Smt. Karamjit Kaur & Ors. vs Pushotam Mahajan & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1194 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     FAO No. 272/95

                      Judgment reserved on: 2nd April, 2008.
%                     Judgment delivered on: 6.4.2009



Smt. Karamjit Kaur & Ors.            ...... Appellant
                    Through: Mr. O. P. Mainee, Advocate.

                 versus


Pushotam Mahajan & 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

23.3.1995 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- along with interest @

12% per annum to the claimants.

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

That on 16.10.85, deceased S. Amrik Singh started from his

flat situated at Curzon Road Hostel, New Delhi on his two wheeler

scooter for R.K. Puram via K.G. Mark. At about 10:30PM, S.

Amrik Singh reached the crossing of K.G. Marg after giving signal

with his hand, he moved towards 'C' Hexagon, and when he had

almost crossed half of the intersection, all of a sudden a truck

bearing no. DL-LL-9655 being driven by R2 came at a very fast

speed struck against the extreme rear corner of the scooter. As a

result of which the deceased fell down on the metal road. He

suffered grievous injuries which proved fatal.

3. A claim petition was filed on 7.2.86 and an award was made

on 23.3.95/-. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is

claimed by way of the present appeal.

4. Sh. O.P. Mannie, counsel for the appellants contended that

the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at

Rs.4000/- 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. 20,000/- per month. The counsel

further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the

deduction to the tune of 1/4th 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,

two sons, one daughter and parents. The counsel submitted that

the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 10 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 Ld. tribunal erred in not

considering future prospects while computing compensation

despite the fact at the time of accident, deceased was 48 years

old. He was also technically qualified with vast experience as an

Engineer and as a Senior govt. Officer as well as the competence

to work further as a consultant after his retirement. He was also

entitled for extension of service beyond 58 years keeping in view

his excellent service record and would have lived upto 72 yrs 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 in place of only 12% per annum,

keeping in view the exorbitant rise in cost of living/inflation. The

counsel contended that the tribunal erred in not awarding a sum

of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards damages to the

appellants since because of death of the deceased they have

suffered mental anguish & agony and love & affection. It is

further submitted that Ld. Tribunal erred in not awarding any

compensation towards loss of one year of academic career of the

son of the deceased. The Counsel for the appellants further

pleaded that after the death of S. Amrik Singh, they had to

borrow a large amount of loan and the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is insufficient and inadequate.

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

respondent insurance company submits that there is no illegality

in the impugned award. Counsel further contends that award

passed by Tribunal is absolutely fair, just and reasonable and no

fault can be found with the same.

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

perused the record.

7. The case of the appellants claimants is that the deceased

Sh. S. Amrik Singh was of 48 years of age and was working as

Assistant Director in Central Electricity Authority at a monthly

income of Rs. 2423/-, which fact was duly proved by PW1 who

had brought the service record of the deceased. He also deposed

that soon since IV pay commission was to be made applicable,

deceased would have been earning Rs. 3,000/- pm. It has also

come on record by way of the testimony of the PW1 that the

deceased was a brilliant officer and sooner or later would have

been promoted to the post of the Deputy Director or Director. The

tribunal after considering the revised pay scale after

implementation of the IV pay commission, income at the time of

the accident of the deceased and also considering the income of

the Director and colleagues of the deceased and future prospects

of the deceased assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.

4,000/- pm. I feel that the tribunal erred in assessing the income

at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. without there being any supporting evidence.

The tribunal, therefore, ought to have assessed the income of

the deceased at Rs. 2423/- as proved by PW1 and then after

considering the future prospects should have doubled the same

to take the mean of the same. But considering that no dispute is

raised in this regard by the respondent, no interference is made

in the award in this regard in the interest of justice.

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

that the 1/4 deduction made by the tribunal are on the high side

as the deceased is survived by his widow, aged parents, one son

and two daughters. Considering the facts of the case, I do not feel

that the same requires any interference by this court..

9. 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

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 at the time of the

accident was of 48 years of age and is survived by his widow,

aged parents, one son and two daughters. 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 shall be applicable.

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 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.

11. On the contention regarding that the tribunal erred in not

granting compensation towards non-pecuniary damages. In this

regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is

awarded at Rs. 50,000/-; 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. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased

would come to Rs. 4,000/- and after making 1/4 deductions the

monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,000/- and the annual

loss of dependency comes to Rs. 36,000/- per annum and after

applying multiplier of 12 it comes to Rs. 4,32,000/-. Thus, the

total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,32,000/-. After

considering Rs. 1,20,000/-, which is granted towards non-

pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs.

5,52,000/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 5,52,000/- from Rs. 3,60,000/- with interest @

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

filing of the petition till the realisation of the award and the same

should be paid to the appellants by the respondent no. 3. The

enchanced compensation be apportioned amongst the appellants

in the same ratio as done by the Tribunal.

14. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is disposed of.

6.4. 2009                         KAILASH GAMBHIR, J