Delhi High Court
Smt Lajwanti Devi & Ors. vs Vinod Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. on 27 April, 2009
Author: Kailash Gambhir
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 421/1999
% Judgment reserved on: 7.3.2008
Judgment delivered on: 27.4.2009
Smt. Lajwanti Devi & Ors. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Adv.
versus
Vinod Kumar Aggarwal & 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 26/05/99
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- along with interest @ 12% per
annum to the claimants.
FAO NO. 421/99 Page 1 of 7
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. The deceased Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma was driving two
wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DIJ-2960 slowly on his
proper side on Marshal Tito Marg, Central School Chowk, Defence
Colony and in the meantime, truck bearing registration No. DLL-
5881 came at a very fast speed, being driven rashly and
negligently as a result, therefore, the deceased received serious
injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the same day in All
India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.
4. A claim petition was filed on 11/12/84 and an award was
passed on 26/05/99. 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.
1400/- 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. 1656/- per month. The counsel
submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 5
while computing compensation when according to the facts and
circumstances of the case multiplier of 25 should have been
FAO NO. 421/99 Page 2 of 7
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 22 yrs of age only and would
have lived for another 25 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 @ 18% 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 appeared for the respondents.
FAO NO. 421/99 Page 3 of 7
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
perused the record.
8. As regards income, PW7 Sh. P.R. Krishnan, Asst. Manager
(Personal), Modi Xerox deposed that the deceased was appointed
as a draftsman with Modi Xerox ltd. And was getting a gross
salary of Rs. 1,656/- pm and produced the salary certificate, Ex.
PW7/2. He deposed that the deceased was appointed on 1/9/1984
and died on 22/10/1984, so he could not complete his probation
period. PW6 Rajwati Devi mother of the deceased deposed that
the deceased was working as a draftsman and was earning Rs.
1,500/--1,600/- pm. After considering all these factors, I am of the
view that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of
the deceased at Rs.1,400/- pm. 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 has erred in applying the multiplier of 5 in the
facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has
FAO NO. 421/99 Page 4 of 7
not committed error. This case pertains to the year 1984 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 deceased was of 22 years of age at
the time of the accident and mother of the deceased was aged
70 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 the
multiplier of 5 has been rightly applied by the tribunal.
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 18% 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
FAO NO. 421/99 Page 5 of 7
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 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. 20,000/-; compensation
towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and
compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-.
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 their only son and the loss of services,
FAO NO. 421/99 Page 6 of 7
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.
13. Therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.
60,000/- (1400x2/3x12x5) and after considering Rs. 40,000/-,
which is awarded towards non-pecuniary damages, the total
compensation comes out as Rs. 1,00,000/-.
14. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- from Rs. 60,000/- 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.
15. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed
of.
April 27, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
