Ms.Somwati @Samoti & Ors vs Babu Lal & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 1518 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                 FAO No. 125/2000

                            Judgment Reserved on: 07.03.2008
                            Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009

Ms. Somwati @Samoti & Ors                ..... Appellants.
                 Through: Mr. O.P.Goyal, Adv.


                      versus

Babu Lal & Ors                            ..... Respondents
                      Through: Sh.R.N.Sharma, Adv

     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 7/1/2000

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 5,28,000/- along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. Daya Nand (deceased) was a fitter in DTC. On 4.4.96 he met

with an accident involving a truck bearing registration no. DIG

8111. He succumbed to the injuries received in this accident. His

Legal heirs filed the present petition in order to seek

compensation.

4. A claim petition was filed on 1/5/1996 and an award was

passed on 7/1/2000. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. O.P. Goyal counsel for the appellants contended that the

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

4,200/- 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. 6,000/- 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 widow,

aged parents and six children. The counsel submitted that the

tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 11 while

computing compensation when according to the facts and

circumstances of the case multiplier of 15 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 41 yrs of age only and would

have lived for another 20-25yrs 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 @ 15% per annum in place of only 12% 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.

6. Per Contra Mr. R.N. Sharma, counsel for respondent no. 3

insurance company submitted that there is no illegality in the

impugned award. Counsel further contended that award passed

by Tribunal is absolutely fair, just and reasonable and no fault can

be found with the same.

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

the record.

8. As regards income, the widow of the deceased deposed that

the deceased was earning Rs. 4,197.77/- pm from his job as a

fitter in DTC. Sh. Ashok Kumar, a Sr. Clerk at DTC had proved the

salary record Ex. PW1/A of the deceased and as per it the salary

of the deceased was Rs. 4281/- pm. 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. 4281/- pm which

was rounded off to Rs. 4250/- pm. Therefore, no interference is

warranted in this regard.

9. As regards the future prospects, I am of the view that the

tribunal committed no error in granting future prospects in the

facts and circumstances of the case.

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

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

side as the deceased is survived by widow, aged parents and six

children. In the facts of the instant case, I feel that the interest of

justice would be best served if 1/7 deductions is made herein.

Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the award on this

ground and modify the award by deducting 1/7 towards personal

expenses of the deceased.

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

that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 11 in the

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

committed an error. This case pertains to the year 1996 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 41 years and he is survived by his widow,

aged parents 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 and after considering the multiplier applicable as

per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 15 should

have been applied by the tribunal.

12. 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.

13. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has 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 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.

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. On the basis of the discussion, the total loss of dependency

comes to Rs. 9,83,571/- (4250+8500/2 x 6/7 x 12x 15). After

considering Rs. 1,10,000/-, which is granted towards non-

pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs.

10,93,571/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 10,93,571/- from Rs. 5,28,000/- 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 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