* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 187 of 2002
Judgment reserved on: 21.2.2008
% Judgment delivered on: 06.04.2009
Smt. Usha Jain ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary. Adv.
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary,
Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 22.9.2001
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 3,66,000/- along with interest @ 9% per
annum to the claimants.
FAO No. 187 of 2002 Page 1 of 10
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. On 23.10.1993 at about 4.50 a.m. Shri P.C. Jain (deceased)
while driving two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DL-4-
SA-7183, with a minor boy and another adult person as pillion
riders, was proceeding on Gurgaon Road opposite Military Farm
Record Office on way from Delhi to Gurgaon. The scooter at that
time was proceeding on proper side of the road at moderate
speed. At that very time, a truck bearing registration No. HR-29B-
2484 came from behind. It was being driven by its driver at a
high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The front left
hand portion of the truck struck against rear portion of the
scooter. The truck after the accident dragged the scooter,
scooterist and the pillion riders to quite some distance. The truck
came to a halt after going on the kacha portion by the left side of
the road. The sccoterist sustained multiple grievous injuries and
later succumbed to the same in Safdurjung Hospital.
4. A claim petition was filed on 22.03.1994 and an award was
made on 22.9.2001. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement
is claimed by way of the present appeal.
5. The appellants had assailed the said award on quantum of
compensation. Counsel for the appellants contended that the
FAO No. 187 of 2002 Page 2 of 10
tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.
3500/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and
circumstances of the case, the salary with future prospects ought
to have been worked out by doubling the present salary i.e. Rs.
3,500/- x 2 = Rs. 7,000/- per month. The counsel further
maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the
tune of Rs. 1028/- p.m. 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 mother, wife
and three minor children. The counsel submitted that the tribunal
has erroneously applied the multiplier of 12 while computing
compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of
the case multiplier of 16 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 38 yrs of age only and would have lived
for some more years had he not met with the accident. The
counsel also stated that had the deceased not met with his
untimely death he was bound to be promoted as Assistant Grade
Clerk and then as Superintendent and would have been earning
FAO No. 187 of 2002 Page 3 of 10
much more in the near future. 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 9% 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. In support of his submissions counsel for the
appellants placed reliance on the following judgments:-
1. General Manager, K.S. Road Transport vs. Susamma
Thomas 1994(1) ACJ 1
2. Sarla Dixit vs Balwant Yadav 1996 (1) ACJ 581
3. Jyoti Kaul vs State of MP 2000 ACJ 1368
4. A.C. Gupta vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 90 (2001)
DLT 397
5. Lata Wadhwa vs State of Bihar JT 2001 (6) SC 431
6. Patricia Jean Mahajan vs United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. 94 (2001) DLT 355.
6. Per contra Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, counsel appearing for the
respondent/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. refuted the submissions
FAO No. 187 of 2002 Page 4 of 10
made by the counsel for the appellant. He contended that the
Award made by the Tribunal is just and fair and there is no need
to interfere with the findings given by the Tribunal. With respect
to the future prospects counsel for the respondent contended
that he has no objection if the future prospects are awarded as
the deceased was Government employee and in stable service.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
8. The appellants/claimants had produced one witness Mrs.
Neelam Kukreja, LDC, Accounts Branch Office of District &
Session Judge, Delhi to prove salary, date of birth and
qualification of the deceased. The said witness had brought along
with her the record in respect of late Shri P.C. Jain to prove that
the deceased was working as Reader in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Delhi and he was employed in the office on
14.10.1974 as LDC. His date of birth as per record was
14.10.1955. He had passed B.A. in 1973 and his date of
retirement was 31.10.2013. The scale of pay of the deceased was
Rs. 950 – 1500 and his last basic pay was Rs. 1375/- w.e.f.
1.10.1973 and the last salary drawn by him was Rs. 3,500/-.
Further the wife of the deceased deposed that the deceased had
FAO No. 187 of 2002 Page 5 of 10
a bright future and had bright chances of promotion and was
expected to draw a monthly salary of Rs.8,000/-pm. After
considering all these factors, I am of the view that the tribunal
committed no error in assessing the income of the deceased at
Rs. 3,500/- p.m. Therefore, no interference is made in the award
on this count.
9. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that
considering that the wife of the deceased deposed that he had a
bright future and bright chances of promotion and also
considering that the respondent itself has no objection to this, I
am inclined to award future prospects. Thus taking the income of
the deceased to be Rs. 3500/- per month at the time of accident
and applying the formula as laid down in Sarla Dixit Case
(supra) taking into account the further prospects, the income of
the deceased comes to Rs. 5250/- p.m. (3500 + 7000/2).
10. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant
that the deduction of Rs. 1028/- p.m. made by the tribunal are on
the higher side as the deceased is survived by his mother, wife
and three minor children. The tribunal applied the unit method
while assessing the deduction and has rightly reached to the
deduction of Rs. 1028/-pm. Applying the same unit formula, the
FAO No. 187 of 2002 Page 6 of 10
deduction comes to Rs. 1415/-. Thus the loss of dependency
comes to Rs. 1415/-. Thus the loss of dependency comes to 5250-
1415 = 3835/- per month or Rs. 46020/- per annum.
11. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant
that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 12, I feel that
the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year
March, 1994 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 November, 1994 and prior
to November, 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 38 years at the time of his death. He
is survived by his widow, aged mother and three minor 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 considering the
applicable multiplier under Schedule to Motor Vehicle Act, the
multiplier of 14 should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts
of the instant case the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of
FAO No. 187 of 2002 Page 7 of 10
12 and multiplier of 14 shall be applicable. Thus taking into
account the multiplier of 14 the compensation comes to Rs.
6,44,280/-.
12. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of
9% 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 does not
require any 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. This case
pertains to the year 1993. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, I find no infirmity in the award regarding award of interest
FAO No. 187 of 2002 Page 8 of 10
@ 9% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered by this
Court.
13. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has not
granted compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral
expenses and loss of estate, loss of consortium and the loss of
services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the
appellants. In this regard Rs. 40,000/- compensation is awarded
towards love and affection; Rs. 5,000/- is awarded towards
funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards loss of
expectation of life, but the same is not a conventional head of
damages thus the said amount is adjusted towards loss of estate.
Further, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium.
14. As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of
amount towards 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 is not
conventional head of damages.
15. On the basis of the discussion, the total loss of dependency
comes to Rs. 6,44,280/-. After considering Rs. 1,05,000/-, which is
FAO No. 187 of 2002 Page 9 of 10
granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation
comes out as Rs. 7,49,280/-.
16. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 7,49,280/- from Rs. 3,66,000/- with interest @
7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of
filing of the petition till realisation and the same should be paid to
the appellants by the respondent insurance company in the same
ration as given by the Tribunal.
17. With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of
and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for
apportionment.
06.04.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
FAO No. 187 of 2002 Page 10 of 10