Shri Surender Singh vs D.T.C. And Another
2001 Latest Caselaw 1552 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Jain, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Delhi, dated 2.6.1998, thereby disposing of the claim filed by the appellant herein for compensation amounting to Rs. 2,45,000/- for 40% disability which he incurred on account of the injuries sustained by him to his right foot. On 1.1.92 at about 8.30a.m. when he was alighting from a DTC bus AT I.S.B.T., Delhi and when the driver of the bus is stated to have driven the bus in rash and negligent manner at high speed, thereby crushing his foot. The learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under the following heads:

 Loss of earnings                      13,692.00

Loss of future prospect
earning                               21,907.00

Medical expenses                       2,000.00

Special diet/conveyance                2,000.00

General damages                       20,000.00
                                      -----------
                             Total    59,599.00
                                      -----------
Rounded off to Rs.                    60,000.00

 

2. The tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till payment and fixed the liability of both the respondents. Uncontended with  quantum of compensation so awarded, the appellant has come up in this appeal.

 

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to their submissions. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment/award mainly on two grounds; first being that the learned tribunal has not considered the income of the petitioner/appellant at Rs.1,500/- per month as was proved by him on record and secondly the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 4 instead of 8 as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. As regards the first contention, suffice it would be to observe that on the face of the evidence produced by the petitioner the tribunal was justified in adopting the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker as the basis for computing the income of the petitioner because except for the bald statement of the petitioner, there was nothing on record to shown that he was earning Rs.1500/- per month. The only evidence produced by the petitioner was of the parent of two students who has engaged the petitioner for giving tuition to his children on a fee of Rs.400/- per month. This finding of the trial court is, therefore, fully justified on record.

4. As regards the incorrect application of the multiplier, the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors. 1996 ACJ 831 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has occasion to consider and reflect on the position which emerged after the amendment, of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Amendment Act of 54 of 1994. The Hon'ble Court observed as under:-

" The situation has now undergone a change with the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, as amended by the Amendment Act, 54 of 1994. The most important change introduced by the amendment insofar as it relates to determination of compensation is the insertion of sections 163-A and 163-B in Chapter XI entitled 'Insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third Party Risks'. Section 163-A begins with a non-obstante clause and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of the deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we find a Table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party fatal accident injury claims arising out of accidents. The first column gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim. According to this Table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule the maximum multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas case, 1994 ACJ 1(SC).

"It can only be used as a guide. Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are his parents age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of multiplier. But these mistakes are limited to actual calculations only and not in respect of other items, What we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as courts and Tribunal are using higher multiplier as in the present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34, thereby showing lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system in 'Davies' case, (supra)"

5. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the multipliers prescribed under the second schedule in terms of Section 163(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act in a case where the accident had taken place on 1.8.1997 that is much prior to the Amendment act of 1994. It is, therefore, manifest that the multipliers prescribed in the schedule for compensation for third party vehicle accident/injury cases claims (Second Schedule) is the correct and appropriate basis for determining the compensation which could be awarded in the case in had. The said schedule prescribes that the multiplier of 8 is to be applied to a case where the age of the victim is about 55 years but not exceeding 60 years. In the case in hand admittedly the age of the petitioner was 59 years at the time of accident and, therefore, it is the multiplier of 8 and not 4 which ought to have been appropriately applied and compensation determined accordingly.

6. Yet another reason which would justify the application of multiplier 8 is that the petitioner was alive on the date of award of the compensation that is in the year 1998 e.g. that is after more than six and a half years of meeting with the accident and even now after 9 years of the said accident and there is not dispute that he continues to live with the 40% permanent disability and which must have decreased and his prospect of earning during at this period.

7. Lastly counsel for the petitioner urged that the medical expenses awarded are on lower side and the expenses for future medical treatment have not been taken into account. It is seen that the learned tribunal has taken due care in awarding appropriate amount towards medical expenses, special diet and conveyance charges etc. and see no case for its enhancement.

8. In the result this appeal is partly allowed and the award is modofied to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to sum of Rs.43,814/- towards the loss of future prospect of earning instead or Rs.21,907/-, thereby making the total award to a sum or Rs. 81406/- to be rounded to Rs.81,500/-. Appellant has already been paid the sum of Rs. 60,000/- the amount awarded by the tribunal with interest. The balance amount of Rs. 21,590/- shall be paid to the appellant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till payment. As under the orders of the tribunal 80% of the awarded amount has been ordered to be put in FDR and looking to the appellants' age and his needs this court is of the view that it would be expedient if the entire enhanced amount of Rs. 21,500/- is released to the petitioner. The amount be paid within four weeks from the date of this order.