Smt.Anita & Ors. vs Shri Krishan Lal & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1658 Del

     * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    FAO 224/1998


                     Judgment reserved on: 05.03.2008
%                    Judgment delivered on: 27.04.2009


Smt. Anita & Ors.                           ...... Appellants
                     Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate

                     versus


Shri Krishan Lal & 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         NO
     in the Digest?


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 05/01/98

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 19/07/94 at about 1.50 PM Sh. Gyansi Ram was coming

on two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DL-4S-G-4399

from Mangolpuri side and was going to Tri nagar, Delhi via

Parmarth Mission Hospital road, and when he reached near Petrol

Pump, Pitam Pura, Delhi he was driving his scooter at a slow

speed on his proper left hand side at that very time a Tanker

bearing registration No. DHL-2830 driven by the respondent No.1

rashly and negligently and at a very fast speed came from behind

and took a sudden turn towards his left without giving any signal

or blowing any horn and struck against the scooter of the

deceased.

4. A claim petition was filed on 05/11/94 and an award was

passed on 05/01/98. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement

is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. O.P. Mannie, counsel for the appellants contended that

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

2,500/- 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. 5,000/- per month. The counsel

submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of

12 while computing compensation when according to the facts

and circumstances of the case multiplier of 24 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 36 yrs of age only. 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 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 @ 12% per annum in place of only 24% 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. Nobody appeared for the respondents.

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

perused the record.

As regards income, the case of the appellants is that he was

doing business in the name and style of M/s. Maruti Plastic and

was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/-pm. The appellants had brought

on record the income tax returns of the deceased from 1985 to

1995 and according to it; income of the deceased for the year

1994-1995 was Rs. 40,370/-pa and for 1993-94 his income was

Rs. 29,040/-. 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. 30,000/- pa or 2,500/- pm by considering the

income of the deceased as per the income tax returns filed by the

deceased prior to his death for the year 1993-94. Therefore, no

interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this

court.

8. 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.

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

that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 12 in the

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

committed error. This case pertains to July 1994 and at that time

II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was not brought on the

statute book. The said schedule came on the statute book in

November 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. The age of the deceased at the time of

the accident was 36 years and he is survived by his widow, aged

mother and two 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 taking a balanced view considering the

multiplier applicable as per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the

multiplier of 15 shall be applicable.

10. 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 24% 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.

11. 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. 30,000/-; 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.

12. 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.

13. Therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.

3,00,000/- (2,500 x 2/3 x 12 x 15) and after considering Rs.

1,00,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the

total compensation comes out as Rs. 4,00,000/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/- from Rs. 2,40,000/- 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.

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

of.

April 27, 2009                            KAILASH GAMBHIR,J.