Delhi High Court
Sh. Saguni Sardar vs Vijinder Singh And Ors. on 8 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: I (2004) ACC 341, 2005 ACJ 953, 2003 VIAD Delhi 242
Author: S Mahajan
Bench: S Mahajan
JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. ADMIT.
2. With the consent of the parties, mater has been heard and disposed of by this order.
3. This appeal against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is filed by father of the deceased Upender Sardar who was 30 years of age at the time of accident, for enhancement of compensation for his death on 19.7.1997, in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
4. The Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and that the deceased had died because of the injuries sustained in the said accident awarded compensation in favor of the appellants. Being aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation.
5. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that while arriving at the compensation payable to the dependents of the deceased, the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased and has also not applied the correct multiplier. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at the minimum wage payable under the Minimum Wages Act at the time of his death. The Tribunal has thereafter observed that since the deceased would have got married and after marriage there would have been minimum three members in his family, namely, the deceased himself, his would be wife and his father and there being thus three units in the family, the father of the deceased would not have been entitled to more than 1/3rd of the income of the deceased. This part of the judgment is not challenged by learned counsel for the appellant. The loss of dependency to the father was thus assessed at 1/3rd of Rs. 1,784/- i.e. 594.66/- per month or Rs. 7135.92 paise per year. Applying the multiplier of ten, the loss of dependency to the family was assessed at Rs. 71,359.20 paise. Adding to this a sum of Rs. 17,500/- being the loss of expectation of life, loss of estate, funeral expenses etc., the total compensation was worked out to Rs. 88,859.20 paise rounded up to Rs. 89,000/-.
6. The Tribunal in this case has applied the multiplier of 10 for arriving at the compensation payable to the father of the deceased. This multiplier has been applied taking into consideration the age of the father of the deceased. The father at the time of the death of the deceased was 51 years of age. Considering the age of the father, the Tribunal, in my opinion, has completely erred in not only in computing the loss of dependency to the father of the deceased but also in applying the multiplier to arrive at just compensation payable to the appellant.
7. The deceased as already mentioned above was 30 years of age and was unmarried. There is no challenge to the minimum wage having been taken by the Tribunal as the income of the deceased at the time of his death. There also is no challenge to the findings that the deceased would have raised his family by marrying and father of the deceased would not have been, therefore, entitled to more than 1/3rd of the income of the deceased. However, the Tribunal, in my opinion, has erred in not only not taking the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased but it has also not applied the correct multiplier in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. It is now well-settled that while assessing the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased, the Courts are required to take into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased and unless there are valid, proper and special reasons to deviate, the multiplier mentioned in the Schedule should be applied to arrive at just compensation to the family of the deceased. No such reason has been given by the respondent in the present case as to why the multiplier in the Schedule should not be applied to arrive at just compensation payable to the appellants.
8. The Minimum Wage of an unskilled worker at the time of the death of the deceased was Rs. 1784/- per month. Because of inflation and rise in the cost of living, the minimum wage payable under the Minimum Wages Act to an unskilled worker as on 1.8.2002, was Rs. 2679.70 paise. It is thus seen that within a period of five years there was one and a half time increase in the minimum wage payable to an unskilled worker. This Court would, therefore, not be in error in estimating the minimum wages payable to the deceased at the end of fifteen years at double the minimum wage payable in the year 1997. Adding this to the minimum wage payable in 1997 and dividing the same by two, average income of the deceased would come to Rs. 2700/- per month.
9. As already held, the loss of dependency to the father has been assessed at 1/3rd of the income of the deceased to which there is no challenge. Thus, the loss of dependency to the father would come to Rs. 900/- per month or say Rs. 10,800/- per year. The father of the deceased was 51 years of age at the time of the accident and in terms of the Second Schedule, therefore, the correct multiplier to be applied in such cases is 11. Applying the multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency to the father of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,18,800/-. Adding to this the conventional figure of Rs. 17,500/- as non-pecuniary compensation awarded by the Tribunal, towards loss of estate, funeral expenses etc., the father of the deceased would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 1,36,300/-.
10. I, accordingly, allow this appeal, modify the award and direct that the appellants will be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 1,36,300/-. The appellants will also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of their application before the Tribunal till its realisation. In the facts of this case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.
