Jagrati & Ors. vs Randhir Singh & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1177 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     FAO No. 190/1995

                            Judgment reserved on: 26.02.2008
%                           Judgment delivered on: 6.4.,2009


Jagrati & Ors.                                        ......... Appellant
                            Through: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Adv.

              versus


Randhir Singh & Ors.                                    ..... Respondents
                            Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.



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 28.4.95 of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs.57,000/- along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 16.9.79, deceased Sh. Lakhi Ram, aged about 55 years

was going on his cycle towards his village when a truck bearing

registration no. DRO-5575 driven rashly and recklessly by R1

under the employment of R2 came from behind and hit him. He

suffered fatal injuries and died.

4. A claim petition was filed on 12.12.79 and an award was

made on 28.4.95. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is

claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. O.P. Goyal, counsel for the appellants submitted that Ld.

Tribunal has not awarded compensation in the instant case as per

the law applicable and same should have been Rs.1,50,000/- with

costs and interest from the date of filing of the petition till

payment as deceased Sh. Lakhi Ram was 55 years old and was

working as an agriculturist and was also doing business as a

broker of land & plots and was also selling milk. It was submitted

that Ld. Tribunal erred in assessing the dependency of the

appellants for a period of 8 years. The deceased being an

agriculturist would have lived upto 75-80 years and Ld. Tribunal

should have capitalized the economic loss suffered by the

appellants for a period of 20 years. In this regard, Ld. Counsel

referred to the case reported as 1987 ACJ Page 172. Counsel for

the appellants contended that the tribunal has also erred in

assessing the dependency of the appellants as Rs.800/- per

month as deceased has left behind five daughters and two minor

sons. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred in not

considering future prospects while computing compensation as it

failed to appreciate that deceased would have been earning

much more in the near future had he not met with the accident.

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 @ 15 per annum from the

date of filing of the petition till payment in view of the Supreme

Court case reported as 1991 ACJ Page3. The counsel also

contended that the tribunal erred in not awarding non-pecuniary

damages in the facts and circumstances of the present case.l

6. Per Contra Mr. Pankaj Seth, counsel appearing for

respondent insurance company submitted that there is no

illegality in the impugned award. Counsel further contended that

award passed by Tribunal is absolutely fair, just and reasonable

and no fault can be found with the same.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

8. One of the son of the deceased deposed as PW3 that the

deceased was a property dealer and also a milk vendor and was

running a dairy shop. He also deposed that the deceased used to

earn Rs. 2500-3000/- pm. But no documentary evidence was

brought on record to prove the same. It is no more res integra

that mere bald assertions regarding the income of the deceased

are of no help to the claimants in the absence of any reliable

evidence being brought on record. In the present facts and

circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the

finding of the Tribunal in this regard.

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

is no material on record to award future prospects. It is no more

res integra that mere bald assertions regarding the future

prospects of the deceased are of no help to the claimants in the

absence of any reliable evidence being brought on record.

Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in not granting future

prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.

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

that the 1/4 deduction made by the tribunal is on the higher side

as the deceased is survived by his five daughters and two sons.

Considering the circumstances of the case, I feel that the

deduction to the tune of 1/5th towards personal expenses would

be just and fair. Thus the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 640/-

p.m. (800-160).

11. 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 1979 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 at the time of the

accident was of 56 years of age and is survived by his five

daughters and two sons. 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 after taking a balanced view considering the

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

multiplier of 8 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 15% 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 compensation towards non-pecuniary damages, In

this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is

awarded at Rs. 35,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses

is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of

estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-.

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

would come to Rs. 800/- and after making 1/5 deduction, the

monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 640/- and the annual

loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,680/- per annum and after

applying multiplier of 8 it comes to Rs. 61,440/-. Thus, the total

loss of dependency comes to Rs. 61,440/-. After considering Rs.

55,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the

total compensation comes out as Rs. 1,16,440/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 1,16,440/- from Rs. 57,000/- with interest @

7.5% per annum on the enchanced compensation from the date

of filing of the present petition in this Court till the realisation of

the award and the same should be paid to the appellants by the

respondent no. 3. The enchanced compensation be distributed

equally amongst the L.R.'s of the deceased.

16. In view of the foregoing, disposed of.

6.4. 2009                             KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.