Delhi High Court
Smt. Krishna Devi And Ors. vs Sh. Deewan Singh And Ors. on 9 January, 2008
Author: K Gambhir
Bench: K Gambhir
JUDGMENT
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. The present appeal preferred under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the award dated 6.4.99 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,68,800/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation.
2. The brief facts relevant for deciding the instant case are that on 22.6.91 at about 6.A.M. Inderjeet the deceased was coming from Bhogal to his residence after attending some function in three wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DBR-8620. When the said scooter reached near Peeli Building, Gurudwara Road Crossing, a DTC Bus bearing registration No. DHP-3982 driven by the respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner hit the three wheeler from behind and due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries.
3. Mr.O.P. Mannie counsel for the appellants contends that the future prospects of the deceased has not been taken into consideration although the deceased was a Government employee working on the post of Lab Assistant. Counsel for the appellants has sought to urge that in a Government service, increments and dearness allowance and pay scales are bound to be increased in one's service career, therefore, the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the grant of such increments. The second contention of the counsel for the appellants is that instead of multiplier of 15 as laid down in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 14. Counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal has also erred in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses while determining the monthly dependency of the appellants and the same should have been 1/4th of the annual income of the deceased as the deceased was survived by his widow and three minor children. The mother of the deceased has already died during the pendency of the claim petition.
4. Nobody has chosen to contest the present appeal on behalf of the respondent/DTC.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.
6. I do not find myself in agreement with the contention as raised by the counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the increments in the D.A. and pay allowances etc. This issue is no more res integra as the Apex Court in Bijoy Kumar Duggar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta and Ors. , has clearly held that for claiming benefits towards future prospects, the claimants have to place on record sufficient material in this regard. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
The mere assertion of the claimants that the deceased would have earned more than Rs 8000 to Rs 10,000 per month in the span of his lifetime cannot be accepted as legitimate income unless all the relevant facts are proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence before MACT. The claimants have to prove that the deceased was in a trade where he would have earned more from time to time or that he had special merits or qualifications or opportunities which would have led to an improvement in his income. There is no evidence produced on record by the claimants regarding future prospects of increase of income in the course of employment or business or profession, as the case may be.
7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I feel that in the absence of any such material there is no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal in not taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. As regards the issue of 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, the mother of the deceased has already died during the pendency of the claim petition and the deceased was survived by his widow and three minor children. In plethora of cases involving similar circumstances the Apex Court has granted 1/3rd deduction, I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. On the contention of the counsel regarding multiplier, I am of the opinion that the multiplier of 14 as applied by the Tribunal is correct in the facts of the present case. The accident in the present case occurred in the year 1991 and the II Schedule under Section 163A was notified in the year 1994 so the II Schedule cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Prior to 1994, the judgment of the Apex Court in Sussmma Thomas was ruling the roost and according to it the highest multiplier of 16 was applicable in case of victims in the age group of 20 years to 25 years. In the instant case the deceased was of 40 years of age and therefore the multiplier of 14 is correctly applied by the Tribunal.
8. In any case of the matter, the Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of estate. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Let differential amount of compensation be paid by the respondent from the date of filing of the petition till realisation along with interest @7.5% p.a.
9. With these directions, appeal stands disposed of.
