Sajo & Anr vs Chander & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1506 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                 FAO No. 242/03

                          Judgment reserved on : 15.2.2008
                          Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009

Sajo & Anr.                              ..... Appellants.
                     Through: Shri J S Kanwar, Adv.


                     versus

Chander and 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 3.1.2003

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs.4,77,000/- along with interest @ 8% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 31.12.1999 at around 7.25 AM in the morning,

deceased Altaf alongwith a baildar was standing near a vehicle

bearing registration No: UP-15 B 2752. In the meanwhile bus

bearing registration No. DL 1PA 2717 being driven by R1 in a rash

and negligent manner at a very fast speed came from the side of

Mauzpur and hit the said vehicle bearing registration No. UP 15 B

2752 from behind. Consequently aforesaid vehicle was pushed

ahead and Altaf came under truck bearing registration No. UP 15

B 2752 and was crushed to death.

4. A claim petition was filed on19.5.2000 and an award was

passed on 3.1.2003. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. J S Kanwar, counsel for the appellants contended that

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

2348/- 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. 5,000/- 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,

mother and six children. The counsel submitted that the tribunal

erroneously applied the multiplier of 17 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 27 yrs of age only and would have lived

for another 40-50 yrs had he not met with the accident. The

counsel also stated that had the deceased not met with his

untimely death he would have expanded his business and would

have been earning much more in the near future. 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 his 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 @12% per annum in place of only 8% per annum. The

counsel contended that the tribunal has awarded compensation

of only Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love & affection and loss of

consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the

tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards 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. Appellant No. 1 examined herself as PW-1 and she deposed

that her deceased husband was working as a labour/helper with

Momin and used to earn Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per day and he

used to give all his earning to her to run the household expenses,

which fact was not corroborated by PW4 Momin.

9. The appellants claimants had not produced any

documentary evidence relating to the income 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.2348/- p.m. on the basis of minimum wages at the relevant

time.

10. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions

regarding the income of the deceased are of no help to the

claimants in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought

on record.

11. The thumb rule is that in the absence of clear and cogent

evidence pertaining to income of the deceased learned Tribunal

should determine income of the deceased on the basis of the

minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act.

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

the deceased by this court.

13. Furthermore, a perusal of the minimum wages notified

under the Minimum Wages Act show that to neutralize increase in

inflation and cost of living, minimum wages virtually double after

every 10 years. For instance, minimum wages of skilled labourers

as on 1.1.1980 was Rs. 320/- per month and same rose to Rs.

1,083/- per month in the year 1990. Meaning thereby, from year

1980 to year 1990, there has been an increase of nearly 238% in

the minimum wages. Thus, it could safely be assumed that

income of the deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years.

Therefore, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the

deceased after considering increase in minimum wages @ 3522/-

p.m. Thus, no interference is warranted in this regard.

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

that the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal are on the lower

side as the deceased is survived by his wife, six children and

mother. I am of the view, after considering the facts of the case

that no interference is warranted in this regard.

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

that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 17 in the

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

committed error. This case pertains to the year 2000 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 27 years and he is survivied by his wodow,

aged mother and six 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 18 as per II Schedule to Motor

Vehicles Act should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts of

the instant case the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable.

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

8% 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 @ 8% pa by the tribunal and the

same is not interfered with.

17. 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. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards

funeral expenses and Rs. 25,000/- towards other non-pecuniary

damages. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and

affection is awarded at Rs. 35,000/-; compensation towards

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

towards loss of estate is awarded to Rs. 10,000/-. Further, Rs.

50,000-/ is awarded towards loss of consortium.

18. 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, total loss of

dependency comes to Rs. 5,07,168/- (3522 x 2/3 x 12 x 18).

19. Thus, the total non-pecuniary comes to Rs. 1,05,000/-. And

total compensation comes to Rs. 6,12,168/-.

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

enhanced to Rs.6,12,168/- from Rs. 4,77,000/- 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 in the same proportion as awarded by the Tribunal.

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

20.4.2009                                KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.