Sneh Lata And Ors. vs Om Prakash And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 399 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Appellants are aggrieved by the compensation awarded as per the award dated 27th March, 1991.

2. Deceased Jagdish Prasad was a pillion rider on a two wheeler scooter being driven by one Gian Chand. On 1.12.1984 they were proceeding towards Ghaziabad when truck No. UHD-853 hit the scooter and as a result of the impact, the occupants of the scooter fell down.

3. Multiple injuries received by Jagdish Prasad proved to be fatal. He died. Jagdish Prasad was aged 34 years when he died. Photocopy of a school certificate recorded his date of birth as 1.7.1950.

4. Since loss of dependence to the family had to be determined by the award, learned Tribunal has considered the income as also the number of dependants.

5. On a monthly income of Rs. 2000/-, applying the multiplier 25 loss of dependence to the family has been worked out at Rs. 6,00,000/-. (Rs.2000 x 12 x 25).

6. Interest @ 12% p.a. from date of the claim petition till award has been directed to be paid.

7. Dependants of the deceased were his wife Sneh Lata, 3 sons Sandeep, Vineet and Sanjay and his mother Jagwanti Devi.

8. As per the award, the 3 sons were minor.

9. Unfortunately, from the evidence on record age of the children is not forthcoming.

10. At this stage, I may note that the trial court record is not available. But Shri O.P. Goyal, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the evidence recorded before the Tribunal from the copies available.

11. The Tribunal has assessed compensation at a monthly income of Rs. 2000/- for the reason appellant No. 1 who appeared as PW-12 stated that her husband was giving to her Rs. 2000/- per month. Believing said statement, compensation as aforenoted has been determined.

12. It is urged before me that appellant No. 1 stated before the Tribunal that her husband was having agricultural land in Village Rateeoli, Tehsil Sardana, Distt. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh and had also installed a crusher. In the said crusher sugarcane juice was extracted and converted into gur. She also stated that her husband was doing business of sale purchase of foodgrain. She also stated that he was a partner in a brick kiln. She stated that the earnings of her husband were between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-.

13. Accordingly, counsel urges that the compensation of Rs. 6 lacs which has been awarded is inadequate.

14. When questioned by me as to where is the proof that the deceased was running a cane crusher, had foodgrain business and was a partner in a brick kiln, save and except the self serving statements of the wife, learned Counsel for the appellant conceded that there was no evidence, save and except the statement of the wife.

15. When questioned as to whether there was any proof of the husband acquiring capital assets or depositing money in the bank for the reason case projected is that the deceased had a monthly income between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month and according to the wife she was being handed over Rs. 2000/- per month for household expenses, learned Counsel for the appellant conceded that there was no proof.

16. When further questioned as to whether the deceased was paying any income tax, counsel for the appellant conceded that he was not. But, counsel urged that the income of the deceased was mainly from agricultural lands.

17. There being no proof that the deceased was accumulating Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month by way of the savings and there being no evidence of acquisition of capital assets by the deceased, I cannot believe the version of the wife that the deceased was earning between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month.

18. Besides, if argument of learned Counsel for the appellants is to be accepted that the main income of the deceased was from agricultural lands, decision of the Supreme Court reported as New India Assurance Co. v. Charlie and Anr. is attracted.

19. In said case, injured was an agriculturalist. It was observed that the capital asset wherefrom income was generated remained and this had to be taken note of while determining the compensation to the injured.

20. It is not the evidence of the appellants that the deceased was himself tilling the land. Thus, hardly any loss would be occasioned to the family due to death of the deceased, vis-a-vis the income from agricultural activity.

21. Theoretically, the supervision which deceased was exercising over his farm labour would be required to be converted into a money value and recompensed thereafter to the family.

22. The topic of compensation for causing death by negligent driving has been a subject matter of consideration in thousands of decisions.

23. Unfortunately, India is one of the countries in the world having highest number of road accidents.

24. A discernible principle which has emerged in all decisions is that damages to be awarded have to be based on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or benefit reducible to money value. In assessing damages all circumstances which legitimately result in diminution of the damages have to be considered. On the other hand, ascertainment of the loss to the family by taking into account future pecuniary benefits, and, or any other pecuniary advantages have to be considered.

25. In the words of Viscount Simon in the decision reported as 1951 (2) All ER 448 Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. for estimating damages, the method adopted requires:

...at first the deceased man's expectation of life has to be estimated having regard to his age, bodily health and the possibility of premature determination of his life by later accidents; secondly, the amount required for the future provision of his wife shall be estimated having regard to the amounts he used to spend on her during his lifetime, and other circumstances; thirdly, the estimated annual sum is multiplied by the number of years of the man's estimated span of life, and the said amount must be discounted so as to arrive at the equivalent in the form of a lump sum payable on his death; fourthly, further deductions must be made for the benefit accruing to the widow from the acceleration of her interest in his estate; and, fifthly, further amounts have to be deducted for the possibility of the wife dying earlier if the husband had lived the full span of life; and it should also be taken into account that there is the possibility of the widow remarrying much to the improvement of her financial position. It would be seen from the said mode of estimation that many imponderables enter into the calculation.

26. I do not intend to pen down a catalogue of various decisions but would note that pertaining to accidents of a comparable date i.e. the year 1984, in the decision reported as 1994 2 SCC 174, G.M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors., for a deceased earning Rs. 1032/- per month, giving benefit of future increase in the earnings, compensation awarded to the family was Rs. 2,25,000/-. I may note that while arriving at the compensation, taking Rs. 2000/- per month as the gross income, which as noted above included future prospects, 1/3rd was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and loss to the family was determined on the basis of monthly dependence of Rs. 1400/-.

27. In the instant case loss of dependence has been worked out at Rs. 6 lacs. It is nearly 2.75 times higher than the loss of dependence worked out in Sussama Thomas's case.

28. I find hardly any scope for any increase as I find that pertaining to accidents for the year 1984 and earnings being around Rs. 1200/- per month, after giving benefit of future increase in the income, judicial trends indicate compensations being awarded near about Rs. 2.5 lacs.

28. In the instant case, the Tribunal has determined monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/-. On the entire sum, applying the multiplier 25 compensation of Rs. 6 lacs has been awarded.

29. Assuming future prospects would have resulted in increase in income but noting that very high multiplier has been applied and if multiplier of even 15 is applied, compensation payable would be much less than Rs. 6 lacs.

30. I find no merit in the appeal.

31. The same is dismissed.