Sushma Sharma & Anr vs Raja Rama & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1682 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   FAO No. 188/2000

                            Judgment reserved on: 13.3.2008
                            Judgment delivered on: 27.4.2009


Sushma Sharma & Anr.                    ..... Appellants.
                 Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

                       versus

Raja Ram & Ors.                           ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, 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 8.2.2000 of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 1,62,000 along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

FAO No. 188/2000 Page 1 | 9

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

3. On 8.5.97 at about 8.30 PM deceased Jeet Pal Sharma was

driving Jonga Jeep bearing registration No: PBN 7689. He had

taken a turn to his left from Madhuban Chowk and was driving on

the left of the road at a slow speed. In the meanwhile, his jeep

was hit by a truck bearing registration No: DHG 5157 which was

being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner. The speed of

the truck was so high that it dragged the jeep alongwith it to a

distance of 100 paces. As a result deceased Jeet Pal Sharma

received serious injuries and died in the ESI Hospital after about

half an hour of the accident.

4. A claim petition was filed on 4.11.1987 and an award was

passed on 8.2.2000. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement

is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. Sanjiv Sharma, counsel for the appellants contended

that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at

Rs. 780/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and

FAO No. 188/2000 Page 2 | 9 circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the

income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month. The counsel

further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the

deduction to the tune of Rs 270/- 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

and two children. The counsel submitted that the tribunal

erroneously applied the multiplier of 15 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 she was of 32 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

FAO No. 188/2000 Page 3 | 9 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.

The counsel has relied on following judgments in support of his

contentions:

1. Brijnandan Vs. PEPSU IV ( 2005) ACC 820 paras 3 & 4.

2. U P State Road Transport Corp. Vs. Trilok Chandra

1996 ACJ 831 paras 17 & 18.

3. Concord of India Ins. Co. Ltd Vs. Nirmala Devi 1980

ACJ 55 para 2.

6. Shri D K Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of

respondent No:3 and submitted that the award passed by the

learned Tribunal is just and fair and requires no interference by

this court.

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

the record.

FAO No. 188/2000 Page 4 | 9

8. As regards income, the widow of the deceased deposed that

the deceased had his own business in the name & style of M/s

Krishna Water Supply Co. and was earning Rs. 5,000/- p.m. by

being 15% partner in it. She also deposed that of M/s Water well

Drilling Company he was the sole proprietor. However, no cogent

evidence has been placed on record in this regard.

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. 781/- p.m. in accordance M.W. Act for graduate.

10. 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.

11. 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.

FAO No. 188/2000 Page 5 | 9

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

the deceased by this court.

13. However, 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 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. The tribunal has rightly considered the same.

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

that the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher

side as the deceased is survived by wife and two children. In

catena of cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances

made 1/3rd deductions. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere

with the award on this ground.

FAO No. 188/2000 Page 6 | 9

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

that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 15 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. At the time of the accident deceased

was of 32 years of age and is survived by his widow and two

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 15 as applied by the tribunal does not require any

interference.

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

not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection,

FAO No. 188/2000 Page 7 | 9 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. 20,000/-; 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.

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. Therefore, total loss of

dependency comes to Rs. 1,40,580/- ( 781+1562/2 x 2/3 x

12/15).

18. After considering Rs. 90,000/-, which is granted towards non

pecuniary damages the total compensation comes out as Rs.

2,30,580/-.

FAO No. 188/2000 Page 8 | 9

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

enhanced to Rs. 2,30,580/- from Rs. 1,62,000/- 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.

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

of.

April 27, 2009                        KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.




FAO No. 188/2000                                        Page 9 | 9