IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No. 695/2002
Judgment reserved on 14.03.2008
Judgment delivered on:13.4.2009.
Smt. Krishna Kohli & Ors. ..... Appellants.
Through: Mr. O P Goyal, Adv.
versus
Narender Singh & Ors.
..... Respondents
Through: Shri P K Seth, Adv.
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
in the Digest? No
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral:
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated
12.8.2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,83,160/- along with interest @
9% per annum to the claimants.
FAO No. 695/2002 Page 1 of 9
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
On 21.4.1994 deceased Shri Rajinder Kumar Kohli was
going from Maya Puri Road towards Hari nagar on his motorcycle
bearing registration No: PUA 5436. He had crossed more than
3/4th of the Maya Puri Road when Crane bearing registration No:
DL 1G 4309 driven rashly, recklessly and negligently came in
front of the Crane and hit the rear wheel of the motorcycle. As a
result of the forceful impact, deceased Rajinder Kumar Kohli was
thrown away and was injured and became unconscious.
Immediately after the accident the deceased was taken to Din
Dayal Upadhaya Hospital, where he was declared ‘brought
dead’.
A claim petition was filed on 17.10.1994 and an award
was passed on 12.8.2002. Aggrieved with the said award
enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
3. Sh. O P Goel, counsel for the appellants assailed the
said award on five grounds. Counsel for the appellants contended
that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased
at Rs. 1741.2/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and
circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the
FAO No. 695/2002 Page 2 of 9
income of the deceased at Rs. 6,500/- per month. The counsel
submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of
11 while computing compensation when according to the facts
and circumstances of the case multiplier of 15 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 54 yrs of age only and would
have lived for another 10- 20 yrs had he not met with the
accident. It was also urged 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 @ 12% per annum in place of
only 9% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal
erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love &
affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium,
FAO No. 695/2002 Page 3 of 9
mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were
being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. The counsel
relied on the judgment in 1994 ACJ I SC ( Sussamma Thomas)
support of his contentions.
4. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and have perused the record.
6. Appellant No:1 Smt. Krishna Kohli examined herself as
PW-3. She deposed that deceased Rajinder Kumar Kohli was her
husband and was 54 years of age at the time of the accident.
She further deposed that her husband was running a registered
Bureau and was providing service / employment to boys and girls
as nurses in various Nursing Homes. She stated that her
husband was earning Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month.
Besides this her husband was also working with Mr. V P Sehgal
and was earning Rs. 3500/- per month. She also deposed that
she was given Rs.6000–7000/per month by her husband for
household expenses. The appellants produced Ex.A, photocopy
of Form 16 for the period, 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1994 and as per it,
the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.42,000/- per annum. The
tribunal rightly did not find the same reliable as there is nothing
FAO No. 695/2002 Page 4 of 9
on record to prove the said Ex.A. Furthermore, the appellants
brought the bill book; Ex. PW ¾ of the firm M/s Care Well Nursing
Bureau according to which the deceased was earning Rs.1741/-
per month.
7. 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.1741/-.
8 . 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.
9. 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.
10 . Therefore, no interference is made in the award in
relation to income of the deceased by this court.
11 . As regards the future prospects I am of the view that
there no material on record to award future prospects. Therefore,
FAO No. 695/2002 Page 5 of 9
the tribunal committed no error in not granting future prospects
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
12 . As regards the contention of the counsel for the
appellant that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 11 in
the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal
has committed no error. This case pertains to April 1994and 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 November, 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 age of the deceased at the time of
the accident was 54 years and he is survived by his widow and
three children. 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 under Ii Schedule to the M.V. Act, the multiplier of 11
should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts of the instant
case the tribunal committed no error.
FAO No. 695/2002 Page 6 of 9
13 . As regards the issue of interest that the rate of
interest of 9% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side
and the same should be enhanced to 12% 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 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 @ 9% pa by the tribunal
and the same is not interfered with.
14 . On the contention regarding that the tribunal 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
FAO No. 695/2002 Page 7 of 9
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. 30,000/-; compensation
towards funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and
compensation towards loss of estate is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-.
Further, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium.
15 . 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 their 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.
16 . The tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
expectation of life, the same is not a conventional head of
damages in fatal accident cases and thus same is disallowed.
17 . Therefore, after considering income of the deceased at
Rs.1741/- and after applying unit method the loss of dependency
as assessed by the Tribunal comes to Rs.1255/- per month and
annual dependency comes to Rs.15,060/- per month. After
applying multiplier of 11, the total losS of dependency comes to
FAO No. 695/2002 Page 8 of 9
Rs.1,65,660/-. After considering Rs.1,00,000/- which is granted
towards non-pecuniary damages the total compensation comes
out as Rs.2,65,660/-.
18 . In view of the above discussion, the total
compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,65,660/- from Rs.1,83,160/-
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
present petition till realisation and the same should be paid to
the appellants by the respondent No.3, in the same ratio as
awarded by the tribunal.
Disposed of.
13.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
FAO No. 695/2002 Page 9 of 9