* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 478/2000
Judgment reserved on: 25.1.2008
% Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009
Smt. Kunti Devi ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. O. P. Mainee, Advocate.
versus
Silab Ram ..... Respondents
Through: None.
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 awad dated 17/7/2000
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 46,000/- along with interest @ 12% per
annum to the claimants.
FAO NO. 478/2000 pg. 1
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
On 11/5/1993 at about 7:00 pm deceased Sh. Chander Mohan
Joshi had a fatal fall from the bus bearing registration no. DEP
8084 while in a process of getting down at the Raja Garden, Ring
Road, when the driver of the bus started the bus all of a sudden
with a jerk.
3. A claim petition was filed on 27/5/1993 and an award was
made on 17/7/2000. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement
is claimed by way of the present appeal.
4. Sh. O.P. Mannie, counsel for the appellants has assailed the
said award on quantum of compensation. Counsel for the
appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the
income of the deceased at Rs. 1500 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. 2500
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 while the deceased was
giving entire income for household purposes. The counsel
FAO NO. 478/2000 pg. 2
submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier
of 3 while computing compensation whereas according to the
facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 8 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 had he not met with the
accident. The counsel also stated that had the deceased not met
with his untimely death he would have expanded his business
and 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 a 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 @ 18% per annum in place of only 12% per annum. The
counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding
compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses,
FAO NO. 478/2000 pg. 3
mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were
being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. Further, it has
been averred that the amount awarded towards loss of estate
and expectation of life is on the lower side.
5. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused
the record.
7. The appellants claimants had brought nothing on record to
prove the income of the deceased. PW1, the father of the
deceased entered the witness box and deposed that the
deceased was unmarried and was of 25 years of age at the time
of the accident. It was also deposed by the said witness that the
deceased was employed with M/s. Lumax India Ltd. @ monthly
salary of Rs. 2500/-pm. Since, no evidence in support of the said
averments were brought on record, the tribunal took aid of the
Minimum wages Act and assessed the income of the deceased as
per the minimum wages notified for a skilled workman on the
date of the accident, which was Rs. 1328, which the tribunal took
as 1500/- pm. After considering all these factors, I am of the view
FAO NO. 478/2000 pg. 4
that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs. 1500.
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 Tribunal should
determine income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum
wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act.
10. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there
is no 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 increase
more than 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
FAO NO. 478/2000 pg. 5
safely be assumed that income of the deceased would have
doubled in the next 10 years.
12. The future increase in income is not akin to the future
prospects and while taking aid of the Minimum Wages Act for
assessing the income of the deceased, the increase in minimum
wages should also be considered. Therefore, the tribunal erred in
not considering future increase in income of the deceased.
13. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant
that the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher
side as the deceased was unmarried at the time of the death and
was giving the entire salary for the household purposes, I am of
the view that the tribunal committed no error in this regard. In
catena of cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances
made 1/3rd deductions. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere
with the award on this ground.
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 1993 and at that
FAO NO. 478/2000 pg. 6
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., 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 deceased was of 25 years of age at
the time of the accident and the father of the deceased was of 68
years, at that time. 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 balanced view considering the
applicable multiplier under the II Schedule to the M.V. Act, the
multiplier of 5 should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts
of the instant case the multiplier of 5 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. 478/2000 pg. 7
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 compensation towards non-pecuniary damages, I
feel that the same should have been awarded. 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 has already
been awarded by the tribunal at Rs. 10,000/- and the same
requires no interference.
FAO NO. 478/2000 pg. 8
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 their only son and the
loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to
the appellants is concerned, I do not feel incline 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. 2250 after doubling Rs. 1500 to Rs. 3000 and
after taking the mean of them. After making 1/3rd deductions the
monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1500 and the annual
loss of dependency comes to Rs. 18000 per annum and after
applying multiplier of 5 it comes to Rs. 90,000/-. Thus, the total
loss of dependency comes to Rs. 90,000/-. After considering Rs.
35,000/-, which is awarded towards non-pecuniary damages, the
total compensation comes out as Rs. 1,25,000/-.
19. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 1,25,000/- from Rs. 46,000/- with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till
FAO NO. 478/2000 pg. 9
realisation and the same should be paid to the appellants in
equal proportion by the respondent insurance company.
20. With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.
13.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J FAO NO. 478/2000 pg. 10