Mohd.Aslam & Ors. vs M/S Northern Hatcheries (P) Ltd.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1670 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   FAO No. 351/2001

                                Judgment reserved on: 21.2.2008
                                Judgment delivered on: 27.4.2009

Mohd. Aslam & Ors.                   ...........Appellants.
                       Through: Mr. Y.R. Sharma,Adv.



                       versus

M/s. Northern Hatcheries (P)Ltd. ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. A.K.De, Adv.

     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 24.4.2001 of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a

sum of Rs.1,41,600/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the

claimants.

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

3. On 11.8.96, Mohd. Imran was sitting on two wheeler scooter

bearing registration no. DBF-7419 which was being driven by Mohd.

Saud and was proceeding towards ITO flyover at about 12.30 A.M. and

when the scooter reached in front of IP Estate, DTC Depot, one tempo

bearing registration no. HR-46-1448 being driven by the driver of the

said offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter.

As a result of which the occupants of the two wheeler scooter came

under the wheels of the said tempo and received grievous injuries.

Mohd. Imran was removed to the JPN Hopistal, where he succumbed to

his injuries on 12.8.96.

4. A claim petition was filed on 18.10.96 and an award was passed

on 24.4.2001. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is

claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellants contended that the

tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1784/-

per month whereas after looking at the facts and circumstances of the

case the tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased at

Rs2208/- per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal

erred in making the deduction to the tune of 1/3rd for eight years and

2/3rd for four years, from 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 aged parents and two

sisters. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously

applied the multiplier of 12, while computing compensation when

according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 15

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 20 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 contended that the tribunal 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. Per contra Mr. A.K. De counsel for the respondent NO. 2

contended that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is already on

the higher side and no further enhancement is warranted.

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

record.

8. As regards the income, the appellants case is that the deceased

was 20 years of age and was earning Rs. 5,000/- p.m. while working as

sales representative at M/s Lilly Exports. According to Ex PW 1/11, the

post mortem report the deceased was of 17 years of age at the time of

the accident and considering the same the Tribunal held that in the

absence of any documentary evidence on record proving the work

done and earnings of the deceased, the income shall be assessed as

per the rates of minimum wages and assessed the income at Rs.

1784/- p.m.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. The Tribunal correctly followed the said thumb rule and therefore,

no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this

court.

12. Furthermore, it has been the consistent view of this court that

whenever aid of Minimum Wages Act is taken while computing income,

then increase in minimum wages should also be considered. It is well

settled that future prospects are not akin to increase in minimum

wages. To neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, the

minimum wages are increased from time to time. 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.

13. Therefore, the tribunal erred in not considering increase in

minimum wages, while assessing the income of the deceased and

same should be considered while computing compensation towards

loss of dependency.

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

the 1/3 deduction for 8 years and 2/3 for 4 years made by the tribunal

are on the higher side as the deceased is survived by his aged parents

and two sisters. In the facts of the instant case, I am inclined to

interfere with the award on this ground and modify the award by

deducting 1/5 expenses for 8 years and 2/5 for five years towards

personal expenses of the deceased.

15. 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 the year 1996 and at that time II schedule to the

Motor Vehicles Act had already been brought on the statute book. The

deceased was of 17 years at the time of the accident and his parents

were of 48 years and 43 yeas of age. 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 13 should have been applied as per the II

Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act.

16. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not

granting compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral

expenses, loss of estate, 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/-.

17. 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.

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

come to Rs. 2676 after doubling Rs. 1784 to Rs. 3568 and after taking

the mean of them. After making 1/5 deductions for 8 years and 2/5

deductions for 5 years the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs.

2140.80 + Rs. 1605.60 and the annual loss of dependency comes to

Rs. 25680/- + Rs. 19267/- per annum and after applying multiplier of

825 respectively it comes to Rs. 2,05,440/- + Rs. 96336/-. Thus, the

total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,01,776/-. After considering Rs.

60,000/- which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages the total

compensation comes out as Rs.3,61,776/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 3,61,776/- from Rs. 1,41,600/- 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 and within 30 days from the date of this order.

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

April 27, 2009                              KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.