Smt.Subhdra Devi & Ors. vs Om Prakash & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1675 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                 FAO No. 300/99

                          Judgment reserved on: 20.2.2008
                          Judgment delivered on:27.4.2009

Smt. Subhdra Devi & Ors.                   ..... Appellants.
                   Through: Mr. J S Kanwar, Adv.



                     versus

Om Prakash & Ors.     ..... Respondents
                Through:

     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 5.3.1999

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 75,920/- along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. On 3.12.1987 at about 8 PM, the deceased Inder Dev Singh

was going on his cycle towards Bhajanpura. When he reached

near Jamuna Pul on Wazirabad Road, a bus bearing registration

No: URP 7480 which was being driven by respondent No: 1 Om

Prakash at a very high speed, rashly and negligently struck

against the cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell

down on the road and became unconscious. He was removed to

hospital where he later on died.

4. A claim petition was filed on 26.2.1988 and an award was

passed on 5.3.1999. 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 erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.

650/- 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.1000 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 wife,

three children and mother . 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 18 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 30 yrs of age only and would have lived

for another 30-40 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 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 learned counsel for the appellants and perused

the record.

8. As regards income, PW-1 has testified that deceased was

her husband and was in private service. He was earning Rs.

1000/- per month. She has also exhibited salary certificate

marked as 'A' as per which his salary was Rs. 650/- p.m.

9. 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. 650/- p.m.

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

the deceased by this court.

11. 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.

12. 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 widow, aged mother and

three children. Considering the facts of the case, I am inclined to

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

deducting 1/4th expenses towards personal expenses of the

deceased.

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

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

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

committed no error. This case pertains to the year 1987 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 at the time of the

accident was of 34 years of age and is survived by his widow,

aged mother 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 14 has been rightly applied by the

Tribunal.

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

not granting adequate 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. 40,000/-; compensation

towards funeral expenses is enhanced 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. Therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.

81,900/- (650 x ¾ x 12 x 14).

17. After considering Rs. 1,10,000/-, which is granted towards

non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as

Rs. 1,91,900/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 1,91,900/- from Rs. 75,920/- 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.

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

of.

April 27, 2009                       KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.