Smt.Raj Rani & Ors. vs Sh Kuldip Singh & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1341 Del

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        FAO No. 156/2000

                        Judgment reserved on: January 24, 2008
                         Judgment pronounced on: 13.4.2009

Smt. Raj Rani & Ors.                                           ..... Appellant.
                    Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.

                        versus

Shri Kuldip Singh & Ors.                                ..... 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              No
   in the Digest?


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 19.1.2000 of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a

sum of Rs. 75,600/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the

claimants.

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

That on 7.12.1980 at about 1.15 p.m. the deceased Shri Jit

Singh was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. DEW 5851 at

a slow speed and on the correct side of the road. When he reached a

place opposite Rajputana Rifle Centre on the ring road, a truck bearing

registration No. RRG-9358 came at a fast speed from behind and

struck against the Motorcycle of the deceased. The truck dragged the

motorcycle up to a considerable distance. The deceased fell down and

received injuries and he succumbed to his injuries.

A claim petition was filed on 18.3.1981 and an award was made

on 19.1.2000. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed

by way of the present appeal.

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

said award on the ground of quantum of compensation. Counsel for

the appellants contended that the tribunal has 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. 1200/- per month. The

counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the

multiplier of 14 while computing compensation when according to the

facts and circumstances of the case and after considering that the

deceased was of 32 years of age and the deceased was supporting a

large family at the time of accident and is survived by his wife, two

sons and three daughters, therefore, multiplier of 17 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 32 yrs of age only and would have lived for

another 30 yrs had he not met with the accident. The counsel also

stated that had the deceased not met with his untimely death he

would have expanded his business and would have been earning

much more in the near future. It was also alleged 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 his life span.

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 brought nothing on record to

prove the income of the deceased. Merely, Smt. Raj Rani, the widow of

the deceased had asserted that the deceased was an electrical

contractor and was earning Rs. 1200/- pm and out of the said amount,

he was giving Rs. 1000/- to her for the household purposes. Since,

nothing had come on record to prove the income of the deceased,

therefore, the learned Tribunal determined the income of the

deceased on the basis of the minimum wages notified under the

Minimum Wages Act. After considering all these factors, I am of the

view that the tribunal committed no error in assessing the income of

the deceased at Rs. 600 p.m.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Therefore, no interference is made in the award in relation

to income of the deceased by this court.

10. As regards the future prospects, 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. The deceased was of 32 years of age at

the time of the accident and thus, it could safely be assumed that

income of the deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years.

Future increase in income is not akin to future prospects, though the

method followed for the computation of income while awarding future

prospects and increase in the minimum wages are the same,

therefore, the computation is not affected.

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

that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 14 in the facts

and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed

error. This case pertains to the year 1980 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 was of 32

years of age and was supporting a large family at the time of accident

and is survived by his wife, two sons and three 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 applicable multiplier under the M.V.Act the multiplier

of 15 should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts of the instant

case the multiplier of 15 shall be applicable.

12 . On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in

not granting compensation towards non-pecuniary damages, I feel

that the same should have been awarded. In this regard

compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs.

50,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at 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.

13 . As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of

amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the appellants

due to the sudden demise of their only son 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.

14 . On the basis of the above discussion, the income of the

deceased would come to Rs. 900 after doubling Rs.600/- to Rs.1800/-

and then taking the mean. After making deductions the monthly loss

of dependency comes to Rs.675/- and the annual loss of dependency

comes to Rs.8100/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 15 it

comes to Rs. 121500/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to

Rs.121500/-. After considering Rs. 1,15,000/-, which is granted

towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out

as Rs.2,36,500/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 2,36,500/- from Rs. 75,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation and the

same should be paid to the appellant No.1, as the Tribunal in it's

award has mentioned that other LRs had already given their no

objection, by the respondent insurance company.

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

13.4.2009                                        KAILASH GAMBHIR J.