Smt.Paramjit Kaur & Ors vs Sh Ayub Khan & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 1493 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   FAO No. 538/2001

                       Judgment reserved on: 5.2.2008
                       Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009

Smt. Paramjit Kaur & Ors.                 ..... Appellants.
                   Through: Mr O P Mannie, Adv.


                       versus

Shri Ayub Khan & Ors.         ..... Respondents
                  Through: Nemo.

     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 9.7.2001

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 12,27,800/- along with interest @ 10% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 20.11.1991 deceased Shri Harpal Singh commenced

journey at about 10.11 AM from Karol Bagh on his way back to his

house situtated at Tilak Nagar via Inder Puri on his scooter

bearing registration No: DL USA 0646 and was going on the

correct side of the road at a normal speed and had reached in

front of Krishi Kunj Flats on Main Todapur road when all of a

sudden a trailor truck bearing registration No: HYU 8463 being

driven by its driver respondent No: 1 rashly, recklessly and

negligently, came from Inderpuri side at a very fast speed and all

of a sudden sweared the vehicle to its right side without giving

any signal or horn and hit against the scooter of the deceased.

Due to the impact the deceased fell down and received multiple

injuries. He succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

4. A claim petition was filed on 22.1.1992 and an award was

passed on 9.7.2001-. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. O P Mannie, counsel for the appellants contended that

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

8,700/- 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. 19,000- 20,000/- per month. 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 supporting a

large family at the time of accident and is survived by his wife

and two children. The counsel submitted that the tribunal

erroneously applied the multiplier of 12 while computing

compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of

the case multiplier of 16 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 40 yrs of age only and would have lived

for another 30-40 yrs had he not met with the accident. 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 an year and hence, the deceased would have

earned much more in his life span. 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.

6. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.

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

the record.

8. The appellant No: 1 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, widow of the

deceased deposed that her husband was working as Manager (

Inspection ) in a Government of India Undertaking for a monthly

salary of Rs. 9,000/- and he used to give his entire salary to her

for running the household expenses.

9. The appellants claimants had brought on record certain

documents . PW-1 has also brought the entire salary register of

the deceased. 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. 8,700/- after considering the salary register

brought on record by PW1.

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 1/3 deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher

side as the deceased is survived by widow and two children. 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.

13. 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 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 accident the age of

the deceased was 40 years and he is survived by his widow and 2

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 the

multiplier of 12 has been rightly applied by the Tribunal. Thus,

no interference is made in the Award in this regard.

14. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in

not granting adequate 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. Thus, the total non-pecuniary damages comes to Rs.

90,000/-.

15. 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, the loss of

dependency comes to Rs. 12,52,800/- (8700 + 17400/2) x 12 x

12 x 2/3).

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

enhanced to Rs. 13,42,800/- from Rs. 12,27,000/- 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

respondents.

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

20.4.2009                                  KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.