Smt. Sushma Mehta & Ors. vs Mr. Raju & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1161 Del

     * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     FAO No. 315/2000

                      Judgment reserved on: 19.03.08
%                     Judgment delivered on: 6.4.2009


Smt. Sushma Mehta & Ors.                 ...... Appellants
                   Through: Ms. Manu, Advocate

                      versus


Mr. Raju & Ors.                          ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers may
      be allowed to see the judgment?                           No

2.    To be referred to Reporter or not?                        No

3.    Whether the judgment should be reported
      in the Digest?                                            No


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 18.4.2000

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 6,73,000/- along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

3. On 25.10.1994 at about 4.45 p.m. at Patel Road near bus

stop of West Patel Nagar, the two wheeler scooter driven by the

deceased Netar Prakash Mehta was hit by a speeding bus bearing

registration no. DL 1P 1392 driven by Sh. Raju in a rash &

Negligent manner. Mr. Mehta died on the spot. A claim petition

was filed on 21.1.1995 and an award was made on 18.4.2000

Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of

the present appeal.

4. Ms. Manu, counsel for the appellants has assailed the said

award on quantum of compensation. Counsel for the appellants

contended that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of

the deceased at Rs. 6,453/- per month whereas after looking at

the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should have

assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,344/- per month.

The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied

the multiplier of 10 while computing compensation when

according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of

40 should have been applied. It was urged by the counsel that

the tribunal erred in considering future increase at Rs. 8,226/-

while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the

deceased would have earned much more in near future as he was

of 45 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 40 yrs had

he not met with the accident. The counsel also stated that had

the deceased not met with his untimely death he would have

been earning much more in the near future. It was also alleged

by the counsel that the tribunal did not consider the fact that due

to high rates of inflation the deceased would have earned much

more in near future and the tribunal also failed in appreciating

the fact that even the minimum wages are revised twice in an

year and hence, the deceased would have earned much more in

his life span. The counsel also raised the contention that the rate

of interest allowed by the tribunal is on the lower side and the

tribunal should have allowed simple interest @ 18% per annum in

place of only 12% per annum. The counsel contended that the

tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of

love & affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, mental pain

and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being

rendered by the deceased to the appellants and a lower amount

has been awarded towards loss of consortium at Rs.15,000/-.

5. Mr. Pradeep Gaur counsel for the respondent Insurance

Company refuted the submissions of counsel for the appellants

and contended that the award is just and fair and requires no

indulgence by this court. The tribunal has already been generous

and assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,226/- after

considering the further prospects of the deceased. The counsel

relied on (1) TSRTC vs S. Rajapriya & Ors; (2) TSRTC vs

K.S. Bindu, (3) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Kalpana &

Ors; (4) Sarla Dixit vs Balwant Yadavf- 1996 ACJ.581

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

7. The appellants claimants had brought on record Ex PW3/1

the salary certificate of the deceased. According to the said

salary certificate the income of the deceased was Rs. 6,453/-

p.m. I am of the view that the tribunal has not erred in assessing

the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,453/-.

8. Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of

the deceased by this court.

9. As regards the future prospects, I am of the view that there

is sufficient material on record to grant the future prospects. The

tribunal committed no error in granting future prospects and after

considering future prospects, it assessed income of the deceased

at Rs. 8,226/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. While

awarding future prospects the Tribunal rightly considered the

judgment in Sarla Dixit's case and also after considering that

the deceased was a Government employee. Thus, no interference

is made in the award on this count.

10. As regards deductions, the plea of the claimants was that

the deceased is survived by his widow, minor son and aged

parents, therefore, 1/3rd deduction is on the higher side. In catena

of cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances made 1/3rd

deductions. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the

award on this ground.

11. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant

that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 10. In the

facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has

committed error. This case pertains to the year 1994 and at that

time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles act has been brought on

the statute books. 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 15 should have been applied.

Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 15

shall be applicable.

12. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of

12% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the

same should be enhanced to 18% p.a., I feel that the rate of

interest awarded by the tribunal is just and fair and requires no

interference. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Interest is compensation for

forbearance or detention of money and that interest is awarded

to a party only for being kept out of the money, which ought to

have been paid to him. 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 relevant factors including

inflation, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from

time to time and other economic factors. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the award

regarding award of interest @ 12% pa by the tribunal and the

same is not interfered with.

13. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in

not granting adequate compensation towards loss of love &

affection and funeral expenses, whereas an amount of

Rs.15,000/- has been granted towards loss of consortium, loss of

expectation of life and loss of estate,. In this regard

compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at

Rs.30,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded

at Rs. 5,000/-. Further, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of

consortium. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded towards loss of

consortium, loss of expectation of life and loss of estate shall be

adjusted towards loss to estate alone.

14. As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of

amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the

appellants due to the sudden demise of the deceased and the

loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to

the appellants is concerned, I do not feel inclined to award any

amount as compensation towards the same as the same are not

conventional heads of damages.

15. On the basis of the discussion, the total loss of dependency

comes to Rs. 9,87,120/-. After taking into account Rs. 1,00,000/-,

which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total

compensation comes out as Rs. 10,87,120/-.

16. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is

enhanced to Rs. 10,87,120/- from Rs. 6,73,000/- with interest @

7.5% per annum on enhanced compensation from the date of

filing of the present petition till realisation payable to the

appellant by the respondent insurance company.

17. With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.

6.4.2009                           KAILASH GAMBHIR, J