Smt.Mala Devi & Ors. vs Shri Ram Mehar & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 1687 Del

      * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                      FAO No. 341/1998

%                      Judgment reserved on: 27.3.2008

                       Judgment delivered on: 27.4.2009



Smt. Mala Devi & Ors.                          ......Appellants

                       Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.

                 versus

Shri Ram Mehar & 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

03/02/1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 91,600/- along with interest @

12% per annum to the claimants.
FAO No. 341/98                                                Page 1 of 8
 2.    The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

3.    On 14/08/1986 at about 9.00 p.m      the deceased was going

on his cycle from Palam Mohr towards Western Command. When

he was passing near Chambury Mehram Nagar, a maruti trailor

bearing registration No. HYG 2877 driven by respondent No.1,

owned by the respondent No.2 and 3 and insured with

respondent No.4 came from behind at a fast speed and in a zig

zag manner without blowing any horn and hit the cycle of the

deceased. As a result of this impact, the deceased and his cycle

fell down and the trailer passed over the body of the deceased

who died on the spot.

4.    A claim petition was filed on 07/01/1987 and an award was

passed on 03/02/97. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement

is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5.    Sh. O.P. Mannie, counsel for the appellants contended that

the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at

Rs.976.50/- 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. 2,000/- per month. The counsel

submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier

of 13 while computing compensation when according to the facts


FAO No. 341/98                                           Page 2 of 8
 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 he was of 46 years of age only and would

have lived for another 25 years had he not met with the accident.

The counsel also stated that had the deceased not met with her

untimely death he would have expanded her business and would

have been earning much more in the near future. 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


FAO No. 341/98                                            Page 3 of 8
 the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased

to the appellants.

6.    Per contra, Mr. D.K. Sharma counsel for the respondents

contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and fair

and, therefore, no interference should be made in this regard.

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

perused the record.


8.    As regards income of the deceased, PW2 deposed that the

deceased was a cook in Air Force and was getting Rs. 2,000/- pm

and was giving his entire salary to her for running the household.

However, as per the salary certificate, Ex. X, the salary of the

deceased was Rs. 976.50/- 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. 976.50/- 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

considering that the deceased was a Govrnment employee it is

manifest that he must have been getting increments etc. Had he

not died in the accident. Thus, applying the principle laid down in



FAO No. 341/98                                            Page 4 of 8
 Sarla Dixit's case, the tribunal committed 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 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 1986 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 50 years of age at

the time of the accident and is survived by his widow and nine

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 8 has been rightly applied by the tribunal.

11.   As regards deduction, the Tribunal after considering that

the deceased is survived by his widow and nine children made

1/8th deduction. In the facts of the case, I do not feel that the


FAO No. 341/98                                              Page 5 of 8
 same warrant any interference, thus no interference is made in

this regard.

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 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

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.




FAO No. 341/98                                            Page 6 of 8
 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. 45,000/-; compensation

towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and

compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-.

Further, Rs. 25,000/- 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 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.



15.   In view, of the foregoing, total loss of dependency comes to

Rs. 1,23,039/- p.m. (976.50 + 2 x 976.50/2 x 12 x 7/8 x 8). After




FAO No. 341/98                                           Page 7 of 8
 considering Rs. 90,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary

damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 2,13,039/-.



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

enhanced to Rs. 2,13,039/- from Rs. 91,600/-. The differential

amount shall be paid to the appellants by the respondent no. 2

with upto date interest @ 7.5% pa from the date of filing of the

petition till realization & within 30 days of this order.

17.   With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.




April 27, 2009                           KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.