Kanta Vohra And Ors. vs Surat Singh And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1743 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Chopra, J.

1. This appeal challenges an order dated 3.4.1989 passed (SIC) FAO No. 178/1979 by which an award passed on 13.4.1979 by Motor Accident (SIC) Claims Tribunal was modified but the findings in regard to the income of the (SIC) deceased and grant of interest @ 6 per cent per annum were not disturbed. C.M. 565 (SIC) 2001 was filed to consider additional evidence regarding income of deceased.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants. None has entered (SIC) appearance on behalf of the respondents including respondent No. 3, United India Insurance Company Ltd.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants has confined his submissions to two questions only. First is that the deceased Captain Satpal Vohra, at the time of his death, was drawing emoluments in the sum of Rs. 1,214.60 per month but the evidence on record established that his income would have increased substantially with the passage of time. However, neither the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal nor learned Single Judge took notice of the prospects of enhancement of his income and assessed the dependency of the appellants merely on the basis of his last pay at the time his death. The second grievance made by learned Counsel for the appellants is that interest @ 6% per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realisation of the awarded amounts as ordered was too low and such required upward revision. It is pointed out that now almost all the High Courts in the country are awarding interest @ 12 percent per annum and as such the appellants also are entitled to said rate of interest.

4. A perusal of the Trial Court records shows that at the time of his death, in the accident in question, the deceased Satpal Vohra, a Captain in Indian Army was drawing salary on the basic pay of Rs. 870/- per month only which was due to be revised to 1,200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1973. In due course this basic pay would have gone up to Rs. 1,800/- per month, even if the deceased had not got any further promotion. P.W. 8 Major S.R. Sarna who brought the office records regarding the salary and emoluments of the deceased deposed that the pay and allowances of the deceased were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1973 i.e. only two weeks after his death and his basic pay would have been raised from Rs. 870/- to Rs. 1,200/- per month exclusive of other allowances. He proved on record Exs. P.W. 8/1 and P.W. 8/2 to show the salary of the deceased as well as future increases therein. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge vide impugned orders computed the income of the deceased as it was at the time of his death and did not take into consideration the increase in his salary which was so imminent and was to go up further in due course by way of regular increments. We are, therefore, of the considered view that calculating monthly dependency of the appellants at Rs. 800/- per month without taking into consideration future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased was unwarranted. If on the basis of the basic pay of Rs. 870/- the monthly dependency could be fixed at Rs. 800/- per month then on the basis of basic pay of Rs. 1,200/- which was to come into effect w.e.f. 1.1.1973 the dependency at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month can be reasonably determined and the compensation computed on the basis thereof. It is, therefore, held that the appellant's dependency on the deceased was Rs. 1,200/- per month. By applying the multiplier of 15, as applied by the two Courts, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,16,000/-.

5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has appointed the liability in the ratio of 50:50 by holding that the deceased as well as respondent No. 1 driver were equally liable for the accident in question and the death was on account of composite negligence of both. However in appeal learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that apportionment of negligence between deceased and the bus driver ought to have been in the ratio of 30:70 and not 50:50. On this basis the compensation to appellants was enhanced by learned Single Judge to Rs. 1 lac without any deductions in regard to future contingencies. In view of this apportionment and revised pay scale as discussed above the appellants become entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,51,200/- which is 70 per cent of the total amount of Rs. 2,16,000/-. As held by learned Single Judge, we are also of the view that no further deductions are called for on account of mounting inflation and falling value of money.

6. Coming to the question of interest, as awarded to the appellants at the rate of 6% only, we find that this rate of interest cannot be sustained for the reason that 6 percent interest is too low considering the money market conditions that prevailed during last three decades. Learned Counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice various judgments of different High Courts including some of this Court wherein interest @ 12 per cent per annum has been awarded on compensation amount. It is, therefore, held that the appellants are entitled to interest @ 12 per cent per annum.

7. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,51,200/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation. The balance amount payable shall be calculated after taking into account the payments already made. The enhanced amount of compensation as ordered by this Court stands apportioned to and shall be paid only to appellant No. 1 who is the widow of the deceased and appears to be in dire need of financial support.

8. The appeal as well C.M. stand disposed of accordingly.

9. Appeal allowed.