Delhi High Court
Smt. Naresh Devi And Ors. vs Shri Joginder Singh And Ors. on 28 March, 2008
Author: K Gambhir
Bench: K Gambhir
JUDGMENT
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 19th November 2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,26,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants.
2. The conspectus of the facts is as follows:
On 4th February 1991 the deceased Mr. Surender Kumar was traveling in a passenger bus bearing registration No. DEP 6908 and was going to his house at Dichao Kalan after finishing his duty at CWC. At about 7:30 P.M., due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the deceased fell down from the front door and sustained severe injuries on his head and limbs. He succumbed to his injuries on 23rd February 1991.
3. A claim petition was filed on 3rd August 1991 and an award was made on 19th November 2001. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
4. Sh. D.K. Sharma counsel for the appellants has assailed the said award for enhancement. Counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in not taking into account the future prospects of the deceased. It is urged that the deceased was working as a Messenger with Water Commission and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 1529/-. As per the statement of Shri V.S. Saxena, Assistant Central Water Commission, R.K. Puram, who proved the salary certificate, had the deceased been alive, he would have been drawing a salary of Rs. 3,030/- in future. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 16 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case, multiplier of 22 should have been applied. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of consortium.
5. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and have perused the record.
7. The appellant No. 1 was examined as PW2 and stated that the deceased was her husband, he was 28 years of age at the time of the accident, was working as a IV class employee in central water Commission and he was earning Rs. 1500/- pm to 1600/-pm. The appellants claimants also examined Sh. V.S. Saxena, PW1, Assistant from Central water Commission who stated that the deceased was working as a messenger in the said office against a permanent post and his salary at the time of his death was Rs. 1529/-pm and he filed the salary certificate of the deceased was Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that according to the official record the date of birth of the deceased was 15/3/1962 and at the time of the accident on 4/2/1991, he was of 29 years of age. The said witness also stated on 13/1/2000, i.e. the date of his evidence, had the deceased been alive, then after 5th Pay Commission his basic salary would have been Rs. 3030/- plus other allowances and he would have retired on 31/3/2022. After considering all these factors I am of the view that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1529/-pm.
8. It is no more res integra that if there is sufficient evidence to prove future advancement in career and life of the deceased then the same should be considered while assessing income of the deceased. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there is sufficient material on record to award future prospects. Therefore, the tribunal committed error in not granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the deduction to the tune of Rs. 406/-pm made by the tribunal are on the higher side as the deceased is survived by his widow wife, aged parents, a daughter and a son. On perusal of the award it becomes manifest that the tribunal has followed the unit method to assess the compensation and surely there is no error in assessing the deduction to the tune of Rs. 406 on the basis of the unit method adopted by the tribunal. I do not find any infirmity in the award in this regard. But since the income would be assessed in accordance with the income after considering the future prospects, therefore, the numerically the amount of deduction would change.
10. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 16 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed no error. This case pertains to the year 1991 and at that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles act was not brought on the statute books. The said schedule came on the statute book in the year 1994 and prior to 1994 the law of the land was as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1994 SCC (Cri) 335 G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas. In the said judgment it was observed by the Court that maximum multiplier of 16 could be applied by the Courts, which after coming in to force of the II schedule has risen to 18. The deceased is survived by his widow wife, aged parents, a daughter and a son. In the facts of the present case, I am of the view that after looking at the age of the claimants and the deceased the multiplier of 16 has been correctly applied by the Tribunal.
11. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not granting adequate compensation towards non pecuniary damages, I feel that the same should be allowed. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 40,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-. Further, Rs. 50,000 is awarded towards loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000 has already been awarded by the tribunal towards loss of expectation of life.
12. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 2295/- after doubling Rs. 1530/- to Rs. 3060/- and after taking the mean of them. Applying the unit method, the total of the personal expenses of Rs 459/- and out of pocket expenses of Rs. 100/- of the deceased would come to Rs. 559/-. After making deductions, the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1736/- and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 20,832/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 16 it comes to Rs. 3,33,312/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,33,312/-. After considering Rs. 1,10,000/-, which is granted towards non pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 4,43,312/-.
13. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,43,312/- from Rs. 2,26,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till 31.12.1999 and @ 7.5% p.a from 1.1.2000 till final payment and the same should be paid to the appellant by the respondents. With the above direction, the present appeal is remitted back to the Tribunal for apportionment of the enhanced compensation in favor of the appellants.
