Madhu Gupta and Others vs Rajan Singh and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 26/05/94 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,14,800/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 5/10/84 at about 2.30 PM Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta, was going on his two wheeler scooter from Shakti Nagar to Nizammuddin Railway Station. When he was going on the rising road near I.P. Indoor Stadium the offending truck bearing registration No. DLL-1463 which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the deceased. The deceased was dragged by the truck for some distance. He was immediately taken to LNJP Hospital where he was declared dead.

A claim petition was filed on 04/01/85 and an award was passed on 26/05/94. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. O.P. Goyal, counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- 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. 15,000/- per month. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 13 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 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 35 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 @ 15% 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, 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.

Per Contra, Mr. K. Singhal, counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that the award passed by the tribunal is just and fair and requires no interference by this court.

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

The father and brother of the deceased deposed that at the time of the accident, income of the deceased was between 3,000-4,000/- pm from his business in partnership of typewriting institute at clock tower, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. Though, the appellants claimants did not bring on record any document showing the income of the deceased, however, tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- pm. 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 considering that no dispute in this regard is raised by the respondents, in this regard no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this court.

As regards the future prospects, I am of the view that there was no material on record to award future prospects. Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.

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, five children and aged parents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to interfere with the award on this ground and modify the award by deducting 1/6th towards personal expenses of the deceased.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 13 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year 1984 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 age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 33 yrs and he is survived by his widow, aged parents and five children. 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 14 shall be applicable.

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 not just and fair and requires no interference. No rate of interest is fixed u/s 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.

On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not granting adequate compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas, no compensation has been granted towards 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. 35,000/-; 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.

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 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.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,00,000/- (5,000 x 5/6 x 12 x 14) and after considering Rs. 1,05,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 8,05,000/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 8,05,000/- from Rs. 5,14,800/- with interest on the differential amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation and the same shall be paid to the appellants by the respondent insurance company in the same proportion as awarded by the tribunal within 30 days of this order.

With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of.