IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO. No.118/1995
Judgment reserved on: 5.3.2008
Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009
Smt. Raj Kumari Gupta & Others ..... Appellants.
Through: Mr.O.P. Goyal, Advocate
versus
Shri Munna and others ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.K. Sethi, Advocate
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.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award of compensation
passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 21.2.95 for
enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded a
total amount of Rs. 2,15,000/- with an interest @ 12% PA for the
injuries caused to the claimant appellant in the motor accident.
FAO No. 118/1995 Page 1 of 8
2. The brief conspectus of facts is as under:
On 30.9.88 at about 9.45 a.m., the deceased Ramesh
Chand Gupta was driving his maruti car bearing registration no.
DDU 7243 on Defence Colony Flyover while going towards High
Court of Delhi from his residence, and was hit by truck bearing
registration no. DBL 7071 being driven rashly and negligently due
to which Ramesh Chand Gupta sustained fatal injuries.
A claim petition was filed on 1.11.88 and an award was
passed on 21.2.95. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is
claimed by way of the present appeal.
3. Sh. Navneet Goel counsel for the appellants contended
that the income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/- p.m and
he used to give Rs.3000/- for household expenses. It is further
contended that the tribunal erred in not assessing the economic
loss suffered by the appellants at the rate of Rs.5000/- p.m for a
period of 30 years. The counsel contended that the Ld.tribunal
ought to have fixed the dependency of the appellants at least at
Rs.5000/- per month. 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
FAO No. 118/1995 Page 2 of 8
have earned much more in near future as he was of 51 yrs of age
only and would have earned for another 30yrs 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 contended 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 interest @ 18% per annum in
place of only 12% per annum. The Ld.Tribunal ought to have
awarded a sum of Rs.2.00 lac for the marriage of eldest daughter
and Rs.3.00 lac for the marriage of the younger daughter of Sh.
Ramesh Chand Gupta. It is further contended that the Ld.tribunal
has not considered the circumstances that the sole breadearner of
the family expired in this accident on 1.11.88 and the case had
been decided on 21.2.95 and a multiplier of only 10 was adopted by
the Ld.Tribunal for arriving at the compensation. The counsel
FAO No. 118/1995 Page 3 of 8
contended that the tribunal also erred in not awarding
compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses,
loss of estate and loss of consortium.
4. Per Contra Mr. Pankaj Seth, counsel appearing for
respondent insurance company submitted that there is no illegality
in the impugned award. Counsel further contended that award
passed by Tribunal is absolutely fair, just and reasonable and no
fault can be found with the same.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
6. PW 6 widow of the deceased deposed that her husband
was an advocate and she had proved on record the income tax
returns and assessment orders, Ex. PW6/1 to PW6/4; PW6/8;
PW6/21; PW6/31 and PW6/39. The tribunal after considering the
said documents came to the conclusion that near about the death
of the deceased the income of the deceased was Rs. 21440/- pa.
The tribunal also noted the fact that the income of the deceased
was fluctuating. After considering all these factors, I am of the view
that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the
FAO No. 118/1995 Page 4 of 8
deceased at Rs.30,000/- p.a Therefore, no interference is made in
the award in relation to income of the deceased by this court.
7. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that
there is no material placed on record to award future prospects. But
still considering the entire circumstances that the income of the
deceased, as per the income tax returns and assessment orders,
was fluctuating and also considering that the deceased had
purchased a car 6-1/2 months before the accident the tribunal
assessed the income at the higher rate of Rs. 30,000/- pa as the
income of the deceased. Therefore, no interference is justified to
include any further amount towards future prospects.
8. As regards the contention of the counsel for the
appellant that the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal is on the
high side as the deceased is survived by his wife, two daughters
and a son. In catena of cases the Apex Court in similar
circumstances has made 1/3rd deductions. Therefore, I am not
inclined to interfere with the award on this ground.
9. As regards the contention of the counsel for the
appellant that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 10 in
the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal
FAO No. 118/1995 Page 5 of 8
committed an error. This case pertains to the year 1988 and at that
time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was not brought on the
statute book. 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. At the time of the accident, the deceased was of 52 years of
age and was survived by his widow, one son and two daughters. 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 11 should be more
appropriate. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier
of 11 shall be applicable.
10 . 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
FAO No. 118/1995 Page 6 of 8
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 @
12% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with.
11. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred
in not granting adequate compensation towards loss of love &
affection, funeral expenses and loss of consortium and estate. In
this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is
granted at Rs.30,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is
granted at Rs.10,000/- and compensation towards loss of
Consortium is granted at Rs.50,000/- & compensation towards loss
of estate is awarded at Rs.10,000/-.
FAO No. 118/1995 Page 7 of 8
12 . On the basis of the discussion, the income of the
deceased would come to Rs. 30,000/-p.a. After making 1/3rd
deductions the monthly dependency comes to Rs.20,000/- per
annum and after applying multiplier of 11 the total loss of
dependency comes to Rs. 2,20,000/-. After considering
Rs.1,00,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, the total
compensation comes out as Rs. 3,20,000/-.
13 . In view of the above discussion, the total compensation
is enhanced to Rs.3,20,000/- from Rs. 2,15,000/- 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 on the same ratio as awarded by the Tribunal.
14 . With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed
of.
13.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
FAO No. 118/1995 Page 8 of 8