JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Appellants who are the widow, daughters and sons of deceased Shadi Lal Chopra seek enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Only issue which has to be decided in the appeal is whether the compensation assessed is just and proper.
2. Shadi Lal Chopra, aged 52 years, was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police. He died as a result of a motor accident on 7.8.1982.
3. Noting that the deceased was earning Rs.874/- per month, Tribunal has assessed monthly dependency at Rs.600/-, Rs.72,000/- has been assessed as the compensation being loss of dependency.
4. The sum awarded has been directed to be paid with simple interest @ 9% per annum but restricted to a period of 3 years.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants, Shri O.P.Goyal urged the following points:
(i) Benefit of increase in future income was not granted.
(ii) Considering the age of the deceased, 52, years, multiplier of 11 should have been adopted.
(iii) Towards loss of consortium to the wife, loss of love and affection to the children and pain and suffering of the family due to death of the deceased, non-pecuniary damages ought to have been awarded.
(iv) There is no reason to restrict the interest to 3 years.
6. A perusal of the award shows that the learned Tribunal has not indicated the multiplier, but the sum determined as compensation, multiplier can be easily worked out for the reason it has been held that Rs.600/- must be the contribution of the deceased to the claimants. In other words, annual contribution of the deceased to the appellants is Rs.7,200/-. It is obvious that the multiplier adopted is 10.
7. Evidence shows that the deceased was employed as an ASI with Delhi Police, PW-7, ASI Raja Ra’.n who produced the service record proved that the deceased was drawing wages in sum of Rs.874.60 per month. That he was getting regular increments. That had the deceased served till his retirement, he would have got gratuity in sum of Rs.20,814.75 that wife got gratuity in sum of Rs.9,141/-.
8. Date of birth of the deceased as per official record, stated by PW-7 was 1.8.1933. Deceased would have retired on attaining the age of 58 years in the year 1991.
9. Two direct pecuniary losses have flown to the family. The first is loss of wages of the deceased and the second is the loss of gratuity. Another pecuniary loss has been the result of the qualifying service getting reduced, family pension to the widow would be less.
10. Indeed, the Tribunal has erred in ignoring the decisions of the Apex Court reported as , Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav and ; KASRTC v. Sushma Thomas, in that, benefit of increase in wages of the deceased has not been given.
11. Deceased died on 7.8.1982. Being born on 1.8.1993 deceased would have remained in employment till the year 1991 (I do not know how the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged 52 years when he died. As per service record, his date of birth was 1.8.1933. Therefore, as of 7.8.1982, deceased would have been 49 years of age).
12. Be that as it may, recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission with effect from 1.4.1986 are something which is known to all and in my opinion ought to have been noted by the tribunal when the award was pronounced on 30.9.1989.
13. Considering the age of the deceased and the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, evidenced by letter dated 28.6.1999, No. 9196 placed by the appellants on record in the present appeal vide C.M. No. 5178 of 2001, deceased would have earned Rs.23,081/- per annum as of 1986 as against Rs. 10,488/- per annum when he died.
14. In my opinion, the average annual income of the deceased could reasonably be taken at Rs. 16,0007- per annum. Considering the extended family of the deceased, taking 1/4th as the personal expenses of the deceased, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,000/-. Applying the multiplier 11, loss of dependency to the family is determined at Rs. 1,32,0007-.
15. It has come in evidence that a son of the deceased was given compassionate appointment. Further, taking into account that the widow started receiving family pension immediately on the death of the deceased, I am not inclined to award any other sum on account of direct pecuniary loss for the reason, the widow got pension immediately on the death of the deceased and I have awarded benefit of loss of dependency on account of the notional income of the deceased as determined by me.
16. Appellants are entitled to non-pecuniary damages occasioned by the death of the deceased, being loss of consortium to the wife, loss of love and affection to the children and pain and suffering of the family due to the untimely death of the deceased. Taking into account that the incident pertained to the year 1982 and the cost index as of then, I award Rs.25,000/- under this head.
17. Accordingly, the compensation assessed is enhanced by Rs.85,000/-.
18. From a perusal of the award, I note that no reasons have been recorded as to why interest was restricted for a period of 3 years. In my opinion a claimant would be entitled to interest from the date of claim petition till realisation unless there are compelling reasons to deny or restrict the period of interest. The award states no reason for curtailment of the period. Indeed, Counsel for the respondent failed to cull out any reasons.
19. Appeal stands disposed of modifying the award by enhancing the compensation to the appellants by Rs.85,000/-. Enhanced compensation shall be paid with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till date of realisation. Further, sum awarded by the tribunal shall carry interest for the entire period reckoned from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. Enhanced compensation shall be apportioned as per award.
20. No costs.