Shri. Hirdey Narain & Ors. vs Ravinder Kumar & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1189 Del

     * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       FAO No. 380/2001

                        Judgment reserved on: 05.02.08
%                       Judgment delivered on:6.4.2009


Shri Hirdey Narain & Ors.              ...... Appellants
                    Through: Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Adv.

                   versus


Ravinder Kumar & Ors.                   ..... Respondent
                   Through: Ms. Fizani Hussain, Adv.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

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

2.   To be referred to Reporter or not?                         No

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


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 4th May

2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- along with interest @ 9% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. The deceased Sh. Ram Nath Roy, aged around 19 yrs was

working privately with Globe Security Services, earning Rs. 411/-

P.M. On 23rd November 1985 at around 7:45 A.M. the deceased

was travelling by a bus bearing registration No. DEP 7328 and

while trying to alight the bus, the deceased fell down and was run

over by the rear wheel of the said bus. The bus had stopped

when the deceased started to get down from it but then before

he could get down from the bus the driver started the bus and

that caused the deceased to fall from the bus which, resulted in

his death on the spot itself. A claim petition was filed on 14th

February 1986 and an award was made on 4th May 2001.

Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of

the present appeal.

4. The appellant has assailed the said award on the quantum

of the compensation. Counsel for the appellants contended that

the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.

411/- 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. 2,000/- considering the future

prospects of the deceased as the deceased had just started his

career. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously

applied the multiplier of 18 while computing compensation when

according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of

25 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 only 19 yrs of age at the time of the accident. The counsel also

urged that the tribunal has allowed interest only for 10 years

instead of the date of filing of the petition till realisation. The

counsel contended that the tribunal erred in not awarding

compensation towards loss of estate; the counsel has claimed a

sum of Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/- as awarded by Tribunal

5. Counsel for the respondents has simply denied all the

claims made by the appellants in the present appeal and has

sought dismissal of the appeal. The counsel submitted that the

award is just, fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances

of the present case and requires no interference by this court.

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

perused the record.

7. The appellants claimants had examined Sh. Ram Moorat

Yadav, PW2, who deposed that the deceased was working as a

guard with Globe Security Services and was earning Rs. 411/-

P.M. The said witness also deposed that the deceased was

getting other benefits like uniform, bonus etc. of about Rs.100-

200 pm apart from the salary of Rs. 411/-pm. He also stated that

had the deceased not met with his untimely death, he would

have been promoted to the post of a Supervisor and would have

been drawing a sum of Rs. 5,000-6,0000/- pm as he was a

matriculate. The appellant claimant also deposed that the

deceased was working as a guard and was sending Rs. 300 pm

towards household expenses. On perusal of the record it is

manifest that there was no cogent evidence regarding the

income of the deceased, but still the tribunal believed the said

averments and assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 411/-

pm. and after making deductions, the loss of dependency was

assessed at Rs. 300 and after considering future prospects,

which was not duly proved on record, the notional income was

assessed at Rs.600.

8. The thumb rule is that in the absence of clear and cogent

evidence pertaining to income of the deceased learned Tribunal

should determine income of the deceased on the basis of the

minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act. Thus,

the tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased at

Rs. 414 pm, which was the prevalent income for an unskilled

workman on the date of the accident as per the minimum wages

notified under the Minimum Wages Act. However no interference

in the award is made out in this regard in the interest of justice

and also because no defence is raised by the respondent in this

regard.

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

that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 18 in the facts

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

committed error. This case pertains to the year 1985 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 was of 19 years of age

and the mother of the deceased was of 50 years of age at the

time of the accident. 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 12 should have been applied. But in

the interest of justice, since no defence is raised by the

respondents in this regard no interference is made in the award

on this account as well as the compensation will fall to a very

small sum and thus, the multiplier of 18 as applied by the tribunal

shall be maintained.

10. On the question whether the Tribunal correctly awarded

interest only for 10 years, when in fact the matter took almost 15

years to litigate, as per counsel for the appellant the tribunal

grossly erred in awarding interest for only 10 years instead of

from the date of filing of the petition till realisation of the award.

The tribunal observed that the appellant took number of

adjournments and took a long time in concluding the

proceedings, which resulted in delay of the trial and thus the

tribunal restricted the interest to a period of 10 years. I feel that

in this regard no interference is called for.

11. Compensation cannot be granted on the whims and fancies

of the appellant. Legislature and Courts have laid down a proper

formula and method to be followed in quantifying amount of

compensation.

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

not awarding adequate compensation towards loss of estate and

expectation of life to the tune of Rs. 5,000 and that the tribunal

has erred in not allowing compensation towards loss of love &

affection, funeral expenses and the loss of services, which were

being rendered by the deceased to the appellants, I feel that the

same should be awarded. In this regard compensation towards

loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 20,000/-;

compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 5,000/-

and compensation towards loss of estate is enhanced to Rs.

10,000/-.

13. 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 are not conventional

heads of damages. Therefore, after considering Rs. 600/- p.m. or

Rs. 7200 p.a. as the loss of dependency and after applying

multiplier of 18 the compensation towards pecuniary damages

comes to Rs. 1,29,600/- and after considering Rs. 35,000/-

towards non-pecuniary compensation, the total compensation

comes to Rs. 1,64,600/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 1,64,000/- from Rs. 1,35,000/-. The same should

be paid to the appellant by the respondents with upto date

interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the

date of filing of the present petition till final realisation.

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

6.4.2009                             KAILASH GAMBHIR, J