Harilal vs Satbir Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 1656 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                   FAO No. 376/1999


                       Judgment reserved on: 20.02.2008
%                      Judgment delivered on: 27.04.2009



Harilal                                      ...... Appellant
                       Through: Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Advocate.

                   Versus



Satbir Singh                             ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate


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         NO
      in the Digest?


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1.. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 14/5/1999

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

FAO No. 376/1999 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,71,600/- along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 26.11.1994 Ravinder Kumar ( deceased) was travelling

in bus bearing registration no. DL-1P-5811. The bus was being

driven by respondent no.1 at a very high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner. At about 8.45 A.M., the bus had reached a

place near P.W.D. office on the Todapur Road, Inderpuri, Delhi.

All of the sudden, respondent no.1 applied brakes. As a result of

this, the deceased received a great jerk and was consequently

thrown out from the bus and fell on the road. He came under the

wheels of the bus and died on the spot.

4. A claim petition was filed on 20.2.995 and an award was

passed on 14/5/1999. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

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

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

1919/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and

FAO No. 376/1999 circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the

income of the deceased at Rs. 3000 per month. 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 22 yrs of age only and would

have lived for another 30-40 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 @ 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 &

FAO No. 376/1999 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. Naveen Sharma, counsel for respondent

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 warranting interference by this court.

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

perused the record.

8. As regards income, the case of the appellants claimants is

that the deceased was of 22 yrs of age and was running a scooter

repairs workshop in the name and style of M/s. R.K. Auto repairs,

Inderapuri, N. Delhi and used to earn Rs. 150/- per day. But

nothing had been brought on record to prove the same. After

considering all these factors I am of the view that the tribunal has

not erred in assessing the income of the deceased as per the

rates of minimum wages notified for skilled person at Rs. 1919.

FAO No. 376/1999 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.

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

the deceased by this court.

10. However, it has been the consistent view of this court that

whenever aid of Minimum Wages Act is taken while computing

income, then increase in minimum wages should also be

considered. It is well settled that future prospects are not akin to

increase in minimum wages. To neutralize increase in cost of

living and price index, the minimum wages are increased from

time to time. 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

FAO No. 376/1999 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 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.

11. Therefore, the tribunal erred in not considering increase in

minimum wages, while assessing the income of the deceased and

same should be considered while computing compensation

towards loss of dependency.

12. 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 error. This case pertains to the year 1994 and at that

time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act had already been

brought on the statute books. The age of the deceased at the

time of the accident was 22 years and he is survived by his aged

parents, aged 45 and 42 yrs. 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 taking a balanced view considering the

FAO No. 376/1999 multiplier applicable as per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the

multiplier of 12 shall be applicable.

13. 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.

FAO No. 376/1999

14. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in

not granting adequate compensation towards loss of love &

affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas, no

compensation has been granted towards 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. 20,000/-; compensation

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

compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-

15. 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 their only son 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.

16. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased

would come to Rs. 2,879/- after doubling Rs. 1,919/- to Rs.

3,838/- and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/3 rd

FAO No. 376/1999 deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,919/-

and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 23,028/- per

annum and after applying multiplier of 12 it comes to Rs.

2,76,336/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.

2,76,336/-. After considering Rs. 40,000/-, which is granted

towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes

out as Rs. 3,16,336/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 3,16,336/- from Rs. 1,71,600/- with interest on

the differential amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing

of the petition till realisation and the same shall be paid to the

appellants by the respondent insurance company in the same

proportion as awarded by the tribunal within 30 days of this

order.

18. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed

of.

April 27, 2009                        KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.



FAO No. 376/1999