Jhuman Singh & Ors. vs Prithvi Raj & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1509 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                  FAO No. 47/1995

                           Judgment reserved on : 2.4.2008
                           Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009

Jhuman Singh & Ors.                  ..... Appellants.
                  Through: Mr P N Talwar , Adv.



                      versus

Prithvi Raj & Ors.      ..... Respondents
                      Through:

     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 4.7.1994

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 96,000/- along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 13.12.1978 deceased Shri Maha Singh was driving a taxi

bearing registration No. DLT 4424 and was proceeding towards

Shakarpur and when he reached near taxi stand on Shakarpur

Road, a truck bearing registration No: DLG 9920 being driven by

respondent No: 1 came from the side of Jamna Bridge at a very

high speed and rammed into the taxi from behind. Due to the

impact, the truck went to the wrong side and again hit the taxi

on its front portion as a result of which deceased Maha Singh who

was driving the taxi fell out of the taxi and suffered serious head

injury and died at the spot.

4. A claim petition was filed on 3.7.1979 and an award was

passed on 4.7.1994. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement

is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. P N Talwar counsel for the appellants contended that

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

500/- 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. 3600/- 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 17 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 40-50 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 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 @ 16% 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.

6. Nobody has appeared for the respondents.

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

the record.

8. Appellant No: 1 examined himself as PW-4 and deposed

that deceased Maha Singh was his son and he was a taxi driver

and was earning Rs. 500/- - Rs. 600/- per month and he used to

give his entire salary for running the household.

9. The appellants claimants had not brought on record any

documentary evidence relating to the income of the deceased.

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. 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. But considering

the fact that no dispute is raised by the respondents in this

regard, ttherefore, no interference is made in relation to income

of the deceased by this court, in the interest of justice.

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

is 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.

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

committed no error. This case pertains to the year 1987 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 23 years of age and he is survived by his aged parents and

his widow. 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 shall be applicable. Therefore, no interference is

made in the Award in this regard.

13. On the contention regarding that the tribunal 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 to Rs. 20,000/-; compensation towards

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

towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 20,000/-. Further, Rs.

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

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. Therefore, loss of dependency

comes to Rs. 96,000/- (500 x 12 x 16).

15. After considering Rs. 1,00,000/-, which is granted towards

non-pecuniary damages the total compensation comes out as Rs.

1,96,000/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 1,96,000/- from Rs. 95,000/- with interest @ 12%

per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation

and the same should be paid to the appellants by the

respondents 1 to 3 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.