Sh. Chunni Lal And Anr. vs Sh. Satpal And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 1285 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. Since a short legal question is involved in this appeal, learned counsel for the parties state that it may not be necessary to call for the file of the trial court and the matter can be heard and disposed of today itself. The matter has, therefore, been heard with the consent of the parties.

2. ADMIT.

3. The appellants aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation mainly on two grounds, (1) that the tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased to decide the loss of dependency to the family; and (2) in place of the multiplier of 16 in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13.

4. The tribunal has estimated the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2, 100/- per month being the minimum wages of semi-skilled worker as per the notified minimum wages of the period when she died. Without taking the future prospects into consideration the loss of dependency to the family was taken at Rs. 1, 400/- per month after deducting 1/3rd being the expenses which the deceased must have been spending upon herself and then applying the multiplier of 13, the tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 2, 18, 400/- in favor of the appellants. It is now well-settled that to arrive at the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased, the tribunals and the courts must take into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased and also consider the rise in the cost of living and inflation. The Government has been issuing notifications from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act for the workers and minimum wage is increased periodically taking into consideration the rise in the cost of living and inflation. The minimum wage of a semi-skilled worker in 1998 was Rs. 2, 103/- whereas in August, 2002 they were Rs. 2, 845.70 paise per month. This court would, therefore, not be in error in presuming that at the end of 16 years, i.e., multiplier which may be applied in this case, the minimum wages payable to a semi-skilled worker would have doubled. Applying the principles laid down in Sarla Dixit and another v. Balwant Yadav and others 1996 ACJ 581, the average income of the deceased is, therefore, taken at Rs. 3, 200/- per month. Deducting 1/3rd from this towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs. 2, 100/- per month or say Rs. 25, 200/- per year.

5. It has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court that unless there are special reasons to deviate, multiplier mentioned in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act should be applied to arrive at the total loss of dependency to the family of the deceased. Since the deceased in the present case was 36 years of age, the correct multiplier to be applied in her case would be 16. Applying the multiplier of 16 to the loss of dependency of Rs. 25, 200/- per month, the total loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs. 4, 03, 200/-. Adding to this another sum of Rs. 16, 800/- towards non-pecuniary damages by way of loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses, etc., the appellants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 4, 20, 000/-.

6. I, accordingly, allow this appeal, modify the award and direct that the appellants will be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 4, 20, 000/- from the respondents. The appellants will also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing the petition till payment.