Delhi High Court
Madhu Gupta & Ors vs Rajan Singh & Ors. on 27 April, 2009
Author: Kailash Gambhir
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 181/1994
% Judgment reserved on: 18.1.2008
Judgment delivered on: 27.4.2009
Madhu Gupta & Ors. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Adv.
versus
Rajan Singh & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.K. Singhal, 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 26/05/94
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal
FAO No. 181/1994 Page 1 of 8
awarded a sum of Rs. 5,14,800/- along with interest @ 12% per
annum to the claimants.
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. On 5/10/84 at about 2.30 PM Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta, was
going on his two wheeler scooter from Shakti Nagar to
Nizammuddin Railway Station. When he was going on the rising
road near I.P. Indoor Stadium the offending truck bearing
registration No. DLL-1463 which was being driven by respondent
No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit
the deceased. The deceased was dragged by the truck for some
distance. He was immediately taken to LNJP Hospital where he
was declared dead.
4. A claim petition was filed on 04/01/85 and an award was
passed on 26/05/94. 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.3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- 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. 15,000/- per month.
The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied
FAO No. 181/1994 Page 2 of 8
the multiplier of 13 while computing compensation when
according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of
17 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 33 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 35 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 @ 15% 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.
FAO No. 181/1994 Page 3 of 8
6. Per Contra, Mr. K. Singhal, counsel for the respondent no. 3
submitted that the award passed by the tribunal is just and fair
and requires no interference by this court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
8. The father and brother of the deceased deposed that at the
time of the accident, income of the deceased was between 3,000-
4,000/- pm from his business in partnership of typewriting
institute at clock tower, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. Though, the
appellants claimants did not bring on record any document
showing the income of the deceased, however, tribunal assessed
the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- pm. 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 considering that no
dispute in this regard is raised by the respondents, in this regard
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
was no material on record to award future prospects. Therefore,
FAO No. 181/1994 Page 4 of 8
the tribunal committed no error in granting future prospects in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. 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, five children and
aged parents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am inclined to interfere with the award on this ground and
modify the award by deducting 1/6th towards personal expenses
of the deceased.
11. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant
that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 13 in the facts
and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has
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
FAO No. 181/1994 Page 5 of 8
applied by the Courts, which after coming in to force of the II
schedule has risen to 18. The age of the deceased at the time of
the accident was 33 yrs and he is survived by his widow, aged
parents and five 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 and after taking a balanced view considering the
multiplier applicable as per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the
multiplier of 14 shall be applicable.
12. 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 not 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
FAO No. 181/1994 Page 6 of 8
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.
13. 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. 35,000/-; 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.
14. 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 only son 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.
FAO No. 181/1994 Page 7 of 8
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the total loss of
dependency comes to Rs. 7,00,000/- (5,000x 5/6x12x14) and
after considering Rs. 1,05,000/-, which is granted towards non-
pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs.
8,05,000/-.
16. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 8,05,000/- from Rs. 5,14,800/- 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.
17. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed
of.
April 27, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
