Smt.Raj Rani & Ors vs Malook Chand & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1495 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   FAO No. 135/2002

                          Judgment reserved on: 1.4.2008
                          Judgment delivered on: 20.4. 2009

Smt. Raj Rani & Ors.                         ..... Appellants.
                          Through: Mr. S.C. Dhawan, Adv.



                          versus

Malook Chand & Ors.                 ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, 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

12.12.2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,24,840/- along with interest @

9% per annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 15.1.1989 at about 3.10 PM, the deceased was going on

his motor cycle bearing registration No. DDX 8890 from Hari

Nagar to Lajwanti Garden on Maya Puri Phase-II. When he

reached near C-108, a truck bearing registration No: DEL 5307

came from rear side and hit the said motor cycle driven by the

deceased. As a result, the deceased fell on the road and died on

the spot.

4. A claim petition was filed on 9.4.1989 and an award was

passed on 12.12.2001. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. S.C. Dhawan counsel for the appellants contended that

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

Rs. 1200/- 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. 3500/- per month. 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 37 yrs of age only and would

have lived for another 30 - 40 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 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 @ 15% per annum in place of

only 9% 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.

Shri Kanwal Chaudhary, counsel for respondent No. 3 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. PW1 widow of the deceased deposed that her husband was

a seller of readymade garments in different markets and used to

carry them on his Vicky and was earning Rs. 3500/- p.m. and

used to give her entire earnings to meet household expenses.

She also deposed that the business of the deceased was

flourishing day by day and had he not met with the accident he

would have been earning Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- p.m. PW 2

Radhey Shyam also supported the testimony of PW 1. But in the

absence of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal took notional

income of the deceased at Rs. 1200/- p.m. Considering that no

dispute is raised by the respondents in this regard, in the interest

of justice, no interference is made in relation to income of the

deceased by this court.

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

is no 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 12 in the facts

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

committed error. This case pertains to the year 1989 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. The deceased was of 38 years of age at

the time of the accident and was survived by his widow, 4

children and aged father. 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 considering the applicable multiplier under II

Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and taking a balanced view,

the multiplier of 14 should have been applied. Therefore, in the

facts of the instant case the multiplier of 14 shall be applicable.

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

9% 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 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 @ 9% 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 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. 40,000/- compensation towards

funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation

towards loss of expectation of life as awarded by the Tribunal

shall be taken to be awarded towards loss of estate @ Rs.

10,000/-. 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 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.

13. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased

would come to Rs. 1200/- and after applying unit method and

after making deductions to the tune of Rs. 340/- as assessed by

the Tribunal the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 860/-

and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 10,320/- per

annum and after applying multiplier of 14 it comes to Rs.

1,44,480/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.

1,44,480/-. After considering Rs. 1,10,000/- which is granted

towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes

out as Rs. 2,54,480/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 2,54,480/- from Rs. 1,34,000/- 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

respondents in the same proportion as awarded by the Tribunal.

15. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed

of.

20.4.2009                        KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.