Muni Ram & Anr. vs Mangat Ram & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1063 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 FAO No.662/2002

                        Date of reserve: 30th January, 2009
%                       Date of decision: 31st March, 2009


MUNI RAM & ANR.                             ..... Appellant
                       Through:   Mr. Om Prakash, Adv.

                       versus

MANGAT RAM & ORS.                            ..... Respondent
                       Through:   Mr. Asit Tewari, Adv. for
                                  respondents No.1 and 2
                                  Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate for
                                  respondent No.3.


CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.      Whether the judgment should be
        reported in the Digest?


                          JUDGMENT

1. The appellants have challenged the Award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- has been

awarded to the appellants. The appellants seek enhancement

of the award amount.

2. On 5th May, 1988, the deceased Anand Kumar, aged 14

years, a student of class-VII was riding on his bicycle when

truck bearing No.DLI-5444 crushed him under the front wheel.

FAO No.662/2002

3. The appellants are parents of the deceased and they

filed the application for compensation before the learned

Tribunal.

4. The deceased was the only son of the appellants. The

shock of the death was so severe that appellant No.1 became

mentally deranged and went into depression and even could

not attend to his business. Appellant No.1 remained under

medical treatment and lost all sense of timing and partially

regained sense after about three years.

5. Appellant No.2 is an illiterate lady who also got

depressed with the untimely death of her only son and also on

account of serious mental illness of her husband due to the

sudden death of her son.

6. Appellant No.1 was working as a mechanic for repair of

trucks at the time of the death of his son but his income

stopped as he could not attend his work due to aforesaid

mental condition.

7. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,06,000/- to the

appellants. The learned Tribunal held that the deceased

would have attained 18 years of age in 1992 and would have

earned minimum wages of an unskilled worker of Rs.598/- per

month and the multiplier of 12 was adopted but the

dependency was reduced to 8 years. The learned Tribunal

took the average income for computing compensation as

Rs.2,000/- per month out of which half was deducted towards

FAO No.662/2002 personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency was

taken to be Rs.1,000/- per month on which the multiplier of 8

was applied. Rs.10,000/- was added towards loss of love and

support and loss of estate to arrive at the figure of

Rs.1,06,000/-. The interest at the rate of 9% was awarded

from the date of petition till date of award minus the period of

seven years because of the delay by the appellant in leading

the evidence.

8. The appellants have challenged the impugned award on

the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in computing the

income of the deceased, the corresponding dependency of the

appellants and in applying the correct multiplier. The

contention of the appellants is that the learned Tribunal

should have taken the notional income of the deceased for

computing the income at Rs.15,000/- per month as per the

Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and the multiplier

of 15 should have been applied to compute the compensation.

The second ground of challenge is that the compensation for

loss of company of the child as also pain and suffering is very

meager and inappropriate and the same be enhanced. The

third ground is that the interest on the award should be

through-out the period from the date of filing of the petition

till realization.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant refers to and relies

upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manju

Devi Vs. Musafir Paswan, VII (2005) SLT 257 where the

FAO No.662/2002 Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded compensation of

Rs.2,25,000/- in respect of death of a 13-years old boy by

applying the multiplier of 15 and taking the notional income of

Rs.15,000/- as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles

Act. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced

hereunder:-

"As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs.15,000/- must be taken as the income.

             Thus,    the   compensation      comes   to
             Rs.2,25,000/-"

10. The counsel for the appellant also refers to and relies

upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Syam

Narayan Vs. Kitty Tours & Travels, 2006 ACJ 320 which

related to the death of a child aged 5 years. This Court

relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Manju Devi's

case (supra) awarded compensation to the parents by

applying the notional income of Rs.15,000/- and multiplier of

15 as per the Second Schedule and further awarded

Rs.50,000/- for loss of company of the child as also pain and

suffering by them. The relevant portion of the said judgment

is reproduced hereunder:-

"3. By and under the award dated 5.12.2003, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded to the appellants. While awarding sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to appellants, learned M.A.C.T. has held that the income of the deceased child was incapable of assessment or estimation. Recognising that every parent has a reasonable

FAO No.662/2002 expectation of financial and moral support from his child, in the absence of any evidence led, learned M.A.C.T. opined that the interest of justice requires that appellants are compensated with the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. Had the Tribunal peeped into the Second Schedule, as per section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it would have dawned on the Tribunal that vide serial No.6, notional income for compensation in case of fatal accidents has been stipulated at Rs.15,000/- per annum.

5. In the decision reported as Manju Devi V. Musafir Paswan, 2005 ACJ 99 (SC), dealing with the accidental death of 13 years old boy, while awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Apex Court took into account the notional income stipulated in the Second Schedule being Rs.15,000/- per annum.

6. In the instant case, baby Chanda was aged 5 years. Age of the appellants as on date of accident was 28 years and 26 years respectively as recorded in the impugned award. Applying a multiplier of 15 as set out in Second Schedule which refers to the said multiplier, where age of the victim is upto 15 years, compensation determinable comes to Rs.15,000 x 15 = Rs.2,25,000/-.

7. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of expectation of financial and moral support as also loss of company of the child, mental agony, etc. I have found that the parents are entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.2,25,000/- on account of loss of financial support from the deceased child. I award a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of company of the child as also pain and suffering suffered by them as a result of the untimely death of baby Chanda. Appeal accordingly stands disposed of enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,75,000/-.

11. The counsel for the appellant also relies upon the

judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of

Sobhagya Devi & Ors. Vs. Sukhvir Singh & Ors., II

FAO No.662/2002 (2006) ACC 1997 relating to the death of a 12-year old boy.

Following the decision of the Apex Court in Manju Devi's

case (supra), the Rajasthan High Court also awarded

Rs.2,25,000/- by applying the Second Schedule of the Motor

Vehicles Act.

12. The counsel for the appellant lastly refers to and relies

upon the judgment of this Court in the case of R.K. Malik &

Ors. Vs. Kiran Pal & Ors., III (2006) ACC 261 where 22

children died in an accident of a school bus which fell in river

Yamuna. This Court held the Second Schedule of the Motor

Vehicles Act to be the appropriate method for computing the

compensation. With respect to the non-pecuniary damages,

the Court observed that loss of dependency of life and pain

and suffering on that account, generally speaking is same and

uniform to all regardless of status unless there is a specific

case made out for deviation. This Court awarded Rs.75,000/-

towards non-pecuniary compensation.

13. In the case of Rattan Lal Mehta vs. Rajinder Kapoor,

1996 ACJ 372, it has been held that it is open to

Courts/Tribunals to apply table in the Second Schedule in

respect of accidents when occurred prior to the 1994

amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act.

14. This case is squarely covered by the aforesaid

judgments of the Apex court followed by this Court. The

compensation to the appellant is, therefore, enhanced from

FAO No.662/2002 Rs.1,06,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.2,25,000/- as per the

Second Schedule taking the notional income of the deceased

to be Rs.15,000/- and applying the multiplier of 15 and

Rs.75,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages for loss of love

and affection, loss of company of the child and also pain and

suffering by them as a result of the untimely death of their

only son).

15. With respect to the interest, the learned Tribunal has

awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date

of filing of petition till date of award minus seven years. The

learned Tribunal held that the appellants are not entitled to

interest for a period of seven years as the appellants delayed

the leading of evidence. The learned Tribunal did not

appreciate that the appellants are illiterate. They lost their

only son. Appellant No.1 went into mental trauma and also

stopped attending to his work. Though the case was delayed

due to the delay in leading the evidence but it cannot be lost

sight of that the compensation to the appellants became

payable immediately on the death of their son and the

Insurance Company continued to retain the money. No steps

were taken by the Insurance Company to come forward and

offer the compensation. The death of the child is not in

dispute. Even age of the child is not in dispute. The Second

Schedule provides for the notional income in respect of the

children. The law for compensation is well settled by the

catena of judgments cited above. Nothing prevented the

FAO No.662/2002 Insurance Company to come forward and show the grace of

offering the compensation to the appellants. However, it is

unfortunate that the insurance company did not show any

sense of responsibility in this regard. I, therefore, hold that

the Insurance Company is liable to pay interest for the entire

period from the date of filing of the petition before the learned

Tribunal till realization. However, the rate of interest for the

period of seven years from the date of filing of the petition

restricted to @5% per annum and thereafter @ 7.5% per

annum.

16. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The compensation

to the appellants is enhanced from Rs.1,06,000/- to

Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 5% per annum for a period

of seven years from the date of filing of the petition and

thereafter @7.5% till realization.

17. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced

award amount along with interest with the learned Tribunal

within 30 days. 70% of the award amount be kept in a fixed

deposit in the name of the appellants for a period of ten years

on which no loan, advance or withdrawal be permitted without

the prior permission of the learned Tribunal but the periodical

interest be released to the appellants and the remaining 30%

be released to the appellants. The learned Tribunal shall first

release the cheques towards the amount has to be kept in

fixed deposits and the remaining amount be released only

after the original fixed deposit receipts with proper

FAO No.662/2002 endorsements are shown to the learned Tribunal and the

copies of FDRs duly attested by the Bank are placed on record

of the learned Tribunal.

J.R. MIDHA, J March 31, 2009 s.pal

FAO No.662/2002