Delhi High Court
Prabha Wadhwan & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors on 11 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~R-51,52 & 53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th September, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 549/2004
PRABHA WADHWAN & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. Rajeshwar K. Gupta,
Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS .... Respondents
Through Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 550/2004
SHIVAIN DAYAL MATHUR & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. Rajeshwar K. Gupta,
Advocate
versus
JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA & ORS .... Respondents
Through Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 551/2004
SHIVAIN DAYAL MATHUR & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. Rajeshwar K. Gupta,
Advocate
versus
JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA & ORS .... Respondents
Through Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
MAC. APP. Nos.549/2004, 550/2004 & 551/2004 Page 1 of 8
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These three Appeals (MAC. APP. 549/2004, MAC. APP.550/2004
and MAC. APP. 551/2004) arise out of a common judgment dated
12.05.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the
Claims Tribunal) whereby in Suit No.342/2003(Old No.24/1988),
Suit No.340/2003(Old No.236/1987) and Suit No.341/2003(Old
No.235/1987) a compensation of `1,24,500/-, `32,586/- and
`2,34,158/- respectively was awarded for the death of Deepak
Wadhwan, aged 15 years, for injuries on the person of Shivain
Dayal Mathur and, for the death of O.D. Mathur.
2. On 29.08.1987 at about 8:45 pm, deceased O.D. Mathur and
Deepak Wadhwan, injured Shivain Dayal Mathur and other
persons were proceeding in an Ambassador Car No.DHA-8681
from Naraina to Todapur Road. A postal van No.DEL-6853
driven by the First Respondent (Jagdish Prashad Meena) in a rash
and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and hit
against the Ambassador car. As a result of the aforesaid impact,
O.D. Mathur and Deepak Wadhwan suffered fatal injuries,
whereas Shivain Dayal Mathur suffered grievous injuries.
3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the
accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of
van No.DEL-6853. The deceased Deepak Wadhwan(MAC.
APP.549/2004) was a 15 year old boy and a student of 9th
Standard. The Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of non-
matriculate, added 50% towards future prospects to compute the
loss of dependency. After adding a sum of `21,000/- towards
non-pecuniary damages, an overall compensation of `1,24,500/-
was awarded in favour of the Appellants, who are the mother and
two siblings of the deceased.
4. The Appellant Shivain Dayal Mathur(MAC. APP.550/2004),
suffered fracture of corollary bone and wrist, loss of two teeth and
injury in the abdomen (liver). In respect of the injuries suffered by
the Appellant, the Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of
`12,586/- towards the amount spent on medical treatment and a
lump sum compensation of `20,000/- towards pain and suffering,
conveyance and special diet, etc. etc.
5. Similarly, for the death of deceased O.D. Mathur his income as per
Income Tax Return was accepted as `19,378/-. The Claims
Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects and applied a
multiplier of 11 as per the deceased's age to compute the loss of
dependency as `2,13,158/-. A sum of `21,000/- was awarded
towards non-pecuniary damages to compute an overall
compensation of `2,34,158/-.
6. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver (the First Respondent)
and the owner of the Postal Department van (Respondents No.2
and 3), the finding on negligence has attained finality.
7. The learned counsel for the Appellant raises the following
grounds:
(i) Future prospects of the deceased persons were not
considered in the death cases and thus the loss of
dependency is on the lower side.
(ii) In the injury case, the Claims Tribunal awarded a
compensation of `20,000/- towards pain and suffering,
special diet, conveyance and loss of amenities which was
very low and meagre.
(iii) The Claims Tribunal awarded interest only from the year
2000 and that too @ 4% per annum although the Claim
Petition was filed in the year 1988.
8. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act) enjoins
payment of just compensation. In General Manager, Kerala Road
Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors.,
(1994) 2 SCC 176, the Supreme Court held as under: -
"5......The determination of the quantum must answer what
contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as
would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his
neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the
fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly
since the law values life and limb in a free society in
generous scales'. All this means that the sum awarded must
be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards."
9. I shall take all the three Appeals one by one.
MAC. APP. 549/2004 (Suit No.342/2003) (Old No.24/1988)
10. As stated earlier, this Appeal relates to the death of a 15 year old
boy, Master Deepak Wadhwan. In case of death of minor children,
the trend of higher Courts is to take a notional income of `15,000/-
(as per the Second Schedule to the Act) to award of loss of
dependency. The Second Schedule was added by virtue of the
addition of Section 163-A in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 w.e.f.
14.11.1994. The annual income of `15,000/- is much less than the
minimum wages of non-matriculate. In the instant case, the
accident took place in the year 1987. The Claims Tribunal instead
of taking the notional income took the actual wages of a non-
matriculate. The Claims Tribunal also added 50% of the income
towards future prospects. In the case of R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal,
2009(8) Scale 451 wherein several children died on account of
falling of the bus in Yamuna on account of the rash and negligent
driving by its driver, a compensation of `2,25,000/- was awarded
towards loss of dependency and `75,000/- towards future prospects
was awarded. The accident in the said case occurred in 1997. In
National Insurance Company v. Farzana & Ors., 2009 ACJ 2763,
the accident occurred in the year 2000 and this Court increased the
compensation to `3,75,000/-.
11. As stated hereinabove, the compensation in R.K. Malik and
Farzana, was granted on notional income which at the relevant
time was less than the minimum wages. The Appellant was
granted compensation on the basis of minimum wages of a non-
matriculate which is higher than the notional income and an
addition to the extent of 50% was made towards future prospects.
The overall compensation awarded cannot be said to be on the
lower side.
12. Coming to the grant of interest, it may be mentioned that there was
gross negligence in pursuing the Claim Petition by the Appellants.
Initially, the Appellants were not taking steps for service of the
Respondents. Last opportunity was granted to the Appellant to
produce the evidence on 07.07.1992. No evidence was produced
on that date. On the next date, none appeared on behalf of the
Appellants and the Claim Petition was dismissed for want of
prosecution. An Application for restoration was moved on
07.12.1992. Again, the Appellants were negligent in not taking
proper steps. The Claim Petition was dismissed by an order dated
07.10.1999 for want of evidence. The Claims Tribunal observed
that the evidence was not produced despite forty one opportunities
granted to the Appellants. An Application for setting aside the
order dated 07.10.1999 was also dismissed by an order dated
11.01.2000. The Appellants preferred CM(M) 258/2000 whereby
the Appellants were permitted one opportunity to produce their
evidence. Even thereafter, the Appellants took several
adjournments to produce their evidence. The Claims Tribunal was,
therefore, justified in granting interest w.e.f. 15.05.2000, that is,
the date whereby the Appellants were permitted to one opportunity
to produce their evidence.
13. The Claims Tribunal awarded interest @ 4% per annum. The
inflation during the period of 2000 to 2004 was very low.
Consequently, rate of interest on fixed deposit were also low. In
the circumstances, no interference in the award of interest @ 4%
per annum is required.
14. The Appeal is devoid of merit; it is accordingly dismissed.
15. Pending Applications stands disposed of.
MAC. APP.550/2004 (Suit No.340/2003(Old No.236/1987)
16. This case is related to the injuries suffered by the Appellant
Shivain Dayal Mathur.
17. Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was removed to Sir
Ganga Ram Hospital. The Appellant claimed that he spent a sum
of `50-60,000/- on his treatment. He was a student of 12th
Standard. He remained admitted in Ganga Ram Hospital from
29.08.1987 to 08.09.1987. Admittedly, he did not suffer any
permanent disability. He was granted a compensation of `12,586/-
on the basis of the actual bills proved on record by him. Keeping
in view that this accident took place in the year 1987, when any
income beyond `18,000/- per annum was taxable, a compensation
of `20,000/- towards pain and suffering, special diet and
conveyance seems to be just and reasonable.
18. The Appeal is devoid of merit; it is accordingly dismissed.
19. Pending Applications stands disposed of.
MAC. APP.551/2004(Suit No.341/2003(Old No.235/1987)
20. This Appeal relates to the death of O.D. Mathur. During inquiry
before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that he was running a
factory at Village Payala at Ballabhgarh, Haryana in the name and
style of M/s. K.J.R. Ceramics. He was an Income Tax Assessee
and had returned `19,378/- in the Financial Year prior to his death
in the accident. The Claims Tribunal accepted his income as
claimed, added 50% towards future prospects and applied a
multiplier of 11. If compensation is computed as per Sarla Verma
& Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121,
the Appellant would not entitle to any addition towards future
prospects and the loss of dependency would come down to
`1,70,526/- against an award of `2,34,158/-. The overall
compensation of `2,34,158/- cannot be said to be on the lower
side. Rather, the same is just and reasonable and does not call for
any interference.
21. The Appeal is devoid of merit; it is accordingly dismissed.
22. Pending Applications stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
pst
