Smt.Kashmir Kaur & Ors. vs Sh Mohinder Paul & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1660 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                  FAO No. 549/1999

                           Judgment reserved on : 17.01.2008

                           Judgment delivered on: 27.04.2009



Smt. Kashmir Kaur & Ors.                         ..... Appellants.
                   Through: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Adv.

                      versus

Sh. Mohinder Paul & Ors.                      ..... Respondents
                   Through: Nemo

    CORAM:



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,



1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may

   be allowed to see the judgment?                 NO

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 4.8.1999 of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs. 3,36,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

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

3. The appellants are the widow and sons of Shri Dalip Singh, who

died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 23.3.1983. The

Deceased Shri Dalip Singh was sitting as a passenger in three-wheeler

scooter bearing registration No. DER-2242 from Quarter No. HPT-17

Sarojni Nagar towards Patel Nagar with Shri Pargat Singh when the

three wheeler scooter was hit by a two wheeler scooter bearing

registration No. DHX-2314. Both the vehicles were being driven at a

fast speed and on account of the fast speed at which the three wheeler

scooter was going the three wheeler scooter over-turned as a result of

which the deceased received fatal injuries and later on succumbed to

his injuries.

4. A claim petition was filed on 9.9.1983 and an award was passed

on 4.8.1999. 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 making the deduction to the tune of 1/3 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 mother and three children. The counsel submitted that

the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 14 while

computing compensation when according to the facts and

circumstances of the case multiplier of 16 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 40 yrs of age only and would have lived for another

15-20yrs had he not met with the accident. 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 @ 18%

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. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.

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

record.

8. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that

the 1/3 deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher side as the

deceased is survived by his widow, aged mother and three children. In

catena of cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances made

1/4th deductions. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the award

on this ground and modify the award by deducting 1/4 towards

personal expenses.

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

the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 14 in the facts and

circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has not committed

error. This case pertains to the year 1983 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 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. The age of the deceased at

the time of the accident was 40 years and he is survived by his widow,

aged mother and three 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 14 has

been rightly applied by the tribunal.

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, 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. 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.

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

come to Rs. 3,000/- and after making 1/4 deductions the monthly loss

of dependency comes to Rs. 2,250/- and the annual loss of dependency

comes to Rs. 27,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 14 it

comes to Rs. 3,78,000/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to

Rs. 3,78,000/-. After considering Rs. 1,10,000/-, which is granted

towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as

Rs. 4,88,000/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 4,88,000/- from Rs. 3,36,000/- 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 respondents in the same proportion as awarded by the tribunal.

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

April 27, 2009                         KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.