Smt. Asharfi Devi And Ors. vs Raj Singh And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 976 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. ADMIT.

2. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of one Mr.Sumeri Singh, husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellants 2 and 3 who died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

3. The deceased at the time of his death was 39 years of age and was allegedly employed as a cartage contractor. According to appellant no.1 the deceased was earning about Rs.30 to 35 per day. A certificate Ex.PW4/2 stated to have been given by his employer was also produced on record to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.30 to 35 per day during that time. The Tribunal, however, did not believe the oral statement of the wife of the deceased nor did he believe the certificate Ex.PW4/2 alleged to have been given by the employer of the deceased and taking the minimum wages prevalent in the year 1983 as income of the deceased, assessed his income to be Rs.450/- per month and deducting 1/3rd from the same towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency to the family was taken to be Rs.300 per month. Applying the multiplier of 12, the Tribunal assessed the compensation of Rs.43,200/- to be payable to the appellants. As already mentioned above, aggrieved by this award the appellants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that there was no reason as to why the unrebutted statement of the wife of the deceased should not have been accepted by the Tribunal nor there was any reason to discard the income certificate Ex.PW4/2 given by the employer of her husband. It is also contended that as per Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act the Tribunal was required to apply the multiplier of 16 instead of 12 to arrive at the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and have also gone through the material on record. From the record, I find that the statement of appellant no.1 is based entirely upon the salary certificate ExPW4/2 alleged to have been issued by the employer of her husband. No witness has been produced from the office of the employer to prove this certificate nor any record has been proved to show that the deceased was earning Rs.30 to 35 per day. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the Tribunal, in my opinion, was justified in not relying upon the statement of appellant no.1 that the deceased was earning 30 to 35 rupees per day and the Tribunal has rightly taken the minimum wages payable at the relevant time to be the income of the deceased.

6. The Tribunal has taken Rs.450/- to be the minimum wages payable at the relevant time. The accident was caused in April, 1983. In 1983, minimum wages payable to a skilled worker were Rs.472/- per month. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased. It is now well-settled that to arrive at just compensation to the victims of the road accidents and to arrive at the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased, the Courts and Tribunal must consider the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased. The deceased at the time of the accident was only 39 years of age and he would have definitely worked for another 21 years. The minimum wages to a matriculate payable in the year 2000 were Rs.2867/- per month. In view of the rise in the cost of living and inflation, this Court would not be in error in estimating the average monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month. Deducting 1/3rd from this towards his personal expenses the loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs.667/- per month or say Rs.8,000/- per year. The deceased, as already mentioned above, was 39 years of age at the time of the accident and in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act to arrive at just compensation to the family of the deceased, a multiplier of 16 is required to be applied. Applying the multiplier of 16 to the loss of dependency, the total loss of dependency to the family would comes to Rs.1,28,000/-. Adding to this the non-pecuniary damages of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses etc. the total compensation payable to the appellants would come to Rs.1,38,000/-.

7. The Tribunal has not awarded pendente lite interest in favor of the appellants on the ground that though issues were framed in 1985, the appellants started evidence only on 22.9.1998, i.e. after 13 years of framing of the issues and the appellants in this view of the matter according to the Tribunal was not entitled to any pendente lite interest and interest was awarded from the date of passing of the award. From a perusal of the Trial Court file, I find that the delay in the disposal of the case was entirely upon the appellants and the Tribunal was thus justified in not awarding the pendent lite interest.

8. In view of the aforesaid, I allow this appeal, modify the impugned award and direct that the appellants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.1,38,000/-. The appellants will also be entitled to interest @ 9% on the enhanced compensation from the date of the award till payment.