Surender Kumar And Anr. vs Baldev Singh And Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 593 Del

JUDGMENT

Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. The present appeal preferred under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the award dated 1st July, 2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,48,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the appellants 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 2/11/2001 at about 8:30 am near Deepali Chowk, outer ring Road, Delhi, Ms. Sonia was traveling as pillion rider on the scooter bearing registration No. DL 1 GB 3046, driven by her brother Sh. Sumit Kumar. The aforesaid scooter met with an accident with the truck bearing registration No. DL 1GB 3046 due to the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid truck. As a result, Ms. Sonia died. A claim petition was filed by the claimants on 27/3/2002 and the award was made by the tribunal on 1/7/2005. Aggrieved with the said award, present appeal for enhancement has been filed by the appellants/claimants.

3. Sh. Sarvesh Bisaria, counsel for the appellant has assailed the present award on three grounds. Firstly, the counsel for the appellant contended that the learned tribunal has committed grave error in taking income of the deceased @ Rs. 15,000/- p.a. It was maintained by the counsel that the court did not consider that the deceased was very active in extra curricular activities and had been participating in sports and cultural meets at the zonal and state level and as such remained a bright student in the school and therefore, had a bright future. Secondly, the counsel urged that the multiplier of 15 as applied by the learned tribunal is on the lower side and as per the age of the deceased the multiplier of 18 should have been applied by the tribunal. Thirdly, the counsel argued that the tribunal erred in granting meager amount of compensation towards loss of love and affection.

4. The counsel for the appellant has relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his contentions:

(1) Madan Lal Ramesh Chander and Ors. v. Jagdish Singh and Ors. 1986 ACJ 679 (P & H);

(2) A.C. Gupta and Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 90 (2001) DLT 397 (DB);

(3) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sivan and Ors. ;

(4) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mathurabai and Ors. 1986 ACJ 1092 (Bom) (DB);

(5) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. ;

(6) Kaderkunju v. Maheswaran Pada Nair ;

(7) Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud 2007 (12) JT 648;

(8) A.P.S.R.T.C. v. M. Pentaiah Chary 2007 (10) JT 491;

(9) Kanhaiyalal Kataria v. Mukul Chaturvedi (2005) 12 SCC 190;

(10) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty .

5. Per Contra, Sh. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, counsel for the respondent vehemently refuted the contentions of counsel for the appellant. The counsel urged that the award passed by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and require no interference. It was further submitted by the counsel that the award made by the tribunal is in accordance with the legal principles.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. As regards the first contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum, I am of the view that the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 15,000/-, which is in accordance with the II Schedule of the MV Act, 1988. In the II schedule of the MV Act, 1988, the provision has been made regarding compensation to those who had no income prior to the accident, whether fatal or injury and in this regard it has been laid down that the notional income of a non-earning member for computation of compensation shall be taken at Rs. 15,000 per annum. It is an admitted case between the parties that the deceased was not earning prior to the accident; therefore, the learned tribunal has rightly relied on the II Schedule to the Act in taking notional income of the deceased. Since the deceased was not earning at the time of the accident therefore, the tribunal could not have assessed the income of the deceased under the Minimum Wages Act. It was maintained by the counsel that the court did not consider that the deceased was very active in extra curricular activities and used to participate in sports and cultural meets at the zonal and state level and as such remained a bright student in the school and therefore, had a bright future. This contention of the counsel for the appellant is without any merit as the tribunal has taken into consideration these facts and as a result of the same has given the benefit of future prospects while calculating the compensation amount.

8. In plethora of cases the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts have held that the emphasis of the courts in personal injury and fatal accident cases should be on awarding suitable, just and fair damages and not mere token amount. Although money cannot fill the void left in the life of the family of the deceased due to her death but in cases of fatal accidents the general principle is that such sum of compensation should be awarded which puts the claimants in the same position as they would have been, had accident not occurred. But, compensation cannot be granted on the whims and fancies of the Tribunal without there being any basis for the same. I do not find any plausible reason advanced by the counsel for the appellant to enhance the compensation in this regard.

9. As regards the second contention of the counsel for the appellant regarding multiplier of 15 as applied by the tribunal being on the lower side, I do not find any substance in this contention of the counsel as well. The deceased was aged 18 years and the claimants i.e., father of the deceased was of 46 years and mother of 41 years at the time of the accident. It is no more res integra that the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants, whichever is higher. In this regard in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana , the Honble Apex Court has observed as under:

7. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.

10. In the facts of the instant case the tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier of 15 in accordance with the age of the claimants, which is higher than the age of the deceased.

11. As regards the third contention of the counsel for the appellant that Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards loss of love and affection is on the lower side, I am of the view that the amount awarded by the tribunal towards loss of love and affection is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-.

12. On the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,48,000/- to Rs. 2,58,000/-. The insurer shall pay the differential amount of Rs. 10,000/- i.e., Rs. 5,000/- each, to the appellants with up-to-date interest @7.5% from the date of filing of petition till final realisation.

13. With these directions the present appeal is disposed of.