Mrs. Kanti Devi vs Rohani Prasad & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1668 Del

     * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      FAO No. 759/2003

                       Judgment reserved on: 14.3.2008
%                      Judgment delivered on: 27.4.2009


Mrs. Kanti Devi                               ...... Appellants
                       Through: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate

                       versus


Rohani Parsad & 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

19/07/2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,24,800/- along with interest @

8% per annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 04/10/98 at about 9.20 p.m. while deceased was going

on his bicycle on Loni Road near G.T. Road Flyover, the offending

Tata Tempo bearing registration No. DL-IL-B8441 came in a rash

and negligent manner from behind and hit the cycle and due to

the forceful impact deceased received serious injuries. He was

admitted in the G.T. Hospital, where he was declared dead by the

attending doctor.

4. A claim petition was filed on 30/11/98 and an award was

passed on 19/07/2003. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. J.S. Kanwar, counsel for the appellants contended that

the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 13. 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. 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 @ 20% per annum in

place of only 8% 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. The appellants have not raised any dispute

regarding the income of the deceased as assessed by the

Tribunal.

8. As regards the future prospects, I am of the view that there

though is no sufficient material on record to award future

prospects.

9. However, 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 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 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.

Since, the income of the deceased was assessed by the tribunal

in accordance with rates of minimum wages notified under the

MW Act, thus, the tribunal ought to have considered increase in

minimum wages as well. Therefore, the award is modified to this

extent.

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

that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 13 in the facts

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

committed error. This case pertains to the year 1998 and at that

time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act had already been

brought on the statute book. The age of the deceased at the time

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

aged 45 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 considering the multiplier applicable as per the II

Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 15 shall be applicable.

11. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of

8% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the

same should be enhanced to 20% 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 @ 8% pa by the tribunal and the

same is not interfered with.

12. As regards the contention that the tribunal wrongly

deducted interest for the period from 30/11/1998 to 4/2/2002

and, no reason for the same is assigned by the tribunal. But on

perusal of the order sheets it is manifest that the claimant had

been negligent in proceeding the case and in not timely

summoning the witnesses. Thus, for the delay caused on the part

of the claimant, the tribunal did not award interest till the date

when the witness was not examined. In cases of accidents the

body is already wrecked and original positions cannot be

restored, the courts should give technicalities a go bye and

concentrate on fair play. The approach in awarding compensation

has to be broadly based on the principles of justice, equity and

good conscience and technicalities in the decision-making should

be avoided. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial

legislation. The Indian Parliament, being conscious of the

magnitude of the plight of the victims of the accidents, has

introduced several beneficial provisions to protect the interest of

the claimants and to enable them to claim compensation from

the owner or the insurance company in connection with the

accident.

13. But at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that

the claimants cannot be allowed to take advantage of the delay

caused due to their own negligence in summoning the witnesses

and in closing the evidence. Therefore, no interference is

warranted in this regard.

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

not granting adequate compensation towards funeral expenses,

whereas, no compensation has been granted towards loss of

services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the

appellants. In this regard compensation towards funeral expenses

is enhanced to 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 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.

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

would come to Rs. 2850.00 after doubling Rs. 1,900/- to Rs.

3,800/- and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/3 rd

deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,900/-

and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 22,800/- per

annum and after applying multiplier of 15 it comes to Rs.

3,42,000/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.

3,42,000/-. After considering Rs. 20,000/-, which is granted

towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes

out as Rs. 3,62,000/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 3,62,000/- from Rs. 2,24,800/- 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

appellant by the respondent insurance company as directed by

the tribunal and within 30 days of this order.

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

of.

April 27, 2009                         KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.