Sh. B.P. Singhal And Anr. vs Sh. Ram Kumar Rathi And Ors.
2008 Latest Caselaw 604 Del

JUDGMENT

Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. By way of this appeal, appellants seek to assail the impugned award dated 27.1.1993 on four grounds. Firstly, that the learned tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- p.m., without properly appreciating the evidence brought and duly proved on record. The second contention raised by appellants is that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 20, when the proper multiplier applicable in the instant case should have been 25 or 30 on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased. The third contention of appellants is that the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal @ 12% is on the lower side, therefore, interest @ 18% p.a. should have been awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case. Lastly, appellants contended that the tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of love and affection and company of their only son.

2. For better appreciation of the contentions raised by the parties, it would be appropriate to give brief scenario of the facts as under:

On 4.10.1981 at about 1.10 p.m., the deceased, Sh. Ashish Singhal, aged 21 years, was traveling in a three-wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DHR- 5301 and was going towards India Gate on Dr.Zakir Hussain Marg. When the said scooter was at the crossing of the Zakir Hussain Road and Cornwallis Road, suddenly the offending DTC bus, bearing registration No. DHP-2996 came from Cornwallis Road for going towards Zoo's direction, being driven in a very rash and negligent manner by its driver. The bus driver skipped the red light traffic signal at the aforesaid crossing and suddenly lost the control over the vehicle. When the three-wheeler scooter saw the bus coming towards him, he tried to save himself from the collision but the bus which, was being driven at a high speed hit the three-wheeler scooter and smashed it and as a result of this, Master Ashish Singhal died. The bus driver of the bus even after the said accident did not stop and sped away. A claim petition was instituted before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the tribunal on 27/1/1993 made the award. Aggrieved with the said award present appeal is preferred by the appellant claimant. Sh. R. P. Bansal, Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- per month in a most whimsical manner and without properly appreciating the evidence duly proved on record. The counsel urged that the income of the deceased as proved on record was more than Rs. 3,500/-. Per contra, Sh. Jyotindra Kumar, counsel for the respondents traversed the said contention of the counsel for the appellants and submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- per month, in a most casual manner although no evidence was placed on record in support of the same by the appellants to prove the said income. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the deceased was a student, and therefore, could not be supposed to earning also.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have perused the record.

4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has held that while assessing the income of the deceased in motor accident cases, the tribunals should bear in mind that the same should be assessed on the basis of the cogent and the reliable evidence produced and duly proved on record. On perusal of the award it is clearly borne out that the tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/-. Admittedly, the deceased was of a young age of 21 years and was a student of M.Sc. (Physics) at the time of accident. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgments reported in 1989 (1) TAC 334 Kumari v. Shanti Trivedi 1991 (1) TAC 364 Uman Singh Gurung v. Shri Seva Rama Dutta 1992 (1) TAC 96 Ayavvur v. Gopi Nathan Nair and 1990 ACJ 687 and Rukmani Devi v. Om Prakash for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased. Even under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the criteria of notional income of a boy of such an age has been laid down and it cannot be said that simply because the boy was a student, therefore, the notional income of such a boy should not be taken into consideration. Even otherwise as per the case set up by the appellants, the said deceased student was a partner in M/s.P.P. Singhal and Company and was carrying on the business of pesticides. Counsel for the appellants has also invited my attention to the deposition of PW-12, who proved the existence of partnership firm M/s.P.P. Singhal in which the said boy, Master Ashish Singhal was one of the partners. PW-3, father of the deceased, also entered the witness box and had deposed about the said fact of his son being a partner in the said partnership firm. He also proved that his son was likely to go abroad for higher education for which his passport was also ready. In the impugned award, the tribunal has also observed that the deceased was assured a job of the Director of the firm in his uncle's firm. Further, the counsel for the appellants has also invited my attention to the deposition of PW-11, wherein the said witness had deposed about the offer of Rs. 5,000/- pm when the deceased would have joined the company. Even under the Minimum Wages Act, the income for a person possessing a graduates' degree has been duly stated and I, therefore, do not find that there is any illegality in the impugned award assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- p.m. After taking into consideration, the academic record of the said student and his family status besides his being a partner in the said partnership firm it is manifest that the deceased had a bright future and had good chances of advancement in career, earnings, and life, therefore, the benefit of future prospects should also have been granted by the tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. As regards, the second contention of the appellants that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 20, when the proper multiplier applicable in the instant case would have been 25 and 30 on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased, who were aged 49 and 47 years at the time of the accident. Per contra, the counsel for the appellant alleged that the tribunal did not follow II Schedule while applying multiplier. In relation to the issue of multiplier, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the multiplier should be chosen as per the age of the claimants or the deceased, whichever is higher. The Apex Court has held 18 for the age group of 21 years to 25 years as the upper limit for application of the multiplier and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70. The instant case pertains to the year 1981 and the award was made in the year 1993, whereas the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force in the year 1994, therefore, the said schedule is not of much help. But, prior to the coming into force of the said schedule the law of the land on this issue was laid down by the Apex Court in GM, Kerela SRTC v. Susamma Thomas in which 16 was held to be the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 21 years to 25 years. On the basis of the above discussion, it could be easily said that the multiplier of 20 applied by the tribunal is on the higher side but since no challenge has been made by the Insurance Company to the said multiplier, therefore, the highest multiplier of 16 as per the Apex Court decision in Susamma Thomas's case is made applicable.

6. As regards the third contention of the counsel for the appellants pertaining to the rate of interest @ 12% as awarded by the tribunal being on the lower side, I feel that there is no force in the said contention of the counsel for the appellants. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the rate of interest to be awarded should be just and fair depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and taking in to consideration the relevant factors including inflation, change of economic policies, policy adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. and should normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time i.e. the date of decision. In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court has in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India , observed as under:

6. The question as to what should be the rate of interest, in the opinion of this Court, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of interest would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time.

18. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same, as it is consequential in the eye of law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money, which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident claim cases having regard to the nature of provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions, mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Section 34 CPC nor Section 4A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing rate of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal or the High Court as indicated above.

7. In the light of the above discussion I am of the view that the interest @ 12% as awarded by the tribunal is correct and requires no interference.

8. On the last contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of love and affection and company of their only son, I am of the view that the compensation towards loss of love and affection and company of the only son is a conventional head of damages and the tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation towards the same. I award Rs. 10,000/- each to the appellants, parents of the deceased under this head of compensation.

9. On the basis of the above discussion, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 3,500/-pm and after considering the future prospects of the deceased and accordingly doubling the said income and taking the mean of the same, the future income of the deceased would come out as Rs. 5,250/-pm. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the monthly dependency would come out as Rs. 3,500/-pm and the annual dependency would come out as Rs. 42,000/- pa and after applying multiplier of 16, the loss of dependency would come out as Rs. 6,72,000/-. Further, Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection. Also, on perusal of the award the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 500/- as costs. Therefore, the total compensation payable by the respondents to the appellants would come out as Rs. 6,92,000/- besides Rs. 500/- towards costs.

10. The differential amount of compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- shall be paid by respondent No. 5 along with up to date interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till 31.12.1999 and @ 7.5% per annum from 1.1.2000 till the realization in equal proportion to the appellants.

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