Smt.Jagrani & Ors. vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1343 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                  FAO No. 29/1997
                          Judgment reserved on 10.03.2008
                          Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009

Smt. Jagrani & Ors.                 ..... Appellants.
                       Through: Mr. Ashok Popli, Adv.



                       versus

Pradeep Kumar        & Ors.
                                     ..... Respondents
                       Through: Shri Pradeep Gaur, 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

5.8.1996 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/- along with interest @

12% per annum to the claimants.

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

On 24.11.1990 Jagdish Ram aged 39 years was going

on cycle via outer Ring Road. It was about 1.00 PM when the

truck bearing registration No: DEG 196, driven rashly and

negligently hit the cycle from the back side with great force as a

result of which Jagdish fell down and the wheel of the truck

passed over him and he died on the spot.

A claim petition was filed on 8.2.1991 and an award

was passed on 5.8.1996. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

3. The appellants have assailed the said award on five

grounds. Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal

has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1439/-

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. 2800/- per month. The counsel submitted that

the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 8 while

computing compensation when according to the facts and

circumstances of the case multiplier of 16 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 39 yrs of age only and would

have lived for another 40 yrs had he not met with the accident.

The counsel also stated that had the deceased not met with

untimely death he would have earned much more in the near

future. It was also submitted 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 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 @ 15% per annum in place

of only 12% per annum. The counsel further 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.

4. Shri Pradeep Gaur, Advocate appeared on behalf

respondent insurance comapny. He submitted that the award

passed by the ld. Tribunal is just and fair and requires no

interference by this court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

6. The appellants claimants had produced salary

certificate on record showing that the deceased was working as

a peon in Delhi Administration and was drawing a salary of

Rs.1439/- per month. 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.1439/- per month.

7. Therefore, no interference is made in the award in

relation to income of the deceased by this court.

8. As regards the future prospects the Tribunal

considered that since the deceased was in government service

he would have clearly received increment from time to time and

thus assessed the income after considering future prospects

assessed the income at Rs.2800/-. Therefore, the tribunal

committed no error in granting future prospects in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

9. 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, 4 children

and aged parents. In catena of cases the Apex Court has in

similar circumstances made 1/5th deductions. Therefore, I am

inclined to interfere with the award on this ground and modify the

award making 1/5th deducations towards personal expenses.

10 . As regards the contention of the counsel for the

appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that

the tribunal has committed an error. This case pertains to the

year 1990 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. At the time

of accident as per Ex. PW 1/1, salary certificate, the date of birth

of the deceased was 2.1.1952 thus he was of 38 years of age and

is survived by his widow four children and aged parents. 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 the

applicable multiplier under II Schedule to the MV Act and taking a

balanced view, the multiplier of 12 should be more appropriate.

Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 12

shall be applicable.

12 . 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.

13 . On the contention regarding that the tribunal has

erred in not granting compensation towards loss of love &

affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, 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 awarded at Rs.60,000/-; 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.

14 . 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 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.

15 . In view of the above discussions, the income of the

deceased after considering future prospects is taken as Rs.2800/-

per month and after 1/5th deductions the monthly loss of

dependency comes to rs.2240/- per month and annual

dependency comes to Rs.26,880/- per annum. After applying

multiplier of 12 the compensation towards loss of dependency

comes to Rs.3,22,560/-.

16 . After considering Rs.1,30,000/-, which is granted

towards non pecuniary damages the total compensation comes

out as Rs.4,52,560/-.

17 . In view of the above discussion, the total

compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,52,560/- from Rs. 1,82,000/-

with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the

present petition till realisation and the same should be paid to

the appellants by the respondent No.3, in the same ratio as

awarded in the tribunal.

18 . With the above directions, the matter is remitted

back to the tribunal for apportionment of the differential amount

in favour of the appellants.

Disposed of.

13.4.2009                                     KAILASH GAMBHIR,J.