Dr.Vikram Seth & Anr vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr
2009 Latest Caselaw 1483 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         FAO No. 418/1998

                         Judgment reserved on 01.04.08

                         Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009


Dr. Vikram Seth & Anr                     ..... Appellant.
                   Through: Mr. O.P.Goyal, Adv.

                         Versus

Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr   ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr.H.S.Dhir Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,

1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers may             No
        be allowed to see the judgment?

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 6/8/1998

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 5,09,000/- along with interest @ 14% per

annum to the claimants.

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

On 16/9/1992 Mrs. Achala Seth was driving a Maruti van bearing

registration no. DEP 8395 while going, with her son, from Civil

Lines towards her residence at Lucknow Road, Timarpur.

Suddenly a DTC bus bearing registration no. DEP 8395 being

driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite

direction hit the said van. As a result Mrs. Achala suffered fatal

injuries and later on died.

3. A claim petition was filed on 15/3/1993 and an award was

passed on 6/8/1998. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement

is claimed by way of the present appeal.

4. Sh. O.P. Goyal counsel for the appellants contended that the

tribunal has 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 she

was of 38 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 25-35

yrs had she not met with the accident. The counsel submitted

that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 12

while computing compensation when according to the facts and

circumstances of the case multiplier of 17 should have been

applied. 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 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 @ 18% per annum in place of

only 14% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal

has erred in not awarding adequate 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.

5. Nobody appeared for the respondents.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused

the record.

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

is no sufficient material on record to award future prospects. It is

no more res integra that mere bald assertions regarding the

future prospects of the deceased are of no help to the claimants

in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought on record.

But the tribunal after considering that the deceased was a

qualified doctor took into consideration the future prospects of

the deceased. Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in

granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

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

that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 12 in the

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

committed no error. This case pertains to the year 1992 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 age of the deceased at the time of

the accident was 38 years and she is survived by her husband

and two sons. 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

12 has been rightly applied by the tribunal.

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

14% 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 @ 14% pa by the tribunal and the

same is not interfered with.

10. 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 awarded at Rs. 20,000/-; compensation

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

compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 15,000/-.

Further, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium.

11. 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.

12. On the basis of the discussion, the total loss of dependency

comes to Rs. 4,77,000 as assessed by the tribunal. After

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

damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 5,72,000/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 5,72,000/- from Rs. 5,09,000/- with interest on

the differential amount @ 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 insurance company in the same

proportion as awarded by the tribunal.

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

20.4.2009                                KAILASH GAMBHIR, J