Devki Devi vs Anil Gupta And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1905 Del

JUDGMENT

Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. The appellant in the present appeal seeks enhancement in the award over and above the amount as already awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000 for loss of financial dependence besides a sum of Rs. 15,000 for loss of consortium/ non-pecuniary damages with a further sum of Rs. 5,000 for funeral expenses and thus, a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 has been awarded in favor of the appellant. The case involves a young boy of 18 years who as per the appellant was working as a labourer in some canteen. In the absence of any evidence led by the appellant to prove his income and due to nature of the employment, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000 into consideration as laid down in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. After deducting 1/3rd income of the deceased towards personal expenses and after taking note of the age of the dependants, multiplier of 11 has been applied and the Tribunal has arrived at the said figure of Rs. 1,10,000. Appellant in the present appeal is aggrieved that inflation and the increase in price index was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the accident occurred on 6.9.2001 and Second Schedule was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act by amending the Act of 1988 in the year 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in M.A.C. Appeal No. 297 of 2005 in which inflation and increase in cost of living index was taken into consideration.

2. Per contra, counsel for the respondents contends that there is no illegality and perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal and the appellant did not lead evidence to disclose the nature of his employment. Counsel also contends that correct multiplier of 11 after taking into consideration the age of the dependants has been applied by the Tribunal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. In the Second Schedule the criteria for taking into consideration the multiplier as well as the income of the deceased, a formula was inserted in the year 1994 and thereafter no revision has been made in the Second Schedule. In Sub-section (3) of Section 163-A, the legislature mandated that the Central Government may keeping in view the cost of living from time to time amend the Second Schedule by notification in the official gazette. But, however, no such notification has been issued by the Central Government even after a lapse of more than 12 years from the date when the said Section 163-A and the Second Schedule was brought on the statute of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under the Minimum Wages Act, the salary of Rs. 1,382 in the year 1994 was increased to Rs. 2,579 in the year 2001 and Rs. 3,312 as on 1.8.2006. The price index has also increased manifold due to the inflation and as per the judgment of this Court in M.A.C. Appeal No. 297 of 2005, this Court has observed increase of at least 50 per cent in the minimum wages from the year 1997 to 2003. It is, thus, apparent that the wages have increased almost double from the year 1994 till 2006 (the revision in the minimum wages is also based on the price index).

4. In view of the said increase in the price index, I feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by not taking into consideration the increase in the price index is inappropriate. I do not feel inclined to interfere with the multiplier of 11 years and also the award of Rs. 15,000 made towards consortium/non-pecuniary damages. Compensation of Rs. 1,10,000 as granted by the Tribunal towards loss of financial dependence of the dependants shall now needs to be calculated on the basis of double of the annual income as on the date of accident, i.e., Rs. 30,000 and after deducting 1/3rd of the sum towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the said amount would come to Rs. 20,000 per annum and with the multiplier of 11 being applicable in the present case, the total compensation towards the loss of financial dependence would come to Rs. 2,20,000. Since the appellant has already received a sum of Rs. 1,10,000, therefore, the balance amount shall be paid by respondent No. 3 insurer with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the appeal.

5. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.