Smt.Geeta Devi & Ors. vs D.T.C
2009 Latest Caselaw 1339 Del

         * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        FAO No. 256/2003


%                        Judgment reserved on: 15.2.2008
                         Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009


Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors.                            ...... Appellant
                              Through: Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Adv.

                                   versus

DTC                                                  .... Respondents
                              Through: Nemo

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 22 nd January

2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 4,08,800/- along with interest @ 8% per annum

to the claimants.

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

3. The deceased Mr. Ram Bachan Singh, aged about 33years was

working as a T.V. Mechanic with M/s ASN Electronics. On 30 th

September 1998, at around 9:30 A.M., the deceased was going on his

cycle on the left side of the road via Mother Dairy, Shakarpur Fly Over.

In the mean while, DTC Bus bearing licence No. DL 1P 9981 came at a

fast speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the cycle from

behind. Because of the impact, the cyclist Sh. Ram Bachan sustained

fatal injuries and died on the spot.

4. A claim petition was filed on 5th January 2001 and an award was

passed on 22nd January 2003. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellants assailed the said

award on quantum of compensation. Counsel for the appellants

contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the

deceased at Rs. 2,800/- 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. 5,600/- per month after considering the

future prospects as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in

1994 SCC (Cri) 335 G.M., Kerala SRTC Vs. Sussama Thomas on

the point of future increase. 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, whereas the

deceased was supporting his family at the time of accident and is

survived by his widow, daughter and mother. The counsel submitted

that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 17 while

computing compensation when according to the facts and

circumstances of the case multiplier of 25 should have been applied.

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 8% per

annum. The counsel also contended that the non-pecuniary damages

allowed to them by the tribunal are on the lower side.

6. Nobody has appeared for the respondents.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the

record.

8. As regards the contention of the counsel regarding the income of

the deceased PW1 Smt. Geeta Devi, widow of the deceased made the

statement that the deceased was employed as a TV mechanic having

monthly salary of Rs. 2800/-. The appellants claimants had examined

PW2 Sh. Hukam Singh, who is an employee of A.S.N. Electronics, Laxmi

Nagar, the firm where the deceased was employed as a T.V.

Technician. He averred that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.

2800/- at the time of the accident. He had brought on record the salary

certificate of the deceased, exhibited as PW2/A. 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. 2800/- pm.

9. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there is no

material on record to award future prospects. Therefore, the tribunal

committed no error in not granting future prospects in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

10. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that

the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal is on the higher side as the

deceased is survived by his widow, daughter and mother. In catena of

cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances made 1/3 rd

deductions. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the award on

this ground and modify the award.

11. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that

the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 17 in the facts and

circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed no

error. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 32 yrs

of age and the multiplier of 17 adopted by the tribunal is as per the II

Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In plethora of cases the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the II Schedule can be taken as a

guide in computing compensation and any deviation therefrom, should

take place only on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In

this regard in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General,

Geological Survey of India,(2003) 3 SCC 148 the Hon'ble Apex

Court has observed as under:

"11. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the payment of compensation on the basis of structured formula as provided for under the Second Schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 thereof. Deviation from the structured formula, however, as has been held by this Court, may be resorted to in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the amount of compensation should be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of each case."

12. The age of the deceased was 32 years, age of the widow was 25

years, daughter was 3 years and mother was 55 years of age at the

time of the accident. In my view, in the instant case the tribunal has

correctly applied 17 as the multiplier.

13. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of 8% 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 a 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 @ 8% pa

by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with.

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

granting adequate compensation towards non-pecuniary damages. On

perusal of the award it is manifest that the tribunal awarded Rs. 3000

towards funeral expenses and a lumpsum amount of Rs. 25,000/-

towards non-pecuniary damages. In this regard compensation towards

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

towards funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- and compensation

towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-. Further, Rs. 50,000-/-

is awarded towards loss of consortium. Thus, the non-pecuniary

damages are enhanced to Rs. 85,000 from Rs. 28,000/.

15. 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.

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

enhanced to Rs. 4,65,800/- from Rs. 4,08,800/- 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/DTC in the

same proportion as awarded by the tribunal.

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

13th April,2009                               KAILASH GAMBHIR, J