Chiranji Lal Sharma vs Manjit Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 1349 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                  FAO No. 289/2002

      Judgment reserved on:     14.3.2008

      Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009.

Chiranji Lal Sharma                 ..... Appellant.

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

                       Versus

Manjit Singh                        ..... Respondent

             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

      in the Digest?                                   No

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated

16.3.2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby

the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- along with

interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants.

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

On 10.4.93 deceased Virender Kumar Sharma while

driving his two wheeler scooter bearing registration no.

DDP-4958 along with one Rajdev reached Raja Garden

Chowk and stopped his scooter due to the red light signal.

In the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration no. DIG-8247

being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner reached

there and hit against the scooter, because of which both

Virender Kumar Sharma and Rajdev suffered fatal injuries.

The present appellants are the legal heirs of deceased

Virender Kumar Sharma.

A claim petition was filed on 27.7.1993 and an award

was passed, on 16.3.2002. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

3. Sh. O.P. Mannie, Counsel for the appellants contended

that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the

deceased at Rs. 2676/- 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.4000/- per

month. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously

applied the multiplier of 12 while computing compensation

to the appellants when according to the facts and

circumstances of the case multiplier of 17 should have been

applied. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred

in not taking into consideration the minimum statutory

wages payable to a graduate. It was further submitted that

Ld. Tribunal erred in deducting Rs.1176/- towards personal

expenses of the deceased from his monthly income.

Further, it was submitted that Ld. Tribunal erred in

computing monthly dependency of the appellants @

Rs.1500/-. It was argued that 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. It was also contended 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 a year and hence, the deceased would

have earned much more in his 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 @ 18% per annum in place of

only 12% per annum. The counsel contended that the

tribunal erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of

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

pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were

being rendered by the deceased to the appellants.

4. Nobody has been appearing for the respondent.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and

have perused the record.

6. The case of the appellants claimants was that the

deceased was a graduate and was earning Rs. 2,000/- pm at

the time of his death while working with M/s. Kabra & Co.

This has come on record by way of depositions of PW1

father of the deceased and PW2 Sh. Radhey Shyam who

was also working at M/s. Kabra & Co. but nothing was

produced on record to prove the income of the deceased

with the help of any documentary evidence. The tribunal

believed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per

month and after considering future prospects, assessed the

income of the deceased at Rs. 2676/- per month.

Considering that no dispute is raised by the counsel for the

respondents in this regard, no interference is made in the

award on this count.

7. 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.

Hence, no interference is made in the award on this count.

8. As regards the contention of the counsel for the

appellant that the 1/3 deduction made by the tribunal are

on the higher side as the deceased is survived by his aged

parents and since he was a bachelor he did not have much

personal expenses. In catena of cases the Apex Court has in

similar circumstances made 1/3rd deductions. Therefore, I

am not inclined to interfere with the award on this ground.

9. As regards the contention of the counsel for the

appellant that the tribunal 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

1993 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 age of the deceased at the

time of the accident was 21 years and he is survived by his

parents aged 39 years and 32 years. 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 multiplier applicable as per

the II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 14 shall be

applicable.

10. 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 18% 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.

11. On the contention regarding that the tribunal erred in

not granting compensation 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 awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and

compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs.

10,000/-.

12. 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.

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

deceased would come to Rs. 2,676/- as assessed by the

tribunal after considering increase in minimum wages and

after making 1/3rd deductions the monthly loss of

dependency comes to Rs. 1,784/- and the annual loss of

dependency comes to Rs. 21,408/- per annum and after

applying multiplier of 14 it comes to Rs. 2,99,712/-. Thus,

the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,99,712/-. After

considering Rs. 40,000/-, which is granted towards non-

pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as

Rs. 3,39,712/-.

14. In view of the above discussion, the total

compensation is enhanced to Rs. 3,39,712/- from Rs.

2,16,000/- 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 no.3. The

enhanced compensation be apportioned between the

appellants equally.

15. With the above direction, the present appeal is

disposed of.

13.4.2009                        KAILASH GAMBHIR J.