IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO NO. 306/98
Judgment reserved on : 17.01.2009
Judgment delivered on: 27.04.2009
Smt. Krishna& ors ..... Appellants.
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
versus
Sh Bhanwar Singh & ors. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may NO
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
FAO No. 306/1998 Page 1 of 7
1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of Learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal passed on 25th August 1994 whereby the
tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,97,000/- with an interest of
12% pa from the date of filing of the petition.
2. The brief facts recorded by the Ld. MACT Judge are as follows:-
3. On 25/7/1994, the deceased Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, 28 years old,
who was working with M.C.D. while riding his cycle on the Outer G.T.
Karnal Road was run down by a bus driven by Respondent No.1 and
belonging to Respondent No. 2. It is alleged that the accident was
caused due to the negligence and rash driving of the bus. The
deceased is survived by his widow, three minor children and a mother
as the claimants in the present case. After the issues were framed by
the Tribunal, the mother, Petitioner No. 5 died. She was substituted by
her daughter and one son as the legal heirs of the mother as
Respondent no. 5 and Respondent No. 6., respectively by the order
dated 31st July 1997. The appellants filed the claim petition and the
award was passed by the learned MACT on 25/8/1994. Aggrieved by
the award of the learned tribunal claimants have preferred the present
appeal for enhancement of compensation.
4. No one has been appearing for the Respondents.
FAO No. 306/1998 Page 2 of 7
5. I have heard counsel for Appellant and perused the record.
6. Counsel for the appellant Mr. O.P. Mannie, contended that the
tribunal erred in not applying the correct multiplier in the present case.
The Tribunal has applied the multiplier 15 instead of 18, which is the
correct multiplier as per the II schedule, as the age of the deceased
was only 28 years. The counsel also contended that the Tribunal also
erred in deducting 1/3rd for the deduction towards the personal
expenditure. The counsel has contended that the deceased has left
behind a large family comprising of his widow, three minor children
and a mother, thus the correct deduction towards personal
expenditure should have been 1/5th instead of 1/3rd.
7. Further it was contended that the non-pecuniary damages
awarded by the Tribunal is also very meager. The compensation for the
loss of love and affection is only Rs. 5,000/-. Nothing is awarded
towards loss of consortium and compensation towards funeral
expenses and loss of Estate are awarded at a meager sum of Rs.
2,000/- and 2,500/-, respectively . He contended that compensation
awarded towards the loss of love and affection should have been Rs.
25,000/- for each appellant, loss of consortium should be Rs. 1,00,000,
FAO No. 306/1998 Page 3 of 7
loss of estate should be Rs. 25,000. Funeral expenses to be awarded
should be Rs.10,000/- and loss of services claimed are Rs.1,00,000/-
8. The counsel for the appellants has relied upon following
judgments:
1. Mohinder Kaur & ors. Vs. Hira Nand sindhi (Ghoriwala) & Ors. –
2007 ACJ 2123 (SC)
2. III (2007) ACC 50 (DB) Madras
9. On the contention of the counsel regarding the application of the
multiplier, I am of the view that the multiplier of 18 suggested by him
will not be applicable as the accident occurred prior to November
1994, that doesn’t provide me with an option to apply the multiplier as
per the schedule. This case pertains to the accident occurred in July
1994 and at that time IInd 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 in November and prior to that 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
FAO No. 306/1998 Page 4 of 7
applied by the Courts, which after coming in to force of the IInd
schedule has risen to 18. However, considering the young age of 28
years of the deceased, I am inclined to apply the maximum multiplier
of 16 applicable to the cases of motor accidents prior to coming of the
schedule as per Susamma Thomas’s Case (supra).
10. As per the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant,
the deduction of salary amount towards personal expenditure of 1/3 rd
is not correct and the same should have been 1/4th as the deceased is
survived by a big family comprising of his widow, 3 minor children and
a mother, who were the claimants in the present case. Mother has died
and is replaced by her other son and one daughter as appellant No. 5
and Appellant No. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, I am
of the view that the Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th towards
personal expenses, which is in accordance with the law settled by the
Apex Court.
11. I coincide with the contention urged by the appellant 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
FAO No. 306/1998 Page 5 of 7
appellants. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and
affection is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-; compensation towards funeral
expenses is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- and compensation towards loss of
estate is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. Further, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded
towards loss of consortium.
12. As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of amount
towards 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 is not a
conventional head of damages.
13. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased
already calculated by tribunal after applying the formula laid down in
Sarla Dixit Case is 2392.50 and after making 1/4rd deductions the
monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1794./- and the annual loss
of dependency comes to Rs. 21532/- per annum and after applying
multiplier of 16 loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,44,520/-. Thus, the
total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,44,520/-. After considering Rs.
30,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of
consortium, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/-
towards loss of estate. The total compensation comes to Rs. 4,39,520/.
FAO No. 306/1998 Page 6 of 7
14. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 4,39,520/- from Rs. 297000/- with interest on the
differential amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realisation and the same shall be paid to the appellants by
the respondent insurance company in the same proportion as awarded
by the tribunal within 30 days of this order.
15. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of.
April 27, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
FAO No. 306/1998 Page 7 of 7