IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No. 436/1999
Judgment reserved on 11.2.2008
Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009
Smt. Bandana Kumari & Ors. ..... Appellants.
Through: Mr.O.P. Mannie, Adv.
Versus
Sh Imtiaz & Ors. ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
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
in the Digest? No
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 25/6/1999
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 5,94,000/- along with interest @ 10% per
annum to the claimants.
FAO No. 436/99 Page 1 of 8
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. On the night intervening 4/5.3.1995 Sh. Raj Kumar Minhas
was going on his two wheeler scooter bearing registration no. UP
14 B 0433 at about 12:00 a.m. suddenly a truck bearing
registration no. DL 1L A5652 being driven rashly and negligently
by its driver hit the said scooter. Resultantly, Sh. Raj Kumar fell
on the road and died instantly.
4. A claim petition was filed on 12/7/1995 and an award was
passed on 25/6/1999. Aggrieved with the said award
enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
5. Sh. O.P. Mannie counsel for the appellants contended that
the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.
4,950/- 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. 8,000/- per month. The counsel
further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the
deduction to the tune of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased
towards personal expenses when the deceased was supporting a
large family at the time of accident and is survived by his widow,
son and aged parents. The counsel submitted that the tribunal
FAO No. 436/99 Page 2 of 8
erroneously applied the multiplier of 15 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 33 years of age only and would have
lived for another 30-40 years 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 @ 12% per annum in place of only 10% 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, mental pain and sufferings and
FAO No. 436/99 Page 3 of 8
the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased
to the appellants.
6. Nobody appeared for the respondents.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused
the record.
8. As regards income, the appellants case is that the deceased
was drawing a salary of Rs. 8,000/- pm. Sh. Shashi Shanker
Prasad PW4 submitted that the deceased used to receive
consolidated salary of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. out of which Rs. 4350/-
was his basic and other amount was paid towards HRA; telephone
allowance; reading allowance; news gatherings; medical
reimbursements etc. As per PW4/2 salary certificate, the
deceased was earning Rs. 5655/- pm including HRA. 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.
4950/- per month after considering the said salary certificate and
making deductions towards income tax. Therefore, no
interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this
court.
9. As regards the future prospects, I am of the view that there
is no sufficient material on record to award future prospects also,
FAO No. 436/99 Page 4 of 8
since the deceased was working as a private employee and since
salary in private sector is fluctuating, therefore, I feel that the
tribunal committed no error in not granting future prospects in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant
that the 1/3 deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher
side as the deceased is survived by his widow, aged parents and
a son. Considering the facts of the case, I am inclined to interfere
with the award on this ground and modify the award by
deducting 1/4 towards personal expenses of the deceased.
11. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant
that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15 in the facts
and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has
committed error. This case pertains to the year 1995 and by that
time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act had already been
brought on the statute book. The age of the deceased at the time
of the accident was 33 years and he is survived by his widow,
aged parents and a son. 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 considering the multiplier applicable as per
FAO No. 436/99 Page 5 of 8
the II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 17 shall be
applicable.
12. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of
10% 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 @ 10% pa by the tribunal and the
same is not interfered with.
FAO No. 436/99 Page 6 of 8
13. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in
not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection,
funeral expenses, loss of estate, 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. 30,000/-; compensation towards
funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation
towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-. Further, Rs.
50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium.
14. 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 the deceased 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.
15. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased
comes to Rs. 4,950/- and after making 1/4 deductions the
monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,712.50/- and the
annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 44,550/- per annum and
FAO No. 436/99 Page 7 of 8
after applying multiplier of 17 it comes to Rs. 7,57,350/-. Thus,
the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,57,350/-. After
considering Rs. 1,00,000/-, which is granted towards non-
pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs.
8,57,350/-.
16. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 8,57,350/- from Rs. 5,94,000/- with interest on
the differential amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing
of the petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the
appellants by the respondent insurance company in the same
proportion as awarded by the tribunal.
17. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed
of.
20.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR,J.
FAO No. 436/99 Page 8 of 8