Vimla Devi & Ors vs Dtc & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 1672 Del

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         FAO No. 485/2000

                           Judgment reserved on: 13.3.2008
                           Judgment delivered on:27.4. 2009

Vimla Devi & Ors.                   ...........Appellants.
                      Through: Mr. O.P.Goyal, Adv.


                      versus

D.T.C. & Ors.                        ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Jyotinder Kumar, 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 7.9.2000 of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.8,63,240/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 21.2.98 at about 7.30 P.M. when Shri Om was boarding the

bus the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus with a jerk due to

which Shri Om was dragged by the bus a few paces, thereafter he fell

down and was injured grievously. He was rushed to the DDU Hospital

and on 26.2.1998 he succumbed to his injuries.

4. A claim petition was filed on 15.5.98 and an award was passed

on 7.9.2000. 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. 7064/-

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.9420/- per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal

erred in making the deduction to the tune of 1/3rd 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 and three daughters, one son and parents. The counsel

submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 11,

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 42 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 @ 15%

per annum in place of only 12% per annum. 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. Nobody appeared for the respondents.

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

record.

8. As regards income, PW4 wife of the deceased deposed that he

was working as a cashier in DTC and was drawing a salary of Rs.

10,000/- p.m. PW5 Jaswant Rai, Sr. Clerk, Keshopur Depot deposed that

the deceased was working as an Asstt. Cashier in DTC and was earning

Rs. 7064/- p.m. Thus, the Tribunal assessed income at Rs. 7064/- p.m.

9. Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of the

deceased by this court.

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

deceased was in government employment and with passage of time

would have got increments as well and the widow also deposed that

his salary would have increased soon thus there was sufficient material

on record to award future prospects. Therefore, the tribunal

committed no error in granting future prospects in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

11. 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 wiodow, aged parents and four children. In

the facts of the instant case, I am inclined to interfere with the award

on this ground and modify the award by deducting 1/6 expenses

towards personal expenses.

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

the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 11 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 books. The

deceased was of 42 years of age and is survived by his widow, four

children and aged parents. 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 15 should have been applied as per the II Schedule to

the Motor Vehicles Act.

13. 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.

14. 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. 30,000/- 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.

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. 10596/- after doubling Rs. 7064/- to Rs. 14128/- and after

taking the mean of them. After making 1/6 deductions the monthly loss

of dependency comes to Rs. 8830/- and the annual loss of dependency

comes to Rs. 1,05,960/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 15

it comes to Rs. 15,89,400/-.Thus, the total loss of dependency comes

to Rs. 15,89,400/- After considering Rs. 1,00,000/- which is granted

towards non-pecuniary damages and loss considering Rs. 30,000/-

awarded towards treatment/medicines and conveyance prior to death

of the deceased and deducting Rs. 1,00,000/- towards accidental

insurance, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 15,19,400/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 15,19,400/- from Rs. 8,63,240/- 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.

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

April 27, 2009                              KAILASH GAMBHIR,J.