Natha Singh And Ors. vs Rameshwar Singh And Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1335 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        FAO No. 582 of 2002

                   Judgment reserved on 3.3.2008
%                  Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009


Natha Singh And Ors.               ...... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Adv.

                   versus


Rameshwar Singh And Ors.                    ..... Respondent
                  Through:

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

17.7.2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 58,000/-

along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.1.1992 at

about 9:30 p.m. at Onkar nagar, Tri Nagar the deceased

Smt. Satnam Kaur was hit by a Maruti Car bearing

registration No. DL-2C-6606 driven in a rash and

negligent manner, when she was celebrating Lohri

festival in Gali No.20. As a result, she suffered grevious

injuries and died.

3. A claim petition was filed on 5.3.1992 and an

award was passed on 17.7.2002. Aggrieved with the said

award enhancement is claimed by way of the present

appeal.

4. The appellants have assailed the said award on

quantum of compensation. Shri O.P. Goyal, ccounsel for

the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in

assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 600/- 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. 2416/- per

month. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has

erroneously applied the multiplier of 10 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 she was of 49 yrs of age only. It was also

alleged by the counsel that the tribunal also failed in

appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are

revised twice in year and hence, the deceased would

have earned much more in her life span. 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 @ 12% per

annum in place of only 9% per annum. The counsel

contended that the tribunal has 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.

5. Nobody has appeared for the respondents.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and

perused the record.

7. It is put forth by the claimants that the deceased

was manufacturing steel furniture parts in her own

house and was earning Rs. 4,000/- p.m. Appellant NO. 1

deposed as PW 3 that after deceased he is carrying out

the said business now. He also deposed that the

deceased was a matriculate. He stated that she was not

an income tax assessee. Since nothing came on record to

prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed

her income under the Minimum Wages Act.

8. After considering all these factors I am of the view

that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income

of the deceased at Rs. 600/-.

9. 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.

10. 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. Therefore, no

interference is made in relation to income of the

deceased by this court.

11. As regards the future prospects I am of the view

that no sufficient material has been placed on record to

award future prospects.

12. However, it has been the consistent view of this

court that whenever aid of Minimum Wages Act is taken

while computing income, then increase in minimum

wages should also be considered. It is well settled that

future prospects are not akin to increase in minimum

wages. To neutralize increase in cost of living and price

index, the minimum wages are increased from time to

time. A perusal of the minimum wages notified under the

Minimum Wages Act show that to neutralize increase in

inflation and cost of living, minimum wages virtually

double after every 10 years. Thus, it could safely be

assumed that income of the deceased would have

doubled in the next 10 years.

13. Therefore, the tribunal erred in not considering

increase in minimum wages, while assessing the income

of the deceased and same should be considered while

computing compensation towards loss of dependency.

14. As regards the contention of the counsel for the

appellant that the tribunal 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 1992 and at that time II

schedule to the Motor Vehicles act was not brought on

the statute book. 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 49 years of age at the time of the accident and is

survived by his two sons 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 taking a

balanced view after considering applicable multiplier

under the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act the

multiplier of 12 should have been applied. Therefore, in

the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 12 shall be

applicable.

15. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of

interest of 9% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the

lower side and the same should be enhanced to 12%

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 @ 9% pa by the

tribunal and the same is not interfered with.

16. 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. 5,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is

enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- Further. 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 their mother 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.

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

deceased would come to Rs. 900/- after doubling Rs.

600/- to Rs. 1200/- and after taking the mean of them.

After making 1/3rd deductions the monthly loss of

dependency comes to Rs. 600/- and the annual loss of

dependency comes to Rs. 7200/- per annum and after

applying multiplier of 12 it comes to Rs.86400/-. Thus,

the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.86400/-. After

considering Rs. 45,000/- which is awarded towards non-

pecuniary damages the total compensation comes out as

Rs. 1,31,400/-.

18. In view of the above discussion, the total

compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,31,400/- from Rs.

58,000/- 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

insurance company in the same proportion as awarded

by the Tribunal.

19. With the above direction, the present appeal is

disposed of.

13th April, 2009               KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
'raj'