Smt.Geeta & Ors. vs M/S United India Insurance Co.Ltd
2009 Latest Caselaw 1669 Del

     * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  FAO No.676/2003


%                       Judgment reserved on: 14.3.2008

                    Judgment delivered on: 27.4.2009


Smt. Geeta & Ors.                          ...... Appellants
                        Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Adv.

                   versus


M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.            ..... 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

05/08/2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- along with interest @

9% per annum to the claimants.


FAO NO. 676/2003                                             Page 1 of 8
 2.    The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

3.    On 14/05/2000 the deceased        was in Jhakhira Mandi for

purchasing     bhoosa. The truck bearing registration No. HR-15-

4535 fully loaded with Bhoosa was taking turn towards Nav

Bharat   Dharam     Kanta.   In   the   meantime,    truck      bearing

registration No. PB-13C-1849 owned by R-2, M/s Vikas Pipes and

driven by respondent No. 3, Sewa Singh in a rash and negligent

manner and at a high speed reached there and hit against truck

bearing registration No. HR-15-4535. Consequently, truck bearing

registration No. HR-15-4535 fell upon public people          including

deceased Pradeep Kumar. Police reached the spot and removed

Pradeep Kumar to Hindu Rao Hospital where he was declared

dead.



4.    A claim petition was filed on 21/07/2000 and an award was

passed    on   05/08/2003.    Aggrieved    with   the    said     award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5.    Sh. Dinesh Kumar, counsel for the appellants contended

that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at

Rs.2,736/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and

circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the


FAO NO. 676/2003                                                Page 2 of 8
 income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month. The counsel

submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of

14 while computing compensation when according to the facts

and circumstances of the case multiplier of 20 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 32 yrs of age only. The counsel

also stated that had the deceased not met with his untimely

death she would have expanded her business and would have

been earning much more in the near future. 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 @ 12% per annum in

place of only 9% per annum. The counsel contended that the

tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of


FAO NO. 676/2003                                          Page 3 of 8
 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 respondents.

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

the record.


8.    As regards income, PW2 Smt. Geeta stated that yearly

income of her husband was about Rs. 1 lac from the fodder work

done by him. But no documentary evidence was brought on

record to prove the same. 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. After considering all these factors and considering that no

dispute in this regard is made by the respondents, I am of the

view that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of

the deceased at Rs. 2,736.20/-pm on the basis of minimum




FAO NO. 676/2003                                         Page 4 of 8
 wages notified under MW Act by taking the difference in the

wages at the time of the accident and at the time when the

award was made. Therefore, no interference is made in relation

to income of the deceased by this court.


9.    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 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.

Thus, the tribunal erred in this regard and same should be

considered herein.

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

that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 14 in the facts

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

committed error. This case pertains to the year 2000 and at that

time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act had already been




FAO NO. 676/2003                                            Page 5 of 8
 brought on the statute book. At the time of the accident

deceased was of 32 years of age and was survived by his widow,

aged parents but later father died 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 the multiplier of 17 should

have been applied as per the II schedule to the MV Act.

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

9% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the

same should be enhanced to 12% 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


FAO NO. 676/2003                                          Page 6 of 8
 regarding award of interest @ 9% 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 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. 25,000/-; 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.   Therefore,   the   total   lo   of   dependency   come    to   Rs.

5,58,184.80 (2736.20+ 2x 2736.20/2 x 2/3 x 12 x 17) And after


FAO NO. 676/2003                                               Page 7 of 8
 considering Rs. 95,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary

damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 6,53,184.80.

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

enhanced to Rs. 6,53,185/- from Rs. 3,30,000/- 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.



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

of.




Ap;ril 27, 2009                       KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.