Smt.Murti Devi & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation & ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1501 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         FAO No. 148/2003

                      Judgment reserved on 20.3.2008

                      Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009


Smt. Murti Devi & Ors.                    ..... Appellants.
                   Through: Mr. Rajpal Singh, Adv.

                      Versus

Delhi Transport Corporatoin & 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 19.9.2002 of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a

sum of Rs. 1,63,968/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the

claimants.

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

3. On 4.4.1995 Shri Ramesh Chand was going from village Mitraon

to Najafgarh on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 4 SM 8821.

When the deceased reached near Krishna Farm, Mitraon Road at

about 2:00 pm, suddenly a DTC bus bearing registration No: DL 1P

9407 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently came from

opposite side and struck against the deceased without any signal or

horn. Due to the impact, the deceased alongwith his motorcycle fell

down and received serious injuries on his person and later he

succumbed to the said injuries.

4. A claim petition was filed on 14.7.1995 and an award was passed

on 19.9.2002. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed

by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. Rajpal Singh, counsel for the appellants contended that the

tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 759/- 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. 2,559/- per month. 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 31 yrs of age only and

would have lived for another 30-40 yrs had he not met with the

accident. It was also submitted 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 submitted that the tribunal has erroneously

applied the multiplier of 16 while computing compensation when

according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 27

should have been applied. 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 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. The counsel has relied on

following judgments in support of his contentions:

1. 1996 ACJ 581 SC.

2. 2005 ACJ 538 Delhi High Court.

Nobody appeared for the respondents.

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

record.

7. As regards the income, the appellants case is that the deceased

was working at Ramesh Nagar Post Office and was earning Rs. 759/-pm

from there and besides that he was earning about Rs. 60/- daily from

tailoring work. PW-1 Smt. Murti Devi, Apellant No: 1 testified that

deceased was her husband and he used to give Rs. 500-400 pm to her

for running the household expenses. PW2 proved the salary certificate

ex. PW2/A of the deceased and according to it the deceased was

earning Rs. 759/-pm. Nothing was broght on record to prove that the

deceased was also earning as a tailor. 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. 759/- pm.

8. As regards the future prospects, the tribunal considering that the

deceased was in a Govt. job considered future prospects of the

deceased. Considering that no dispute in this regard is raised by the

respondents, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the same.

9. 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 committed error.

This case pertains to the year 1995 and at that time II schedule to the

Motor Vehicles Act had already been brought on the statute book. The

age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 31 years and he is

survived by his widow, three children and aged mother. 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 multiplier

applicable as per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 17

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 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 @ 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 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. 40,000/-; 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.

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 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.

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

come to Rs. 1,138.50 after doubling Rs. 759/- to Rs. 1,518/- and after

taking the mean of them. After making 1/4th deductions the monthly

loss of dependency comes to Rs. 854/- and the annual loss of

dependency comes to Rs. 10,246.50 per annum and after applying

multiplier of 17 it comes to Rs. 1,74,191/-. Thus, the total loss of

dependency comes to Rs. 1,74,191/-. After considering Rs. 1,10,000/-,

which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total

compensation comes out as Rs. 2,84,191/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 2,84,191/- from Rs. 1,63,968/- 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 DTC in the same proportion as awarded by the

tribunal.

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

20.4.2009                                   KAILASH GAMBHIR,J.