IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO. No.84/1995
Judgment reserved on: 22.1.2008
Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009.
Smt. Vidya Devi & Ors. ..... Appellants.
Through: Mrs. Manjeet Chawla, Adv.
versus
Shri Subhash Chand & 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? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to
the claimants.
FAO NO. 84/1995 Page 1 of 8
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. The deceased Late Sh. Hans Raj, aged about 35 yrs was
working as a self employed businessman, working under the
name and style of M/s Jyoti Travels. On October 1, 1988 he was
driving a maruti car bearing licence plate No. DBP-14 from Pooth
Kalan towards Kutabgarh via Karala. When the car reached near
village Karala, a half body truck bearing registration No. DLL-
3195 came from the opposite direction, at a high speed and
without blowing horn. The offending truck violently dashed
against the maruti car and Sh. Hans Raj succumbed to his injuries
at the accident site itself, whereas the other occupants sustained
fatal injuries and were removed to Hindu Rao Hospital.
4. A claim petition was filed on 31st March 1989 and an award
was made on 14th February 1995. Aggrieved with the said award
enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
5. Mrs. Manjeet Chawla, counsel for the appellants assailed the
said award on quantum of compensation. Counsel for the
appellants contended that the tribunal has erred in assessing the
income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/-, without considering future
FAO NO. 84/1995 Page 2 of 8
prospects of the deceased. 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. The
counsel pleads that the Tribunal should have applied the formula
laid down under Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
Vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), and applying
that, the income should have been doubled and then the loss of
dependency should have been decided. Secondly, the counsel
contended that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal i.e. 10 is
very less and the same should have been 17. Thirdly, no amount
towards Non Pecuniary head is granted, thus the counsel pleaded
that some compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral
expenses etc. should be granted. Fourthly, the counsel also
raised the contention that the rate of interest allowed by the
tribunal has been awarded only for 4 years and same should have
been allowed from the date of filing of the petition till its
realisation.
6. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.
FAO NO. 84/1995 Page 3 of 8
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused
the record.
8. The appellants claimants had examined only one witness as
regards the quantum of compensation. The said witness, Smt.
Vidya Devi, PW4, deposed that her deceased husband was
running a bus under the name & style of M/s. Jyoti Travels,
Poothkalan, Delhi. She had brought on record the original as well
as the photocopy of the registration book, Ex. PW 4/A, according
to which, the bus bearing registration no. DEP 6463 was
registered in the name of Sh. Hans Raj. She deposed that her
husband used to give her Rs. 2000/-pm for household purposes.
According to her, the deceased could have bought more buses
and could have enhanced his income had he not died in the
accident. 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. 2250. There is no justification to interfere in the
same.
9. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there
is no sufficient material on record to award future prospects.
FAO NO. 84/1995 Page 4 of 8
Therefore, the tribunal committed no 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 has erred in applying the multiplier of 10 in the
facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has
committed error. This case pertains to the year 1988 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 aged about 35 yrs at
the time of the accident and is survived by his widow wife, 2
minor children and parents. 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
applicable multiplier as per II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act,
FAO NO. 84/1995 Page 5 of 8
the multiplier of 15 should have been applied. Therefore, in the
facts of the instant case the multiplier of 15 shall be applicable.
11. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest
should have been awarded by the tribunal from the date of filing
of the petition in place deducting interest for the period four
years only, I feel that the deduction of interest by the tribunal is
just and fair and requires no interference. The tribunal observed
that the rate of interest has not been awarded to the appellants,
since as per the record, the claimants did not act with due
diligence in prosecuting the petition on some dates of hearing
and no steps had been taken by them to summon the witnesses. I
feel that no interference is warranted in this regard.
12. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in
not awarding compensation towards loss of love & affection,
funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium and the loss
of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the
appellants, I feel that the same should have been awarded by the
tribunal. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and
affection is awarded at Rs. 40,000/-; compensation towards
funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 5,000/- and compensation
FAO NO. 84/1995 Page 6 of 8
towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-. Further, Rs.
50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium.
13. 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.
14. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased
is taken as Rs. 2250/-. After making 1/3rd deductions the monthly
loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1500/- and the annual loss of
dependency comes to Rs. 18,000/- per annum and after applying
multiplier of 15 it comes to Rs. 2,70,000/-. Thus, the total loss of
dependency comes to Rs. 2,70,000/-. After considering Rs.
1,05,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the
total compensation comes out as Rs. 3,75,000/-.
15. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 3,75,000/- from Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest @
FAO NO. 84/1995 Page 7 of 8
7.5% per annum in 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. The
enhanced compensation be apportioned in the same ratio as
done by the Tribunal.
16. With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.
13.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
FAO NO. 84/1995 Page 8 of 8