50/- after doubling Rs. 767/- to Rs. FAO NO. 331/99 Page 8 of 9 1,534/- and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/5th deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 920.40/- and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 11,044.80/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 13 it comes to Rs. 1,43,582/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,43,582/-. After considering Rs. 1,05,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 2,48,582/-.
19. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,48,582/- from Rs. 53,056/- 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 insurance company in the same proportion as awarded by the tribunal within 30 days of this order.
20. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of.
April 27, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
FAO NO. 331/99 Page 9 of 9