* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 628/2002
Judgment reserved on: 14.03.2008
% Judgment delivered on: 27.04.2009
Kamli Devi ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Prem Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Versus
Jamshed Alam ..... Respondents
Through: None.
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 28/7/1999
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per
annum to the claimant.
FAO No. 628/2002 Page 1 | 9
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. The son of the appellant namely Ram Parvesh, aged 22
years had died untimely in a road accident on 28.7.1999. At the
time of accident the offending vehicle tempo DL1LC 9533 was
being driven by the respondent no.1 and the tempo was owned
by the respondent no.2 at the relevant time. The offending
vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 at the relevant
time. The accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act
of the respondent no.1, who drove the offending vehicle in a very
high speed.
4. A claim petition was filed on 28.9.1999 and an award was
passed on 17.4.2002. Aggrieved with the said award
enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
5. Sh. Prem Kumar Sharma counsel for the appellant
contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs. 2400 per month whereas after looking at the
facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should have
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2800 per month. The
FAO No. 628/2002 Page 2 | 9
counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the
multiplier of 3 while computing compensation when according to
the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 17 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 22 yrs of age
only and would have lived for another 30-40 yrs had he not met
with the accident. 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 his 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 @ 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,
FAO No. 628/2002 Page 3 | 9
mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were
being rendered by the deceased to the appellants.
7. Nobody appeared for the respondents.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
perused the record.
9. As regards income, the case of the appellant claimant is
that the deceased was of 22 yrs of age and was working as a
labourer and was earning Rs. 2800/- per month. But nothing had
been brought on record to prove the same. After considering all
these factors, I am of the view that the tribunal has not erred in
assessing the income of the deceased as per the rates of
minimum wages but erred in considering wages notified for an
unskilled person instead of skilled person at Rs. 2772/- per
month.
10. 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. The
thumb rule is that in the absence of clear and cogent evidence
FAO No. 628/2002 Page 4 | 9
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.
11. Therefore, the award is modified to the said extent.
12. Furthermore, it has been the consistent view of this court
that whenever aid of Minimum Wages Act is taken while
computing income, then increase in minimum wages should also
be considered. It is well settled that future prospects are not akin
to increase in minimum wages. To neutralize increase in cost of
living and price index, the minimum wages are increased from
time to time. 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. For instance, minimum wages of skilled labourers as on
1.1.1980 was Rs. 320/- per month and same rose to Rs. 1,083/-
per month in the year 1990. Meaning thereby, from year 1980 to
year 1990, there has been an increase of nearly 238% in the
minimum wages. Thus, it could safely be assumed that income of
the deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years.
FAO No. 628/2002 Page 5 | 9
13. Therefore, the tribunal did not err in considering increase in
minimum wages.
14. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant
that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 3 in the
facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has
committed error. This case pertains to the year 1999 and at that
time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act had already been
brought on the statute books. The age of the deceased at the
time of the accident was 22 years and he is survived by his aged
mother aged 48yrs. 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
multiplier applicable as per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the
multiplier of 12 shall be applicable.
15. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of
12% 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 requires no
interference. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the
FAO No. 628/2002 Page 6 | 9
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. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the award
regarding award of interest @ 12% pa by the tribunal and the
same is not interfered with.
16. On the contention regarding 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 appellants. In this regard compensation towards loss of
love and affection is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-; compensation
FAO No. 628/2002 Page 7 | 9
towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 27,200/- and
compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-.
17. 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 her only son 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.
18. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased
would come to Rs. 4,158/- after doubling Rs. 2,772/- to Rs.
5,544/- and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/3 rd
deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,772/-
and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 33,264/- per
annum and after applying multiplier of 12 it comes to Rs.
3,99,168/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.
3,99,168/-. After considering Rs. 47,200/-, which is granted
towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes
out as Rs. 4,46,368/-.
FAO No. 628/2002 Page 8 | 9
19. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 4,46,368/- from Rs. 2,00,000/- 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
appellant by the respondent insurance company as directed by
the tribunal and within 30 days of this order.
20. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed
of.
April 27, 2009. KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
FAO No. 628/2002 Page 9 | 9