Shanta Devi And Ors. vs Charchal Singh Chadha And Ors.
1992 Latest Caselaw 171 Del

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J.

(1) This is an appeal under Section110 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act), against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) dated 19/05/1980, whereby a sum ofRs. 67,950.00 has been awarded in favor of the petitioners/appellants. Theappellants' claim that they should be awarded compensation in the sum ofRs. 2 lakhs besides interest at 12% per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition till the date of realisation of the awarded amount. cross objections, being C.M. 5098/80, have also been filed on behalf of the driver,respondent No. 1 and the Insurance Company, respondent No. 4, for restricting compensation to Rs. 15,000.00.

(2) The facts giving rise to the appeal and the cross-objections are that on 21/11/1970 at about 10 A.M. Dharam Singh Tyagi along with his friend Mr. Ganga Pershad Tyagi, was traveling on a motor cycle towards Tis Hazari Courts when on Najafgarh Road near Tittar Pur Village their motorcycle had a head-on collusion with an ambassador car bearing registration No.ORG 4823. Both of them suffered grievous injuries, as a result thereof theydied. The car, belonging to respondents 2 and 3, was driven by respondent No. 1 and was insured with respondent No. 4. The deceased, Dharam SinghTyagi, an Advocate by profession, was stated to be aged about 35 years. He left behind his widow and two minor daughters, the appellants herein.

(3) The claim petition, under Section 110A of the Act was filed by the appellants on 20/01/1971 making a claim of Rs. 2 lakhs against therespondents. The petition was contested by respondents 2 and 4 only. Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte.

(4) The Tribunal, on appraisal of evidence, adduced by the parties,found that respondent No. 1 was driving the car rashly and negligently causing the accident as a result of which deceased Dharam Singh Tyagi died; that the deceased was 37 years of age at the time of death, his income at the time of death was Rs. 700.00 per month and after deducting Rs. 200.00 per month as his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 500.00 per month was available to the dependant family of which they have been deprived of on account of his untimely death. Accordingly, the Tribunal computed the compensation atRs. 84,000.00 by applying a multiplier of 14. Out of the said amount a deduction of 10% was made on account of acceleration of benefits to the appellants and a further deduction of 10/o on account of contingencies of life and lumpsum payment and thus the net amount of compensation payable to the appellants was computed at Rs. 67,950.00. It is this award which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal and cross-objections.

(5) In the cross-objections by the Insurance Company and the driver the fact of accident and liability of the car for causing accident on 21/11/1970 has not been disputed. The only question which survives for consideration, thus, is of the quantum of compensation and liability to pay interest.

(6) I have perused the trial Court's record and have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. O.P. Goyal, learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is neither just nor is its mode of compensation correct. He submits that the income of thedeceased should have been taken at Rs. 1000.00 per month; a higher multiplier should have been applied and no deduction should have been made on account of acceleration of benefits and contingencies of life. He also submits that the Tribunal should have awarded interest even if it was not claimed in the petition.On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Sharda, learned Counsel for respondents 1 & 4while finding fault in the determination of income of the deceased contends that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is very fair and reasonable.

(7) What compensation should be awarded to a claimant is a vexedquestion. There can be .no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. However, one of the important factor, which is taken into account for computing the just compensation is the approximate annual dependency of the dependents in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to an abrupt termination of a life. For this purpose, broadly speaking, annual earnings ofthe deceased at the time of the accident and/or later and the amount out of the same which he was spending or could spend for the maintenance of the dependents is considered to be an important determining factor. The figure so arrived is then multiplied by a suitable multiplier. Again there is no set formula to determine the exact multiplier but generally life expectancy of the deceased and of the beneficiaries is taken into account for the purpose.

(8) In the present case, it is not disputed that the deceased was a practicing advocate. According to the claimants he used to appear in various Courts and had flourishing practise. It is also claimed that he was having income from agriculture also. While concluding that the deceased had monthlyincomeofRs.1,000.00, the Tribunal has relied on the statements of P.W.11(Mr. Amar Singh) & Public Witness 12 (Mr. B.S. Bhardwaj), who are also advocates.From this income, the Tribunal has deducted Rs. 300.00 per month on accountof maintenance of office, payments to Clerk and Peon. For the appellants,reliance was placed on the testimony of deceased's wife (P.W.9) to contend thatthe conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is very conservative. I, however, feel that in view of the particulars of monthly income given in para 6 of the claimpetition, the uncorroborated testimony of deceased's wife (P.W.9), to the effect that the deceased used to give her Rs.1,000.00orRs.1,100.00per month, does not inspire confidence. On the contrary, the Tribunal's assessment of the monthly income of the deceased is based on reliance evidence. No fault was found with the testimony of Public Witness 11 and Public Witness 12. I have, therefore, no difficulty in endorsing the finding of the Tribunal on the point. The Tribunal'sfurther finding that the deceased must be spending about Rs. 200.00 per month on himself also does not appear to be unreasonable. Therefore, the Tribunal'sconclusion that the pecuniary loss to the appellants was to the tune ofRs. 500.00 per month does not need to be disturbed.

(9) Now coming to the question of a suitable multiplier, to be adopted in the present case, I find that the Tribunal has not given any basis for applying a multiplier of 14 years. Based on the statement of Public Witness 8, Mr. B.S. Mongia,Office in charge of Bar Counsel of Delhi, the Tribunal has found that at the time of his death, the deceased was about 37 years of age. No evidence has been led to prove the longevity in the family of the deceased. Rather, Mr.Sharda, learned Counsel for the respondents, has invited my attention to the statement of Public Witness 9, the widow of the deceased, wherein she has stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had expired before her marriage. Be that as it may, I feel that even though now the life expectancy in India has increased and is generally taken to be 75 years, but having regard to the family history of the deceased that his parents died early, it can safely be taken thathe would have lived up to the age of 60 years and would have supported hisfamily, consisting of his wife, aged about 25 years and two daughters of tenderage, at the time of his death, for about 24 years. Multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 6000.00, as determined by the Tribunal, the compensation payable to the appellants works out to Rs.1,44,000.00. In my opinion this should be a fair and just compensation.

(10) Assailing the finding of the Tribunal Mr. Goyal, learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that with the increase in number of years of practice, the earning capacity of a lawyer also goes uphand as such his financial assistance to the dependants should have been taken more. This cannot betaken as a universal rule. Life is full of unpredictable uncertainities. It is possible that his family would have enlarged in due course of time and the increase in income would have been off set thereby. At any rate, the compensation I have determined to be payable to the appellants, partly takes care of the contention as the monthly earning on the amount assessed, if put in long term deposit would fetch much more than the monthly pecuniary loss determined by the Tribunal and upheld by me.

(11) The next question is whether any deduction should have been made on. account of lump sum payment and contingency of life. As notedabove, the Tribunal has made deduction at the rate of 10% on account of acceleration of benefits and further deduction of 10% on account of contingency of life and lump sum payment out of the compensation determined by it.

(12) On the contrary, there is no denying the fact that there has been consistent phenomenal rise in prices since mid sixties. In fact the spurt in prices for the last few years has made earnings on long term deposits meaningless and the income so earned cannot be said to be sufficient to keep pace with the inflation. Thus, in the present day context, the lump sum payment has lost all its attraction and significance. Besides, us observed in various pronouncements, all calculations for computing compensation are only rough estimates.The compensation so determined, in no case, can be sufficient to compensate the dependents for their sufferings, particularly in cases where the only earning member of the family has been snatched away by the cruel hands of destiny. In the present case, as noted above, the deceased left behind his young widow and two daughters of very tender age. I am, therefore, of the considered view thatthe Tribunal was not justified in making deduction on account of acceleration of benefits as also on account of lump sum payment and contingency oflife.

(13) The last question which remains to be considered is about the grant of interest. No interest was claimed or has been awarded by the Tribunal. Award of interest under Section 110CC of the Act is discretionary. Inthe present case the deceased died in 1970. The compensation was assessed by the Tribunal after about ten years. There is good ground for grant of interest as an additive to the amount of compensation determined. The absence of a claim for interest in the petition is no ground to disallow it. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh and Others, 1990 Acj 777, has held that the claim for interest needs no pleading and can be allowed on an oralsubmission.

(14) Having regard to the circumstances of the case and rate of interest from the Government securities like National Saving Certificates, long term fixed deposits in banks, in my opinion, an interest at the rate of 12% per annum will be reasonable in the instant case.

(15) In view of the above discussion, the amount of compensationpayable to the appellants is enhanced to Rs. 1,44,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the filing of claim petition till the date of payment.However, in case any amount has already been paid to the appellants pursuant to the said award, no interest would run thereon from the date of such payment. The amount, thus due, will be paid by respondent No. 4, InsuranceCompany, to the appellants, in equal share, within two months from today,failing which, respondent No. 4 will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 14%per annum from the date of this judgment till payment.

(16) In view of the enhancement in compensation in appellants appeal,cross-objections filed by the driver and the Insurance Company are renderedinfructuous.

(17) The result is that the appeal is accepted and cross-objections are dismissed with no order as to costs.