Upendra Chugh S/O Late Sh. R.N. ... vs Malkiat Singh, New India ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 142 Del

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. This appeal is with regard to an Award dated 7th July, 1987 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) awarding compensation for the death of Dr. R.N. Chugh, Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojini Chugh, Master Shailender Chugh (their minor son) and for serious injuries to Miss Shobha Chugh, (their minor daughter). The claim is for enhancement of the awarded compensation.

2. On 5th March, 1977, a horrific accident took place between a truck driven by Wasan Singh (since deceased) and a car driven by Dr. R.N. Chugh. The truck was owned by Malkiat Singh (Respondent No.1) and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No.2). In the accident, Dr. R.N. Chugh and his wife Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojni Chugh and their minor son Master Shailender Chugh died. Their daughter Ms. Shobha Chugh, who was about 13 years of age at that time, received grievous injuries on her head and other parts of her body. As a result of the injuries, she is facially permanently scarred, her memory was affected and her concentration impaired. Consequently, she had to drop out of school. Today, she is said to be a spinster of about 39 years of age who needs constant looking after.

3. Upendra Chugh, the oldest child of Dr. and Mrs. R.N. Chugh, was not traveling in the car and was fortunately not involved in the accident. He and Shobha Chugh filed Suit No.409/1977 (resulting in FAO No.41/1988) claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of their father. The learned M.A.C.T. awarded compensation of Rs.1,32,000/-.

Suit No.410/1977 was filed by Upendra Chugh and Shobha Chugh (resulting in F.A.O. No.43/1988) claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for death of their brother. The learned M.A.C.T. awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/-.

Suit No.411/1977 was filed by Upendra Chugh and Shobha Chugh (resulting in F.A.O. No.42/1988) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of their mother. The learned M.A.C.T. awarded a sum of Rs.1,32,400/-.

Suit No.412/1977 was filed by Shobha Chugh (resulting in F.A.O. No.44/1988) claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for injuries suffered by her. The learned M.A.C.T. awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

4. By this judgment and order I propose to dispose of all the four appeals for enhancement of compensation since they arise out of the same accident and the evidence recorded is the same.

5. As per the evidence on record, Dr. R.N. Chugh was born on 10th October, 1925 and at the time of his death, he was about 51 years of age. He was an eminent doctor working as Head of the Medicine Department in Safdarjung Hospital and a Professor of Medicine, University College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. It was found that his salary was Rs.2,725/- per month (rounded off to Rs.2,700/- per month).

6. Dr. (Mrs) Sarojini Chugh was also an eminent doctor. She was born on 9th January, 1939 and at the time of her death, she was 48 years of age. She held a senior position as Gynaecologist in Safdarjung Hospital and was also a Medical Superintendent, C.G.H.S. Gynae and Maternity Hospital, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. She was drawing a salary of Rs.2,388/- per month (rounded off to Rs.2,400/- per month)

7. Shailender Chugh was a young boy of 14 years and was a student. On the evidence on record, the learned M.A.C.T. held that he was a bright boy and would have contributed to his family had he survived.

8. Shobha Chugh was a young girl of 13 years of age and a student of Class VII. She received injuries on her head, fracture of her chest bone and other parts of body. She had to undergo three or four operations. She has a permanent scar on her forehead as a result of the removal of her skull bone. Quite naturally, she suffered tremendous mental shock and agony as a result of the death of her parents and brother. She was promoted to Class VII but because of her mental condition and inability to concentrate, she could not appear for the examination for Class VII and had to drop out of school. She remained unconscious for about three days as a result of the accident and suffers convulsions and hyper-kinetic movement. She had undergone a re-constructive cranio-plastic surgery (covering of the brain by an artificial plastic bone) and had been undergoing ante-epileptic treatment. As per the evidence of the doctors, she will have a permanent lack of concentration and hyper-kinetic movements.

9. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned M.A.C.T. framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the petition is not signed and verified in accordance with the law?

2. Whether the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of truck No.DGG 2145 on the part of Respondent No.1 as alleged?

3. To what amount of compensation, if any, the Petitioners are entitled and from whom?

4. Relief.

10. In respect of Issue No.1, it was held that the claim petition was signed and certified in accordance with law. As regards Issue No.2, it was held that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1.

11. As regards Issue No.3, the learned M.A.C.T. came to the conclusion that since Dr. R.N. Chugh was earning Rs.2,725/- per month, he would have been spending about Rs.1,100/- per month on his children. Accordingly, on the basis of his age, the learned M.A.C.T. adopted a multiplier of 10 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- for the death of Dr. R.N. Chugh.

12. As regards Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojni Chugh, it was held that her income was Rs.2,400/- per month and her contribution towards the family was Rs.800/- per month. Considering her age, a multiplier of 12 was adopted by the learned M.A.C.T. and compensation of Rs.1,32,400/- was awarded.

13. As regards Master Shailender Chugh, the learned M.A.C.T. awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the Appellants for the loss of their brother.

14. As regards Ms. Shobha Chugh, the learned M.A.C.T. awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for loss of education and a sum of Rs.30,000/- for the medical expenses and for the pain and agony suffered by her.

15. It may be mentioned that Respondent No.2 (the Insurance Company) raised a plea that its liability was limited to a sum of Rs.50,000/-. This plea was rejected by the learned M.A.C.T., inter alia, on the ground that neither the original policy nor its copy was produced and the insurance company had charged premium for a comprehensive cover.

16. The first question that must be considered is the multiplier to be adopted for calculating the compensation to be awarded for the death of Dr. Chugh, his wife and son.

17. It is now quite well settled by decisions of the Supreme Court that the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) is a safe and reliable guide for finding out the multiplier in cases of fatal accidents that have taken place even before the Second Schedule was enacted. (See for example U.P. State Road transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra , Kaushnuma Begum vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9 and Abati Bezbaruah vs. Director General, Geological Survey of India and Anr. ). On this basis, since Dr. Chugh was about 51 years of age, the appropriate multiplier in his case would be 11 as per the Second Schedule. His wife was about 48 years of age and in her case the appropriate multiplier would be 13. So far as their son is concerned, he had no income and therefore there is no question of adopting a multiplier for calculating his contribution to the family.

18. Insofar as the multiplicand is concerned, there does not seem to be any standard laid down for calculating the personal expenses that might be incurred in cases where both the husband and wife are earning. If there is a single breadwinner, the normal deduction for personal expenses is one-third the income. In a case where both the husband and the wife are earning, I think it would be appropriate if a total of 25% of their combined income were deducted towards their personal expenses. This is because it is quite unlikely that each of them would be spending one third of their income on their own personal expenses. One spouse may be spending one-third the income while the other spouse might be spending less than the standard deduction of one-third; but in the absence of any principle having been laid down by the Supreme Court for by any other Court, I think it would not be irrational to assume that in a double income family, the personal expenses of both spouses would not exceed 25% of their combined income. Proceeding on this basis, if 25% of the income of Dr. Chugh were deducted, his contribution towards the family would be Rs.2025/- per month. Applying a multiplier of 11 in his case, the annual dependency of his family would be 2025 x 12 x 11 = Rs.2,67,300/- which would be the amount of compensation due and payable to the Appellants as a result of his death.

Similarly, if 25% of the income of his wife were deducted from her salary for her personal expenses, her contribution to the family would be Rs.1800/- per month. The annual dependency of her family, applying the multiplier of 13, would be 1800 x 12 x 13 = Rs.2,80,800/- which would be the amount of compensation due and payable to the Appellants as a result of her death.

19. Insofar as the compensation awarded for the death of Shailender Chugh is concerned, the learned M.A.C.T. has taken an ad hoc figure of Rs.35,000/-. This figure is not absurdly or irrationally low and is a probable figure that could be awarded as compensation to the Appellants for the loss of their brother. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai the Supreme Court upheld an award of Rs.32,000/- as compensation for the death of a 14 year old boy, who was the brother of the claimants therein. Consequently, it is not possible to hold that the view of the learned M.A.C.T. in this regard is perverse.

20. As regards the compensation awarded for the injuries sustained by Shobha Chugh, the fact of the matter is that her life is completely ruined as a result of the accident. She had to drop out of school and has suffered a loss of education for which she has been compensated by an award of Rs.20,000/-. I find no error in this award made by the learned M.A.C.T. However, insofar as the pain, suffering and agony are concerned, the amount could have been enhanced by the learned M.A.C.T. to the maximum limit claimed because of the severe nature of injuries suffered by her. Her face has been permanently disfigured because of the cranio-plastic surgery undergone by her. In addition, she has suffered memory damage and a permanent loss of concentration. She is said to be suffering from hyper-kinetic movements, which as the evidence on record suggests, is going to be a permanent feature. This being the position, if Rs.80,000/- is awarded to her, making a total of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed, I think the ends of justice will be met, at least to some extent.

21. To sum up, therefore, the Appellants will be entitled to compensation of Rs.2,67,300/- for the death of Dr. Chugh and a sum of Rs.2,80,800/- for the death of Dr. (Mrs.) Chugh. For the death of their brother Shailender Chugh, the award of Rs 35,000/- given by the learned M.A.C.T. is maintained. Shobha Chugh will be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by her and as claimed by her. Respondent No.2 will pay the amounts awarded over and above the figure arrived at the learned M.A.C.T. to the Appellants with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The payment should be made within a period of two months from today.

22. All the appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The Appellants will be entitled to costs of Rs.5,000/-.