Delhi High Court
Smt. Nisha vs Shri Sachin Kumar And Anr. on 30 January, 2008
Author: K Gambhir
Bench: K Gambhir
JUDGMENT
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants seek to challenge the impugned award whereby the compensation amount of Rs. 4,73,328/- has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. In the present appeal, enhancement in the compensation amount has been claimed. Mainly respondent No. 3 insurance company contested the claim petition before the Tribunal. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not lead any evidence to rebut the averments of the claimants. In view of this position, notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is dispensed with.
3. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for deciding the present appeal are as under:
On 17.3.2005 at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased Shri Abhay Singh was coming from Village Nangli Sakrawati, Najafgarh, Delhi for boarding the bus at Sai Baba Road along with his relative. When the deceased was crossing the road, a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-4SAR-4434 driven by its driver at a very high speed and which, was driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. As a result of this, the deceased sustained grevious injuries in the accident and he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.
4. Aggrieved with the quantum of compensation the appellants have filed the present appeal to claim enhancement in compensation amount.
5. Mr. S.N. Parashar, counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the Tribunal has not considered granting the benefit of increase in minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act. The Tribunal has also not granted any compensation towards loss of love and affection and has granted a meagre amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The appellants are also aggrieved due to the higher deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses from the income of the deceased although, the deceased is survived by large family comprising of 5 members. The grievance has also been made on the grant of lower rate of interest by the Tribunal.
6. Mr. Pradeep Gaur, counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, refutes such submissions made by counsel for the appellants. Mr. Gaur submits that the Tribunal has granted just and adequate compensation in favor of the appellants and no fault can be found in the findings given by the Tribunal. Counsel contends that the appellants failed to prove the income of the deceased and therefore, no benefit of future prospects can be given in such a case where income itself has not been proved by the appellants. Counsel further submits that 1/3rd deduction in such cases is the normal rule and, therefore, the same also need not be interfered with. Counsel further submits that reasonable compensation has been granted for loss of consortium. Counsel contends that in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act for loss of consortium only an amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been fixed. The rate of interest of 7% also cannot be considered as unreasonable as per the contention of counsel for the respondent. Counsel further submits that full multiplier as laid down in the Second Schedule has been applied and therefore, also the compensation amount as awarded in favor of the appellants need no interference.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. As per the case set up by the appellants before the Tribunal, the deceased was engaged in the business of transportation and was earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. The appellants had also proved on record copy of Senior Secondary Examination Certificate as Ex.PW 1/J11 to prove the qualification of the deceased besides proving form No. 2D as Ex.PW 1/A to substantiate the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- p.m. However, the Tribunal did not feel satisfied with regard to the proofs rendered by the appellants and in such circumstances, the Tribunal felt that in the absence of any cogent material placed by the appellants to substantiate the income, the safest course would be to make resort to the Minimum Wages Act. The income of the deceased thus, is accordingly determined at Rs. 3,492/- under the Minimum Wages Act. Out of the said income, 1/3rd of the income has been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the annual loss of dependants has been determined at Rs. 28,008/-.
9. This Court has already taken view that in cases where resort has been made to assess the income of victim of the accident under the Minimum Wages Act then in such cases increase under the Minimum Wages Act within a particular span of period can also be considered. The multiplier of 16 has been applied in the facts of the present case as the deceased at the time of accident of his death was of 38 years of age. It has been noticed that the minimum wages gets doubled within a period of 10 years and therefore, the minimum wages of the deceased on the relevant date of accident i.e. 17.3.2005 can be taken to have doubled to Rs. 6984/- and taking mean of the same, the monthly income would come to Rs. 5238/- The deceased is survived by a large family comprising of his widow, two minor sons, one minor daughter and his mother, therefore, 1/5th deduction towards personal expenses would be appropriate in place of 1/3rd deduction and therefore the monthly dependency would come to Rs. 4190/- and annual dependency would come to Rs. 50285/-. Applying the said criteria and the multiplier, the total loss of financial dependence would come to Rs. 8,04,557/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection and has awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. Amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium is raised to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- is granted towards loss of love and affection. Interest rate of 7% is raised to 7.5% as in the recent decisions, the same rate of interest has been awarded in other cases.
10. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.
11. If respondent No. 3 has already complied with the terms of impugned award then the differential amount shall be paid along with up to date interest at the rate of 7.5% and if not already deposited then the entire amount shall be paid by respondent No. 3 in terms of the order passed by this Court.
