Delhi High Court
Miss Anmol Rai & Ors. vs Hari Om Sharma & Ors. on 20 April, 2009
Author: Kailash Gambhir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No. 183/96
Judgment reserved on: 05.02.2008
Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009
Miss Anmol Rai & Ors ..... Appellants.
Through: Mr. S Janani, Adv.
versus
Hari Om Sharma & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through:
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 27.9.1995
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 5,76,000/- along with interest @ 12% per
annum to the claimants.
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. On 21.1.1992 at about 2.00 PM Lt. Col. Nirmal Singh Rai
(retired) was going on his two wheeler scooter bearing
registration No: PIB 4122. His wife Swaranjit Kaur Rai was sitting
on the pillion seat. Lt. Col. Nirmal Singh Rai was coming from
Delhi Cantt. and was going towards his residence at Sector-37
NOIDA. He was driving the scooter at a normal speed and was on
the proper side of the road. When he reached beyond the
Nizamuddin bridge near Bishamber Ashram bus stop, the rear
right wheel of tanker bearing registration No: UHC 293 which was
being driven by R1 Hari Om Sharma in a rash and negligent
manner and at a very high speed flew off from the truck while the
truck was in motion and the wheels hit the scooter. As a result of
the impact, Lt. col. Nirmal Singh Rai and his wife were thrown
away and died instantaneously.
4. A claim petition was filed in February, 1992 and an award
was passed on 27.9.905. Aggrieved with the said award
enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
5. Sh. S Janani counsel for the appellants contended that the
tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.
10,000/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and
circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the
income of the deceased after taking into consideration the future
prospects at Rs. 20,000/- per month. The counsel further
maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the
tune of 36,000/- 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 two children and aged
parents. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously
applied the multiplier of 8 while computing compensation when
according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of
11 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 55 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 20-30 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 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 561 SC Sarla Dixit & Anr Vs. Balwant Yadav
and Ors.
6. Nobody appeared for the respondents.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused
the record.
8. As regards income, the appellants had brought on record Ex
PW 5/A, an income tax assessment order dated 28.12.92, which
was filed after 9 months from the date of the accident. In the
claim petition the income of the deceased is stated to be Rs.
10,000/- p.m.
9. The appellants claimants had not brought on record any
other documents relating to the income of the deceased. After
considering all factors I am of the view that the tribunal has not
erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/-
p.m.
10. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there
was no sufficient 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.
11. As regards the contention that the deduction to the tune of
30% made by the Tribunal is on the higher side as the deceased
is survived by his two children and aged parents, I feel that the
interest of justice would be best served if ¼ deduction is made
towards personal expenses of the deceased.
12. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant
that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 8 in the
facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has
not committed any 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 deceased
was 55 years of age and is survived by his two children and aged
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 8 has been rightly applied by the Tribunal.
13. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in
not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection,
funeral expenses, loss of estate, 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/-.
14. 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.
15. Therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.
7,20,000/- (10,000 x ¾ x 12 x 8) and considering Rs. 60,000/-
awarded towards non-pecuniary damages, the total
compensation comes to Rs. 7,80,000/-
16. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 7,80,000/- from Rs. 5,76,000/- 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 insurance company in the same proportion as
awarded by the Tribunal.
17. With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.
20.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
