D.S. Chadha And Ors. vs Gian Singh And Ors.
1992 Latest Caselaw 212 Del

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J.

1. This first appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 30th January, i980, whereby a sum of Rs. 22,080/- has been awarded in favor and of the appellants-claimants. The appellants claim that they should be awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 16th June, 1973 at about 11.30 a.m. Jagjit Singh Chadha along with one Kanwaljit Singh Chadha was traveling on a scooter bearing No. WBN 8586 on the Mall Road towards Khyber Pass, when at a distance of about 50 yards from T point of University Road a bus bearing No. DLP 118 came from the opposite direction on to the wrong carriageway of the road, with the result that their scooter had a collision with the said bus. Jagjit Singh Chadha, pillion rider, sustained grievous injuries, and as a result thereof died in the hospital. The bus, driven by respondent No. 1, belonged to Delhi Transport Corporation, respondent No. 2 herein. The deceased, was working as a Supervisor with Punjab Breweries (P) Ltd., drawing total emoluments of Rs. 432.19 per month, was stated to be aged about 22 years. He was unmarried and left behind his father, mother, grandfather and grandmother, appellants herein.

3. The claim petition under Section 110-A of the Act was filed by the appellants on 2nd November, 1973 making a claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the respondents. The petition was contested by both the respondents, who filed a joint written statement. The Tribunal, on appraisal of evidence adduced by the parties, found that the fatal injuries were caused to the deceased due to rash and negligent act of driving on the part of respondent No. 1 that the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of his death; his monthly income was Rs. 400/- he would have got married on attaining the age of about 26 years and, therefore, the pecuniary dependency of the appellants/grand parents could not be uniform and consistent. The Tribunal, taking a total dependency of the appellants on the deceased for 19 years, determined the pecuniary loss to the appellants for a period of first four years at Rs. 200/-per month and for the remaining 15 years at Rs. 100/- per month. Accordingly, the Tribunal computed the total compensation at Rs. 27,600/- (200 x 12x4+ l00x 12x 15); out of the said amount a deduction of 20 per cent was made on account of uncertainties of life and lump sum payment. Thus, the net amount of compensation payable to the appellants was computed at Rs. 22,080/-. It is this award which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

4. There is no cross-appeal/objection by the respondents. The finding that the cause of accident was negligence of the respondent No. 1 and the liability of the bus for causing accident on 16th June, 1973, therefore, stands admitted. The only question for consideration, thus, is of the quantum of compensation.

5. I have perused the Tribunal's record and have heard learned Counsel for the appellants. None has appeared for the respondents although appearance was entered on their behalf after the admission of appeal. Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellants, has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is neither (sic) nor is its mode of computation correct. He submits that the income of the deceased and pecuniary loss to the dependants has been determined at a low figure; a higher multiplier should have been applied and no deduction should have been made on account of uncertainties of life and lump sum payment. He has also urged that interest under Section 110-CC of the Act should be awarded even though such a claim was neither made in the claim petition nor has it been made in the present appeal.

6. 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 facts and circumstances of each case. Various factors which are taken into consideration in arriving at such lump sum are neither accurate nor precise and some conjectures are unavoidable. One of the important factors which is taken into account here for computing the just compensation is the approximate annual dependency of the dependants in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to abrupt termination of a life. For this purpose, broadly speaking, annual earnings of the 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 dependants is considered to be an important guiding factor. The figure to 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.

7. In the present case, while concluding that the deceased had monthly income of Rs. 400/-, the Tribunal has relied on the statement of J.B. Singh, Accountant, Punjab Beverages, PW 3, who deposed that the deceased was working as Supervisor and his total emoluments were Rs. 432.19. While determining the monthly dependency of the beneficiaries on the deceased, the Tribunal has made a reference to the statement of deceased's father, PW 7, who stated in his examination-in-chief that the deceased used to give him Rs. 250/- per month. The quantum is not contested in cross-examination. No fault has been found to the testimony of PW 3 and PW 7. I have, therefore, no hesitation in endorsing the finding of the Tribunal on the point. Even otherwise there is no serious contest in the appeal on the determination of monthly dependency at Rs. 200/- per month. What is assailed is the reduction of dependency from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 100/- after four years. It is urged that the said finding completely ignores the future potential of a higher income. Although I do not find any serious infirmity in the observation of the Tribunal that after the marriage of the deceased his parents' and grandparents' dependency on him would have gone down but having regard to the fact that he being at the threshold of his career, the possibility of his better future prospects resulting in higher income could not be ruled out. This aspect has been overlooked by the Tribunal while reducing the monthly dependency. Taking an over all view of the matter, I fee, the pecuniary loss to the appellants for the entire period of dependency should have been taken at Rs. 200/- per month.

8. Now, coming to the question of the multiplier to be adopted in the instant case, I find that the Tribunal has not given any basis for applying multiplier of 19 years. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased at 22 years. No evidence has been led to prove the longevity of life in the family of the deceased. However, in the cross-examination of PW 7, D.S. Chadha, it has come on the record that at the time of fatal accident the age of the deceased's father was about 45 years and that of his mother about 38 years. Having regard to the fact that grandparents of the deceased are still alive, I feel, it can safely be taken that his parents would have depended on him for about 30 years. It also finds support from a very recent judgment of the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that life expectancy should be taken to be 70 years. Multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 2,400/- the compensation payable to the appellants works out to Rs. 72,000/-. In my opinion, that should be a just and fair compensation.

9. The next question is whether any deduction should have been made on account of uncertainties of life and lump sum payment. As noted above, the Tribunal has made a deduction of 20 percent on this amount.

10. It is an established 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 deposit 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, as observed in various pronouncements, all calculations for computing compensation are only rough estimates. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that with the value of money dwindling due to high inflation rate, there is no justification for making any deduction due to lumpsum payment I am, therfore, of the considered view that the Tribunal was not justified in making deduction of 20 per cent on account of uncertainties of life and lump sum payment

11. Lastly, the question is about the interest. As noted above, no interest was claimed or has been awarded by the Tribunal under Section 110-CC of the Act Award of interest under Section 110-CC of the Act is discretionary. In the present case the deceased died in the year 1973. The compensation was assessed by the Tribunal after about 7 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 , has held that the claim for interest needs no pleading and can be allowed on an oral submission.

12. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the rate of interest from long term government, securities and bank deposits, in my opinion, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum will be reasonable in the present case.

13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation payable to the appellants is enhanced to Rs. 72,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation against the respondents jointly and severally. However, in case any amount has already been paid to the appellants in pursuance of the said award, no interest would run thereon from the date of such payment The amount thus due will be paid to the appellants in equal share within two months from today failing which the respondents will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum from the date of this judgment till payment.

There will be no order as to costs.