Bk Ticku & Ors vs Mohinder Singh & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1489 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

               FAO No. 180/97

                            Judgment reserved on 11.2.2008
                            Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009

B K Ticku & Ors.                   ..... Appellants.
                     Through: Mr. Y R Sharma, Adv.



                     versus

Mohinder Singh     & 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 24.3.1997

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 6,40,000/- along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 19.5.1992 deceased Khema Munshi was travelling on

the pillion seat of scooter bearing registration No: DAK 2336. At

about 9.30 AM, when the scooter had reached a place near Jai

Appartments between sector 7 and 9 Rohini on the outer Ring

Road a tempo bearing registration No: DL 1L 9839 came from

behind and struck against the scooter without blowing any horn

or giving any signal. As a result of the impact, Dr. Khema Munshi

and the scooter fell down on the road and she received serious

grievous injuries which later on proved fatal.

4. A claim petition was filed on 24.7.1992 and an award was

passed on 24.3.1997. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. Y R Sharma, counsel for the appellants contended that

the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.

8,000/- 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. 15,000/- 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 13 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 she was of 47 yrs of age only and would

have lived for another 20-30 yrs had she 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 her life span. The

counsel contended that the tribunal 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. 1994 ACJ I SC ( Sussamma Thomas)

2. 2001 ACJ 593 Delhi High Court.

3. 2001 ACJ 1735 SC

4. 2007 ACJ 2123

6. Nobody appeared on behalf of respondents.

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

the record.

8. As regards the income, the case of the appellants is that

deceased was a doctor and was serving at Medical College,

Srinagar and was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m.

9. The appellants claimants had brought Ex PW2/A, salary

certificate on record showing that the deceased was earning Rs.

6235/- p,n, . PW 2 deposed that the deceased had bright chances

of promotion and could have become a professor with salary at

Rs. 10,000/- p.m. 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. 8,000/- p.m. after considering the said Ex PW

2/A and also considering that the deceased must also be having a

private practice apart from her said job, as deposed by her

husband PW 6. The Tribunal also did not commit any error in

deducting Rs. 2,000/- towards income tax returns of the

deceased.

10. Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of

the deceased by this court.

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

was sufficient material on record to award future prospects.

Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in granting future

prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.

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

that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 8 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 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. On the date of the accident, deceased

was of 40 years of age and is survived by her husband and two

daughters. 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 the II Schedule

to the Motor Vehicles Act and taking a balanced view the

multiplier of 13 shall be applicable.

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. 20,000/-; 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. Therefore, loss of dependency

comes to Rs. 10,40,000/- (10,000 x 12 x 2/3 x 13).

15. After considering Rs. 90,000/-, which is granted towards non

pecuniary damages the total compensation comes out as Rs.

11,30,000/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 11,30,000/- from Rs. 6,40,000/- 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 in the same proportion as awarded by the

Tribunal.

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

20.4.2009                             KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.