Smt. Hardevi & Others. vs Dhanpat Singh And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 1169 Del

     * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    FAO No. 180/2000

                     Judgment reserved on: 07.03.08
%                    Judgment delivered on: 06.04.2009


Smt. Hardevi & Others.                 ...... Appellants
                    Through: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate

versus


Dhanpat Singh and others.        ..... Respondent
                    Through: Nemo.


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

25.11.1999 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,960/- along with interest @

12% per annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 30.1.1989 at about 8.30 a.m., the deceased Ram Niwas

was plying on the offending bus from Yamuna Vihar to NCRT via

AIIMS. When the bus stopped at the red light after 1 ½ km

away from Khajuri Khas bus stand. The deceased was standing

on the last staircase of the bus. The said bus was being driven

in a rash and negligent manner and the bus driver in an attempt

to overtake the other vehicles on the road collided with the other

vehicle, as a result of which the deceased fell from the bus and

received fatal injuries.

4. A claim petition was filed on 5.5.1989 and an award was

made on 25.11.1989. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. The appellants have assailed the said award on quantum of

compensation. The counsel maintained that the tribunal erred in

making the deduction to the tune of 1/3rd of the income of the

deceased towards personal expenses when the deceased was

supporting a large family at the time of accident and is survived

by his wife, four sons and one daughter. 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 15 should have been

applied. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred in

not considering future prospects while computing compensation

as it failed to appreciate that the deceased would have earned

much more in near future as he was of 48 yrs of age only. 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 a year and hence, the

deceased would have earned much more in her life span. The

counsel also raised the contention that the tribunal has withheld

the interest for the period from 21.1.94 to 23.4.1999 and the

tribunal should have allowed simple interest @ 12% per annum

for this period also. The counsel also contended that the tribunal

erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love &

affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium, mental pain and

sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered

by the deceased to the appellants. The tribunal has awarded

Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses which is also on the lower

side.

6. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and

have perused the record.

8. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at

the rate of Rs. 1362/- p.m. on the basis of salary certificate

proved by the petitioners. As regards the future prospects I am

of the view that there is no sufficient material on record to

award future prospects. Therefore, the tribunal committed no

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 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal is on the higher side as

the deceased is survived by his wife, four sons and one daughter,

I feel that the tribunal erred in making 1/3rd deductions.

Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the award on this

ground and modify the award by deducting 1/5th expenses

towards personal expenses. Thus after deducting 1/5th from the

income of the deceased i.e. (1362-272), the net income comes to

Rs.1090/- p.m.

10. 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

not committed any error. This case pertains to the year 1989 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. 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 10 should

have been applied. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the

multiplier of 10 shall be applicable and the same has already

been applied by the Tribunal.

As regards the issue of interest, that no interest has been

awarded to the appellants from 21/1/1994 to 23/4/1999, The

tribunal observed that the appellants took a long time to

conclude his evidence. The issues were framed on 21/01/1994

and Petitioner evidence was closed on 21.01.1999. The approach

in awarding compensation has to be broadly based on the

principles of justice, equity and good conscience and

technicalities in the decision-making should be avoided. The

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation. The Indian

Parliament, being conscious of the magnitude of the plight of the

victims of the accidents, has introduced several beneficial

provisions to protect the interest of the claimants and to enable

them to claim compensation from the owner or the insurance

company in connection with the accident. But at the same time

the appellants cannot claim benefit of their own faults. The

tribunal after considering that the appellants themselves were

negligent and liable for such a long delay of about 5 years in

concluding evidence, did not allow the interest for the said

period. I feel that by not awarding interest from 21/1/1994 to

23/4/1999, the tribunal has committed no error thus no

interference is made in this regard.

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

not granting adequate compensation towards loss of love &

affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas, no

compensation has been granted towards loss of consortium and

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

to the appellants. In this regard compensation towards loss of

love and affection is awarded to Rs. 10,000/- each, meaning

thereby a total of Rs. 40,000/-. Compensation towards funeral

expenses is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. Further, Rs. 50,000/- is

awarded towards loss of consortium.

12. 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 their only son 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.

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

comes to Rs. 1,56,960/-. After taking into account Rs. 95,000/-,

which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total

compensation comes out as Rs. 2,51,960/-

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

enhanced to Rs. 2,51,960/- from Rs. 1,10,960/- with interest @

7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date

of filing of the present petition till realisation. However, as

regard to the interest awarded by the tribunal in its order shall

continue to be the same on the award of the tribunal.

15. Out of the enhanced compensation, 50% be released in

favour of the widow of the deceased and remaining be

distributed equally amongst the children of the deceased.

06.04.2009                        KAILASH GAMBHIR, J