Delhi High Court
Smt. Dolly Loyall & Ors. vs Shri. Juggan Lall & Ors. on 6 April, 2009
Author: Kailash Gambhir
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.242/1995
Judgment reserved on: 26.02.2008
% Judgment delivered on: 6.4.2009
Smt. Dolly Loyall & Ors. ......... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P.Mannie, Adv.
versus
Shri Juggan Lall & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, 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 No
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 10/5/1995 of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the
claimants.
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. On 9/1/1992 Sh. Edwin Messy aged 48 years was going on his
scooter and his son Deepak was a pillion rider. When they reached
near ridge-Malka Ganj, a truck bearing registration no. DIG 2832 being
driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 1 came from
behind and hit the scooter. In the said accident Sh. Edwin received
fatal injuries and later died.
4. A claim petition was filed on 22/1/1992 and an award was made
on 10/5/1995. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed
by way of the present appeal.
5. Sh. O.P. Mannie counsel for the appellants contended that the
tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/
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. 4,000/- 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 her
widow, aged mother and two children. The counsel submitted that the
tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 12 while computing
compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the
case multiplier of 13 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 and would have lived for another 20 yrs had he not
met with the accident. It was also contended 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 her life span. 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.
6. Per contra, Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary counsel for the respondent
insurance company contended that the award passed by the tribunal is
just and fair.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. The appellants claimants had produced on record the salary
register Ex. PW2/1, which was duly proved by PW2, a clerk at South
Town School, where the deceased was working as an accountant and
according to it the deceased at the time of the accident was earning
Rs. 2,100/- pm. The tribunal after considering future prospects of the
deceased assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- pm. It is
no more res integra that mere bald assertions regarding the income
and the future prospects of the deceased are of no help to the
claimants in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought on
record. In the instant case, the appellants have duly proved the
income of the deceased, therefore, I do not feel that the tribunal
committed any error in assessing the income after considering the
future prospects of the deceased at Rs 3,000/-. Therefore, no
interference is made in the award in relation to income of the
deceased by this court.
9. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that
the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher side as the
deceased is survived by his widow, aged mother and two children.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the
award should be modified in this regard. The deduction to the tune of
1/4th of the personal expenses is made in this regard.
10. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that
the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 12 in the facts and
circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed no
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. The deceased at the time of
the accident was of 48 years of age and is survived by his widow, aged
mother and two children. 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 12 has been
rightly applied by the tribunal. Therefore, no interference is made in
this regard.
11. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not
granting compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral
expenses, loss of estate, 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 at
Rs. 30,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs.
10,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs.
10,000/-. Further, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium.
12. As far as the contention pertaining to the award 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 as
assessed by the tribunal after considering future prospects comes to
Rs. 3,000/-. After making 1/4th deductions the monthly loss of
dependency comes to Rs. 2250/- and the annual loss of dependency
comes to Rs. 27,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 12 it
comes to Rs. 3,24,000/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to
Rs. 3,24,000/-. After considering Rs. 1,00,000/-, which is granted
towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as
Rs. 4,24,000/-.
14. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 4,24,000/- from Rs. 2,88,000/- 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, in the same proportion as mentioned by the tribunal in the
award, by the respondent insurance company.
15. With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.
6.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
