Jhuman Singh and Others vs Prithvi Raj and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 4.7.1994 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 96,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 13.12.1978 deceased Shri Maha Singh was driving a taxi bearing registration No. DLT 4424 and was proceeding towards Shakarpur and when he reached near taxi stand on Shakarpur Road, a truck bearing registration No: DLG 9920 being driven by respondent No: 1 came from the side of Jamna Bridge at a very high speed and rammed into the taxi from behind. Due to the impact, the truck went to the wrong side and again hit the taxi on its front portion as a result of which deceased Maha Singh who was driving the taxi fell out of the taxi and suffered serious head injury and died at the spot.

A claim petition was filed on 3.7.1979 and an award was passed on 4.7.1994. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. P N Talwar counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 500/- 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. 3600/- per month. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 16 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 23 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 40-50 yrs 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 @ 16% per annum in place of only 12% 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 the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants.

Nobody has appeared for the respondents.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

Appellant No: 1 examined himself as PW-4 and deposed that deceased Maha Singh was his son and he was a taxi driver and was earning Rs. 500/- - Rs. 600/- per month and he used to give his entire salary for running the household.

The appellants claimants had not brought on record any documentary evidence relating to the income of the deceased.

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. 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. But considering the fact that no dispute is raised by the respondents in this regard, therefore ,no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this Court, in the interest of justice.

As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there is no sufficient material on record to award future prospects. Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in not granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 16 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed no error. This case pertains to the year 1987 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. At the time of the accident, deceased was 23 years of age and he is survived by his aged parents and his widow. In the facts of the present case, I am of the view that after looking at the age of the claimants and the deceased the multiplier of 16 shall be applicable. Therefore, no interference is made in the Award in this regard.

On the contention regarding that the tribunal 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 to Rs. 20,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 20,000/-. Further, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium.

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. Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 96,000/- (500 x 12 x 16).

After considering Rs. 1,00,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages the total compensation comes out as Rs. 1,96,000/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,96,000/- from Rs. 95,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the appellants by the respondents 1 to 3 in the same proportion as awarded by the Tribunal.

With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of. 20.4.2009