Smt.Raj & Ors. vs Moola Ram & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1328 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   FAO No. 348/1998

      Judgment reserved on:       5th March, 2008.

      Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009

Smt. Raj & Ors.                              ..... Appellant.

                  Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate.

                       Versus

Moola Ram & Ors.                       ..... Respondents

Through: None.

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 of

compensation passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim

Tribunal on 30.5.1998 for enhancement of compensation.

The learned Tribunal awarded a total amount of

Rs.2,73,600/- with an interest @ 12% PA for the death of

late Sh. Yash Pal due to the motor accident.

2. The brief conspectus of facts is as under:

On 09.2.96, the deceased was driving two wheeler

scooter bearing registration no. DAB-4546 and one Sanjay

was the pillion rider. Both of them were going towards

Bahadurgarh via Main Rohtak Road. At about 9:45PM, when

they reached near Haryana Dharam Kanta on the main

Rohtak Road, a truck bearing registration no. RNS-4311

which was being driven by R1 came from the opposite

direction at a fast speed and it took a sudden turn from the

gap in verge without giving any signal or blowing any horn.

As a result of which, it struck against the scooter of the

deceased and late Sh. Yash Pal received fatal injuries in the

accident and Sanjay, the pillion rider received grievous

injuries. A claim petition was filed on 11.4.96 and an award

was passed on 30.5.98. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

3. Sh. O.P. Mannie, counsel for the appellants claimants

urged that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is

inadequate and insufficient looking at the circumstances of

the case. He assailed the said judgment of Learned Tribunal

firstly, on the ground that the tribunal erred in assessing the

income of the deceased at Rs.2500/- 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. 3500/- per month. 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 15 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

41 yrs. of age only and had a bright future. The counsel also

submitted that had the deceased not met with his untimely

death he would have been earning much more in the near

future. It was also argued 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 the

value of rupee is dwindling due to high inflation. The

counsel further contended that the Tribunal erred in not

awarding any compensation towards loss of love &

affections, loss of expectation of life, loss to the estate of

the deceased, loss of services & loss of consortium to

appellant no.1. 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 @

24 per annum in place of only 12 per annum.

4. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and

perused the record.

6. The appellants claimants had produced on record Ex.

PW5/A-1, Ex. PW5/A-3 and PW-5/A4 which proved that the

deceased was a registered medical practitioner in

Ayurveda. This is further strengthened by the deposition of

PW-2 & PW-3. Apart from the bald statements of PW-2/Ram

Chand and PW-3/Om Prakash, no documentary evidence

has come on record to prove the income of the deceased. 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. 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. The tribunal assessed income of the

deceased @ Rs.2500/-per month. On the assumption that

his income from practice must have been at Rs. 2500/- per

month. On perusal of the rates of minimum wages as

mentioned in Minimum Wages Act for a graduate, the

income of the deceased as on the date of accident would

have been @ Rs.2500/-per month.

7. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that

time and again, the view of this court is that whenever

income is taken in accordance with the rates of minimum

wages under the Minimum Wages Act, the increase in

wages should also be considered. The increase of minimum

wages is not akin to the future prospects and the former is

considered taking into account the inflation and other

economic factors. The tribunal erred in not considering

increase in minimum wages and same are allowed to the

appellants. After considering the increase in minimum

wages, increased income of the deceased would come to

Rs.3750/-per month. (2500+5000) ½.

8. 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 error. This case

pertains to the year 1996 and at that time II schedule to the

Motor Vehicles Act was already brought on the statute book.

It has come on record that age of the deceased was 41

years at the time of the accident and he is survived by his

widow, two daughters and an aged mother. 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

considering that as per the II schedule to the Motor Vehicles

Act, the applicable multiplier is 15. I am of the view that the

multiplier of 15 shall be applicable.

9. 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 24% 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% p.a by the

tribunal and the same is not interfered with.

10. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has

erred in not granting adequate compensation towards loss

of love & affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate,

whereas, no compensation has been granted towards 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

enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-; compensation towards funeral

expenses is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and compensation

towards loss of estate is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Further,

Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium.

11. As regards compensation for loss of expectation of life

and loss of services where were being rendered to the

appellants by the deceased during his life time, since the

same are not conventional heads of damages, no

compensation is awarded towards them.

12. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the

deceased would come to Rs.3750/- after doubling Rs.2500/-

to Rs.5000/- and after taking the mean of them. After

making 1/4th deductions the monthly loss of dependency

comes to Rs. 2812.50/- and the annual loss of dependency

comes to Rs.33750/- per annum and after applying

multiplier of 15 it comes to Rs.5,06,250/-. Thus, the total

loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,06,250/-. After

considering Rs.1,00,000/-, which is granted towards non-

pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as

Rs.6,06,250/-.

13. In view of the above discussion, the total

compensation is enhanced to Rs. 6,06,250/- from

Rs.2,73,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date

of filing of the petition till realisation and the same should

be paid to the appellants by the respondent no.3 in the

same ratio as apportioned by the tribunal.

14. With the above directions, the present appeal is

disposed of.

13.4.2009                          KAILASH GAMBHIR J.