Sh L.N.Suri & Ors. vs Sh Ramesh Kumar Katyal & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1350 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   FAO. No.599/1999

                            Judgment reserved on: 7.1.2008

                            Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009

Sh. L.N. Suri & Ors.           ..... Appellants.
                               Through: Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Advocate

                   versus

Sh. Ramesh Kumar Katyal & 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
   in the Digest?                                            No


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated

22/9/1999 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,76,000/- along with interest @ 12%

per annum to the claimants.

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

On 6/8/1995, the deceased Sh. Dinesh Suri, aged 18 ½

years, was driving a two-wheeler scooter and going to Kirti Nagar

Railway Reservation Office along with Sh. Pankaj, who was pillion

rider on the said scooter. When, the said scooter reached near

property no. A-21/15, Loha Mandi, Naraina, the said scooter was hit

from behind by a bus bearing registration no. DL 1P 1135. as a

result, Sh. Dinesh fell down and was run over by the wheels of the

aforesaid bus. Sh. Dinesh died on the spot.

A claim petition was filed on 22/12/1995 and an award

was made on 22/9/1999. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

3. Sh. Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellants assailed the

said award on five grounds. Counsel for the appellants contended

that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at

Rs. 3,500/- 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. 4,000/- per month and would have

increased to Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- pm in the future. 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 when the deceased was spending only

Rs. 200-250pm on himself. 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 40 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 18 ½ yrs of age only and would have lived for another 50

yrs had he not met with the accident. 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. 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 has 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. The counsel has relied on the following judgments in

support of his contentions:

(1) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jai Prakash Tripathi & Anr. - 2004 ACJ 1377 (All) (DB); & (2) Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India,(2003) 3 SCC 148.

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 examined Sh. Kaka Singh

Ahuja, PW2 and Sh. L.N. Suri, father of the deceased, PW3. The

aforesaid witnesses deposed that the deceased was working with

M/s. Smiling Roses as an Executive Assistant and was earning a

monthly salary of Rs. 3,500/-. The witness Sh. Kaka Singh Ahuja,

PW2 had also brought on record the appointment letters and salary

certificate, Ex PA & Ex PB, respectively. 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. 3,500/-.

7. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that

there is sufficient material on record to award future prospects. The

deceased started working with M/s. Smiling Roses in April 1995. He

aspired to do his graduation through correspondence as well, as per

the deposition of his father, Sh. L.N. Suri, PW3. Although, it has

been brought on record that the deceased had appeared for XII

standard compartment exams on 5/8/1995, but the employer of the

deceased, Sh. Kaka Singh Ahuja, PW2 deposed that the deceased

was a good worker and had he been alive, his salary would have

been increased to Rs.9,000-10,000 per month in the near future.

Therefore, the tribunal committed error in not granting future

prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. As regards the contention of the counsel for the

appellant that the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal is on the

higher side when the deceased was spending only Rs. 200-250pm

on himself. 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 and modify the award by

deducting 1/3rd expenses towards personal expenses.

9. As regards the contention of the counsel for the

appellant that the tribunal has 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 1995 and at

that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act had been 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. At the time of the death the deceased was

of 18 ½ years of age and the claimant, father of the deceased was

of 61 years of age. In the facts of the present case, I am of the

view that after looking at the age of the claimants and the

deceased the multiplier of 8 should have been applied. But the

tribunal has applied multiplier of 10 and in the interest of justice, I

do not feel inclined to interfere with the same. Therefore, in the

facts of the instant case the multiplier of 10 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 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 has erred

in not granting compensation towards non-pecuniary damages, I

am of the view that the same should have been awarded by the

tribunal. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and

affection is awarded at Rs. 20,000/-; compensation towards funeral

expenses is awarded at Rs. 5,000/- 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 above discussion, the income of the

deceased would come to Rs. 5,250 after doubling Rs. 3,500 to Rs.

7,000 and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/3 rd

deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,500 and

the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 42,000 per annum and

after applying multiplier of 10 it comes to Rs. 4,20,000/-. Thus, the

total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,20,000/-. After considering

Rs. 35,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the

total compensation comes out as Rs. 4,55,000/-.

14 . In view of the above discussion, the total compensation

is enhanced to Rs. 4,55,000/- from Rs. 2,76,000/- 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 in equal proportion

by the respondent insurance company.

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

      13.4.2009                           KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.