Smt.Angoori Devi & Ors vs Amiri Lal & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 1686 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                 FAO No. 331/1999

                          Judgment reserved on : 5.3.2008
                          Judgment delivered on: 27.4.2009


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

                     versus

Amiri Lal & 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 29/4/1999

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 53,056/- along with interest @ 12% per

annum to the claimants.

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

3. That an accident took place on 16.2.1990 at about 12.30

p.m. while the deceased was going towards Loni (Home)side on

his cycle after doing some purchase for his shop from Shahadara

Market and when reached near Durga Mandir Loni Road

Shahadara, Delhi, the respondent No. 1 came from back side

(Shahadara side) in a very rash and negligent and careless

manner by driving his truck Nissan bearing registration No. DEG

7160 and hit the cycle of the deceased from the back side. Due

to the sudden and forceful hit by the truck the deceased received

grievous injuries and died in the G.T.B. hospital on the same day

on account of injuries received by him in the accident.

4. A claim petition was filed on 26/4/1990 and an award was

passed on 29/4/1999. 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 making the deduction to the tune of 1/3 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 seven children. The counsel

submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier

of 8 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 she was of 45 yrs of age only and would

have lived for another 20-30 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.

6. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.

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

perused the record.

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

that the deceased was a kirana shop-keeper and was earning Rs.

60-70 per day. The appellants claimants had brought any

documentary evidence on record to prove income of the

deceased. After considering all these factors I am of the view that

the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the

deceased by taking aid of the wages notified under Minimum

Wages Act.

9. 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. 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.

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

the deceased by this court.

11. It has been the consistent view of this court that whenever

aid of Minimum Wages Act is taken while computing income, then

increase in minimum wages should also be considered. It is well

settled that future prospects are not akin to increase in minimum

wages. To neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, the

minimum wages are increased from time to time. 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.

12. Therefore, the tribunal erred in not considering increase in

minimum wages, while assessing the income of the deceased and

same should be considered while computing compensation

towards loss of dependency.

13. 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 widow and seven children.

Considering the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to

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

deducting 1/5 expenses towards personal expenses of the

deceased.

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

that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 8 in the

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

committed error. This case pertains to the year 1990 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 age of the deceased at the time of

the accident was 45 years and he is survived by his widow and

seven 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

13 shall be applicable.

15. 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.

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

not granting adequate compensation towards loss of consortium

and loss of estate, whereas, no compensation has been granted

towards funeral expenses, loss of love & affection 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.

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.

18. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased

would come to Rs. 1,150.50/- after doubling Rs. 767/- to Rs.

1,534/- and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/5th

deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 920.40/-

and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 11,044.80/- per

annum and after applying multiplier of 13 it comes to Rs.

1,43,582/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.

1,43,582/-. After considering Rs. 1,05,000/-, which is granted

towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes

out as Rs. 2,48,582/-.

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

enhanced to Rs. 2,48,582/- from Rs. 53,056/- 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.