Smt. Kasturi Devi & Ors. vs Sh. Ranjit Singh & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1170 Del

     * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          FAO No.80/1997

                     Judgment reserved on: 11.02.2008

%                    Judgment delivered on:06.04.2009


Smt. Kasturi Devi & Ors.            ...... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Adv.

               versus


Sh. Ranjit Singh & Ors.             ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. Kishore Rawat & Mr. L.K.
                     Tyagi, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.        Whether the Reporters of local papers may        Yes
          be allowed to see the judgment?

2.        To be referred to Reporter or not?               Yes

3.        Whether the judgment should be reported          Yes
          in the Digest?


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 31/8/1996

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 2,81,760 along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

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

On 17.11.1992 Govind Singh deceased along with one Vinod

Kumar was walking on foot on the left side of the road near

Ganda Nallah G.T.Road, Vivek Vihar fly-over, Delhi. In the

meanwhile, truck no. DNG 1284 came from behind which was

being driven at a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent

manner by its driver, R-1. It did not blow any horn nor gave any

signal. It struck against the deceased who fell down and the left

wheel of the said truck ran over his body. He was removed to

GTB Hospital Shahdara but he succumbed to his injuries.

A claim petition was filed on 5/2/1993 and an award was made on

31/8/1996. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is

claimed by way of the present appeal.

3. Sh. Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellants assailed the said

award on quantum of compensation. Counsel for the appellants

contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the

deceased at Rs. 4400/- 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. 5000/- per month.

The counsel further 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 widow,

three daughters and two sons. The counsel submitted that the

tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 8 while

computing compensation when according to the facts and

circumstances of the case multiplier of 20 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 45 yrs of age only and would

have lived for another 15-20 yrs had he not met with the

accident. 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 further contended that the

tribunal erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love

& affection, funeral expenses, 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.

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

perused the record.

5. The appellants' claimants had examined H.L. Chitkara, PW1

Admin. Officer, L.I.C., who had brought with him the service

record of the deceased. The said witness further deposed that the

deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 3802.73 at the time

of his death while he was working as a Record Clerk with L.I.C. He

further deposed that the deceased would have got an increase in

pay which would have raised the salary of the deceased in course

of time to Rs. 5000/- pm. He also stated in his deposition that on

promotion the deceased would have earned Rs. 8000/- pm. PW1

also deposed that the deceased would have been promoted, had

he cleared the departmental test. On perusal of the award it

become manifest that on computing annual dependency the

tribunal took the mean of the salary of the deceased at the time

of the accident, Rs. 3802.73/- pm and the presumptive raised

salary of the deceased at the time of his superannuation, Rs.

5000/-, which came to Rs. 4400/- pm. The said witness, in his

cross examination stated that the deceased joined L.I.C. as a

peon and was promoted to the post of a Record Clerk after seven

years of his service after clearing the departmental test. After

considering all these factors I am of the view that the tribunal did

not commit any error in assessing the income of the deceased at

Rs. 4400/- after taking into consideration presumptive raise in his

salary.

6. As regards the future prospects, PW1, H. L. Chitkara in his

cross examination stated that the deceased joined L.I.C. as a

peon and was promoted to the post of a Record Clerk after seven

years of his service after clearing the departmental test. The

tribunal committed no error in taking into consideration the

future prospects to assess the monthly income of the deceased.

The increase of income claimed by the appellant from Rs.3802-73

pm to Rs.8,000/- pm in the absence of every evidence was rightly

not considered by the tribunal to take average of the same. I,

therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned award with

regard to assessment of monthly income of the deceased.

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

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

side as the deceased is survived by Widow, three daughters and

two sons.

8. No doubt the deceased had large family comprising of his

widow, three daughters and two sons and therefore he could not

have afford to spend 1/3rd of income on his personal expenses.

Keeping in view the large family of six members left by him 1/5th

deduction on personal expenses would be appropriate.

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

that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 8 in the

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

committed error. This case pertains to the year 1992 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. As per Ex. Pw1/A, certificate issued by

L.I.C., New Delhi, the date of Birth of the deceased was 1.8.1941.

Therefore, the age of the deceased at the time of the death was

51 years but the claimants had in the claim petition stated the

age of the deceased as 45 years. The age of the appellant widow

was 42 years, appellants daughters was 20, 21, and 22 years and

appellants sons were aged 19 and 20, respectively. In the facts of

the present case I am of the view that after looking at the age of

the claimants and the deceased and also considering the

applicable multiplier as per II Schedule to the MV Act, the

multiplier of 11 will be more appropriate. Therefore, in the facts

of the instant case the award is modified accordingly.

10. 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.

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

not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection,

funeral expenses and loss of estate, loss of consortium and the

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

the appellants, I am of the view that non-pecuniary damages

should be allowed by the tribunal. 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. 25,000/- 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 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.

13. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased

would come to Rs. 5704.095/- after doubling Rs. 3802.73 to Rs.

7605.46 and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/5th

deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4563.27

and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 54,759.31 per

annum and after applying multiplier of 11 it comes to Rs.

6,02,352/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.

6,02,352/-. After considering Rs. 1,05,000/-, which is granted

towards non pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes

out as Rs. 7,07,352/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 7,07,352/- from Rs. 2,81,760 /- with interest @

7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of

filing of the petition till realisation and the same should be paid to

the appellants by the respondent insurance company. Out of the

enhanced compensation 50% be paid to the widow of the

deceased and remaining be apportioned equally amongst the

children of the deceased.

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

06.04.2009                          KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.