Om Prakash & Ors. vs Mukhtiar Singh & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1500 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   FAO No. 341/1997

                            Judgment reserved on: 11.2.2008
                            Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009

Om Prakash & Ors.                         ..... Appellants.
                       Through: Mr. Y R Sharma, Adv.



                       versus

Mukhtiar Singh & 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                    No
   in the Digest?


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 22.5.1997

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 17.8.1985 at about 11.00 PM the deceased was driving

the bus bearing registration No: DEP 3767 from Mayapuri side

towards Kirti Nagar. When he reached Mayapuri chowk on Ring

Road and had crossed three-fourth road, a truck bearing

registration No. HRL 7999 being driven in a rash and negligent

manner in fast speed came from Raja Garden side and hit the bus

upon left back door. Due to the impact, the bus turned turtle

and the deceased received fatal injuries. He was removed to

RML Hospital by police but he expired on the way.

4. A claim petition was filed on 14.2.1986 and an award was

passed on 22.5.1997. 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.

900/- 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. 3100/- per month. The counsel

submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of

16 while computing compensation when according to the facts

and circumstances of the case multiplier of 18 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 23 yrs of age only and would

have lived for another 30-40 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 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 12% per annum. 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. 1996 ACJ 581 SC

2. 2002 ACJ 1559 SC.

3. 2007 ACJ 2123.

4. 11(1992) ACC 611 DB Delhi High Court.

6. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

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

the record.

8. PW 5 Appellant No:1 Shri Om Prakash has deposed that

deceased was his son. He was a driver and earning Rs. 1200/-

per month and used to give his entire earnings to him for the

household expenses. PW 4 eimployer of the deceased proved the

salary certificate of the deceased, Ex PW 4/1 and deposed that

the deceased was earning Rs. 900 p.m. & Rs. 10/- per day as food

allowance. Thus totalling his income to Rs. 1200/- p.m. The

Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 900/- p.m.

as proved on record.

9. 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.900/- p.m.

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

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.

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

that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 16 in the

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

not 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. The deceased at the time of the

accident was of 23 years of age and is survived by his parents. 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 16

has been rightly applied by the Tribunal. Therefore, no

interference is made in the Award.

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

12% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the

same should be enhanced to 15% 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 @ 12% pa by the tribunal and the

same is not interfered with.

14. 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 awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and

compensation towards loss of expectation of life shall be taken to

be towards @ Rs. 10,000/-.

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 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. Therefore, the loss of

dependency comes to Rs. 1,34,400/- (900-200 x 12 x 16).

16. After considering Rs. 40,000/- which is granted towards non-

pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs.

1,74,400/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 1,74,400/- from Rs. 1,45,000/- 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 equal proportion.

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

of.

20.4.2009                                  KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.