Mahender Singh vs Tej Pal Singh Tyagi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1524 Del

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       FAO No. 573/1999

                       Judgment reserved on 7.3.2008

                       Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009


Mahender Singh                             ..... Appellant.
                       Through: Mr.Y.R. Sharma, Adv.

                       Versus

Tej Pal Singh Tyagi & 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 15/9/1999

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 20,485/- along with interest @ 9% per

annum to the claimant.

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

3. On 2.6.95 at about 5. A.m. Deen Dayal deceased was sitting

on the bullock-cart which was being driven by Shri Gir Raj. They

were coming from Ashok Niketan to Loni Road and when they

reached at T point G.T. Road near Telephone Exchange, Dilshad

Garden, New Delhi, they were hit from behind by truck bearing

registration No. DEL-1929 which was being driven by its driver

Brij Mohan and was being driven at a very fast speed and in a

rash and negligent manner. As a result of this impact the bullock-

cart over turned and the deceased and Shri Gir Raj received

injuries on their person, which also resulted into the death of

Deen Dayal.

4. A claim petition was filed on 8.8.1995 and an award was

passed on 15/9/1999. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. Y.R. Sharma counsel for the appellant contended that

the tribunal erred in assessing the financial loss for a period of

three months only and that too on the basis of minimum wages of

Rs. 1,495/- pm instead of awarding the same for 6 months @ Rs.

3,000/- pm. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal

erred in making the award @ Rs. 16,000/- only on account of

damage to the cart and death of the bullock, when the appellant

spent Rs. 15,000/- on purchase of cart and Rs. 7,000/- on

purchase of bullock. The counsel submitted that the tribunal

erred in not allowing Rs. 3,000/- spent on treatment of

bullock.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 9% per annum.

6. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.

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

the record.

8. The appellant had deposed as PW2 that he had bought cart

at Rs. 10,000/- and bullock at Rs. 6,000/-. He also said that due to

the accident he had to again purchase cart at Rs. 15,000/- and

bullock at Rs. 7,000/-. He also deposed that he had spent about

Rs. 3,000/- on treatment of the bullock. He also deposed that he

remained out of work due to damage caused to the bullock cart

in the accident for 6 months and suffered loss @ Rs. 100/- per

day. After considering all these factors, I am of the view that the

tribunal has not erred in assessing the compensation for

purchase of cart and bullock at Rs. 16,000/-, in the absence of

any documentary evidence. It is no more res integra that mere

bald assertions are of no help to the claimants in the absence of

any reliable evidence being brought on record.

9. Therefore, no interference is made in this regard by this

court.

10. As regards the issue that no amount has been awarded

towards the treatment of the bull, I feel that even in the absence

of any documentary evidence in this regard, Rs. 1,000/- should

have been allowed by the tribunal in this regard.

11. As regards the financial loss for a period of 6 months,

nothing has come on record to prove the said period, but still the

tribunal assessed the loss of income for 3 months, although, the

tribunal erred in assessing the same as per the rates of minimum

wages for unskilled persons instead of skilled person. Thus, the

compensation in this regard is enhanced to Rs. 5757/- (1919x3).

12. 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 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 @ 9% pa by the tribunal and the

same is not interfered with.

13. On the basis of the discussion, the total compensation

comes out as Rs. 22,757/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 22,757/- from Rs. 20,485/- 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

appellant by the respondent insurance company.

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

20.4.2009                              KAILASH GAMBHIR,J.