Smt.Satya Rani & Ors. vs Lekh Raj & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1351 Del

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     FAO No. 643/2002
                             Judgment reserved on 14.03.2008
                             Judgment delivered on:13.4.2009

Smt. Satya Rani & Ors.              ..... Appellants.
                   Through: Mr. Deepak Khadaria, Adv.



                         versus

Lekh Raj & Ors.
                                       ..... Respondents
                         Through: Shri Kanwar Chaudhary, 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

12.9.2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,61,000/- along with interest @

6% per annum to the claimants.

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

On 26.2.1993 deceased late Shri Jagdish Rajpal was coming

from Subash Nagar to DDA Flats Gulabi Bagh and after crossing

Shastri Nagar traffic lights, the deceased kept his scooter right

near the entrance of DDA flats, Gulabi Bagh, where a half body

truck No: DL 1G 6199 was being driven at tremendous speed in a

rash and negligent manner without applying horn by its driver

and the said truck hit Shri Jagdish Raj on the left side whereas his

wife fell on the rear wheel of the said truck on the right side

crushed the head of the deceased resulting into instantaneous

death.

3. A claim petition was filed on 20.3.1996 and an award

was passed on 12.9.2002. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

4. Sh. Deepak Khadaria, counsel for the appellants has

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. 2,000/- 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. 8,000/-

per month. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has

erroneously applied the multiplier while computing

compensation, and according to the facts and circumstances of

the case multiplier of 12% 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 49 yrs of age only and would have lived

for another 20-30 yrs had he not met with the accident. It was

also urged 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 @ 12% per annum in place of only @ 6% per annum. The

counsel 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. The counsel has relied on following judgments

in support of his contentions:

1. 1990 ACJ 545 II (2002) ACC 610 (DB).

2. 2001 ACJ 474 I (2004) SLT 886

3. 1988 ACJ 1052

5. Shri Kanwar Chaudhary, Advocate appeared on behalf

of respondent and submitted that the award passed by the ld.

Tribunal is just and fair and requires no interference by this court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

7. PW-1 Smt. Satya Rani ( Apellant No: 1 ) has testified

that the deceased used to give his entire earnings to her for the

household expenses. She has filed copy of statement of the

assessable income for the years 1988-89; 1989-90 and 1990-91,

which are Exhibits PW ¼, PW 1/5 and PW 1/7. Copy of

assessment order for the assessment year 1988-89 is Ex. PW 1/6

and th self assessment tax receipt for the years 1989-90 and

1990-91 are Ex. PW ½ and PW 1/3. The Tribunal after

considering the aforesaid documents assessed the income of

deceased at Rs.19,285/- pa and after considering future

prospects assessed it at Rs.24,000/- p.a.

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

there is no sufficient 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.

9. As regards the contention of the counsel for the

appellant that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 9 in

the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the Tribunal

has committed error. This case pertains to the year 1982 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. The deceased at the time of the

accident was of 49 years of age and is survived by his widow and

two children. 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 vidw considering the multiplier

applicable as per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of

11 should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts of the

instant case the multiplier of 11 shall be applicable.

10 . As regards the issue of interest that the rate of

interest of 6% 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 not/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, change of economy, 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 adequate compensation towards loss of love

& affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas, no

compensation has been granted towards 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 enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-; compensation

towards funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and

compensation towards loss of estate as awarded by the tribunal

at Rs.15,000/- is not interfered with. Further, Rs.50,000/- is

awarded towards loss of consortium.

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.24,000/- pa. After making 1/3rd

deducation the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.16,000/-

pa and after applying multiplier of 11 it comes to Rs.1,92,000/-.

Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,92,000/-. After

considering Rs.95,000/- which is granted towards non-pecuniary

damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs.2,87,000/-.

14 . In view of the above discussion, the total

compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,87,000/- from Rs. 1,61,000/-

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

petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the

appellant by the respondent No.3, in the same ratio as awarded

by the tribunal.

15 . With the above direction, the present appeal is

disposed off.

13.4.2009                                   KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.