IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No. 499/1999
Judgment reserved on: 7.3.2008.
Judgment delivered on:20.4.2009
Vasdev & Ors. ..... Appellants.
Through: Mr. O P Mannie, Adv.
versus
DTC & Ors.
..... Respondents
Through: Shri J N Aggarwal, Adv.
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 21.7.1999
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal
FAO No. 499/1999 Page 1 of 8
awarded a sum of Rs. 72000/- along with interest @ 12% per
annum to the claimants.
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. On 10.3.1989 deceased Joginder alias Palli alongwith his
friend Sanjay Arora had gone to M/s. Competent Motors, Mundka
Delhi in order to get their Maruti car bearing registration No. DDC
6637 serviced. In the meanwhile, a bus bearing registration No.
DEP 9939 came from Bahadur Garh side in a rash and negligent
manner and hit deceased Joginder who fell down on the ground
and became unconscious and succumbed to the injuries on the
same day.
4. A claim petition was filed on 31.7.1989 and an award was
passed on 21.7.1999. 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 has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at
Rs. 864/-/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and
circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the
FAO No. 499/1999 Page 2 of 8
income of the deceased at Rs. 2541/- per month. The counsel
submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of
10 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 22 yrs of age only and would
have lived for another 40-50 yrs had she 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 her life span.
6. Shri J N Aggarwal, counsel for the respondents submitted
that the award passed by the ld. Tribunal is just and fair and
requires no interference by this court.
FAO No. 499/1999 Page 3 of 8
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
8. Appellant No:1 examined himself as PW-3 and deposed that
deceased was his only son who died in a road side accident. He
further deposed that the deceased was a property dealer by
profession and was earning Rs, 3,000/- per month. He used to
give his entire salary for household expenses.
9. The appellants claimants had not brought on record any
documentary evidence relating to the income of the deceased.
After considering I am of the view that the tribunal has not erred
in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.864/- p.m. in
accordance with the Minimum Wages Act.
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.
11. 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.
FAO No. 499/1999 Page 4 of 8
12. Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of
the deceased by this court.
13. As regards the future prospects, 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 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. Therefore, the Tribunal committed
an error in not considering the same. Thus, the award is modified
to this extent.
14. 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 aged parents. In catena of
cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances made 1/3 rd
deductions. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the
award on this ground.
FAO No. 499/1999 Page 5 of 8
15. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant
that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 10 in the
facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has
committed error. This case pertains to the year 1989 and 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
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 22 years at the
time of the accident and is survived by hyis aged parents of 50
and 42 years. 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 applicable multiplier under Motor Vehicles
Act and taking a balanced view the multiplier of 11 shall be
applicable.
16. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in
not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection,
FAO No. 499/1999 Page 6 of 8
funeral expenses, loss of estate, 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. 20,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses
is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- 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 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.
18. Therefore, compensation towards loss of dependency
comes to Rs. 1,14,048/- (864 x 3/2 x 2/3 x 12 x 11).
19. After considering Rs. 40,000/-, which is granted towards non
pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs.
1,54,048/-.
FAO No. 499/1999 Page 7 of 8
20. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 1,54,048/- from Rs. 72,000/- with interest @
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
respondents in equal proportion.
21. With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.
20.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
FAO No. 499/1999 Page 8 of 8