Om Piari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1667 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    FAO No. 152/2000

                             Judgment reserved on :11.3.2008
                             Judgment delivered on: 27.4.2009

Om Piari & Ors.                            ..... Appellants.
                        Through: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Adv.

                        versus

Union of India & 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 31/1/2000

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 3,16,000/- along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. That the deceased was going on his two wheeler scooter

bearing registration No. DDN-4341 from Palam Village to Gopi

Nath Bazar Post Office side. At this time a military truck bearing

registration No. BAN80C255731 came from opposite direction

and took a sudden and sharp turn towards the right and hit the

deceased with its front portion causing fatal injuries to him.

4. A claim petition was filed on 26/5/1988 and an award was

passed on 31/1/2000. 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.

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 has erroneously applied the multiplier

of 15 while computing compensation when according to the facts

and circumstances of the case multiplier of 17 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 38 yrs of age only and would

have lived for another 20-30 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 &

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 the learned counsel for the appellants and

perused the record.

8. As regards the income of the deceased, father of the

deceased PW8 deposed that his son was 38 years of age at the

time of his death and he was working as taxi driver and was also

doing the business of property broker in partnership in the name

and style of Kamal Property Dealer. He also deposed that the

deceased used to give Rs. 3,000/- pm to his wife for household

expenses. He also deposed that the deceased was a matriculate

and to prove the same he brought on record Ex. A-1, his

matriculate certificate. Pw9 widow of the deceased also made

consistent and corroborative statement. Pw4, 5 & 6 were also

examined by the appellants in support of the fact that the

deceased Ramesh was also working as commission agent besides

driving his taxi. The appellants claimants had brought nothing on

record to prove the income of the deceased. After considering all

these factors, I am of the view that the tribunal has erred in

assuming the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/- pm in the

absence of there being any cogent evidence in this regard.

However, considering that no dispute in this regard is raised by

the counsel for the respondents, therefore, no interference is

made in relation to income of the deceased by this court.

9. 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.

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

that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15 in the facts

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

committed error. This case pertains to the year 1988 and at that

time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles act was not brought on the

statute books. 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 38 years and he is survived by his widow, aged

parents 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 and also

considering that no dispute in this regard is raised by the

respondents, the multiplier of 15 shall be applicable.

11. 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.

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

not granting adequate compensation towards loss of consortium

and loss of estate, whereas, no compensation has been granted

towards funeral expenses, loss of love & affection 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.

13. 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.

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

comes to Rs. 3,00,000/- (2,500/-x 2/3x 12x 15). After considering

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

the total compensation comes out as Rs. 4,10,000/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 4,10,000/- from Rs. 3,16,000/- 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 jointly and severally in the same

proportion as awarded by the tribunal within 30 days of this

order.

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

of.

April 27, 2009                       KAILASH GAMBHIR,J.