IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO. No.198/2000
Judgment reserved on: 7.1.2008
Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009
Harish Chand & Ors. ..... Appellants.
Through: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate
versus
Balkishan and Others ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 2/12/1999 of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs. 66,608/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the
claimants.
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
FAO No. 198/2000 Page 1 of 8
On 26/11/1992 at about 10:50 pm, the deceased, Sh.
Kishori Lal, was traveling in the mini bus bearing registration no. DL
1B 0097 from ISBT, Delhi to Seelampur. The said mini bus was
being driven by Sh. Bal Kishan, in a rash and negligent manner.
When the bus reached at red light of chowk Shastri Park, ISBT
Bridge, the driver lost control of the bus and it struck against the
central fencing and turned turtle as a result of which, many
passengers received grevious and fatal injuries and Sh. Kishori Lal
died on the spot.
A claim petition was filed on 15/3/1993 and an award
was made on 2/12/1999. Aggrieved with the said award
enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
3. Sh. J.S. Kanwar, counsel for the appellants assailed the
said award on quantum of damages. Counsel for the appellants
contended that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of
the deceased as per the Minimum Wages Act whereas after looking
at the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should have
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. The
counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the
multiplier of 8 while computing compensation when according to
FAO No. 198/2000 Page 2 of 8
the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 8 is on the
lower side. 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 25 yrs of age only and would have
lived for another 40-50 yrs had he not met with the accident. The
counsel also stated that had the deceased not met with his
untimely death he would have been earning much more in the near
future. It was also alleged by the counsel that the tribunal did not
consider the fact that due to high rates of inflation the deceased
would have earned much more in near future and the tribunal also
failed in appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are
revised twice in an year and hence, the deceased would have
earned much more in her life span. 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
from the date of filing of the petition till realisation instead of
deducting interest for the period 4/1/1995 to 10/11/1998. The
counsel contended that the tribunal erred in not awarding
compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses,
FAO No. 198/2000 Page 3 of 8
loss of estate, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services,
which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants.
4. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
perused the record.
6. The appellant no.1 entered the witness box as a witness
and deposed that the deceased was his son and was working at a
flour Chakki shop and was earning Rs. 3,000 pm and used to give
Rs. 2,000 at home. Nothing was brought on record to prove the
above deposition; therefore the tribunal took aid of the Minimum
Wages Act to assess the income of the deceased.
7 . It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions
regarding the income of the deceased are of no help to the
claimants in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought on
record.
8. The thumb rule is that in the absence of clear and
cogent evidence pertaining to income of the deceased learned
Tribunal should determine income of the deceased on the basis of
the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act.
FAO No. 198/2000 Page 4 of 8
9. After considering all these factors I am of the view that
the tribunal has committed no error in assessing the income of the
deceased in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act.
10 . As regards the future prospects I am of the view that
there is no sufficient material on record to award future prospects.
11 . However, a perusal of the minimum wages notified
under the Minimum Wages Act show that to neutralize increase in
inflation and cost of living, minimum wages virtually double after
every 10 years. Thus, it could safely be assumed that income of the
deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years. Therefore, the
tribunal erred in not awarding increase in minimum wages while
computing compensation.
12 . As regards the contention of the counsel for the
appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 8
in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal
has committed no error. This case pertains to the year 1992 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.,
FAO No. 198/2000 Page 5 of 8
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 age of the deceased at the time of
the accident was 25 years and that of the claimant father was 55
years. 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 also after
considering the applicable multiplier under the M.V. Act & then
taking a balanced view, the multiplier of 8 should have been
applied. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of
8 as awarded by the tribunal is not interfered.
13 . 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 4/1/1995 to
10/11/1998. I feel that the deduction of the rate of interest awarded
by the tribunal is unjust and unfair and requires no interference.
The tribunal observed that the issues were framed on 4/1/1995,
while appellant took a long time, almost 4 years, to conclude the
evidence on 10/11/1998.
14 . On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred
in not granting adequate compensation towards loss of love &
FAO No. 198/2000 Page 6 of 8
affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas, no
compensation has been granted towards the loss of services, which
were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. In this
regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded
at Rs. 20,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded
at Rs. 5,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is awarded
at Rs. 10,000/-. No compensation under other heads of damages
can be allowed in the present case.
15 . On the basis of the above discussion, the income of the
deceased would come to Rs. 1513.50 after doubling Rs. 1009 to Rs.
2018 and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/3 rd
deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1009 and
the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 12108 per annum and
after applying multiplier of 8 it comes to Rs. 96864/-. Thus, the total
loss of dependency comes to Rs. 96864/-. After considering Rs.
35,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the
total compensation comes out as Rs. 1,31,864/-.
16 . In view of the above discussion, the total compensation
is enhanced to Rs. 1,31,864/- from Rs. 66,608/- with interest @ 12%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation but
FAO No. 198/2000 Page 7 of 8
excluding the period from 4/1/1995 to 10/11/1998 and the same
should be paid to the appellants in equal proportion by the
respondent insurance company.
With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of.
13.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
FAO No. 198/2000 Page 8 of 8