Miss Anmol Rai and Others vs Hari Om Sharma and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 27.9.1995 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,76,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 21.1.1992 at about 2.00 PM Lt. Col. Nirmal Singh Rai (retired) was going on his two wheeler scooter bearing registration No: PIB 4122. His wife Swaranjit Kaur Rai was sitting on the pillion seat. Lt. Col. Nirmal Singh Rai was coming from Delhi Cantt. and was going towards his residence at Sector-37 NOIDA. He was driving the scooter at a normal speed and was on the proper side of the road. When he reached beyond the Nizamuddin bridge near Bishamber Ashram bus stop, the rear right wheel of tanker bearing registration No: UHC 293 which was being driven by R1 Hari Om Sharma in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed flew off from the truck while the truck was in motion and the wheels hit the scooter. As a result of the impact, Lt. col. Nirmal Singh Rai and his wife were thrown away and died instantaneously.

A claim petition was filed in February, 1992 and an award was passed on 27.9.905. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. S Janani counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased after taking into consideration the future prospects at Rs. 20,000/- per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune of 36,000/- of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses when the deceased was supporting a large family at the time of accident and is survived by his two children and aged parents. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 8 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 11 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 55 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 20-30 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 her life span. 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. The counsel has relied on following judgments in support of his contentions:

1996 ACJ 561 SC Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors.

Nobody appeared for the respondents.

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

As regards income, the appellants had brought on record Ex PW 5/A, an income tax assessment order dated 28.12.92, which was filed after 9 months from the date of the accident. In the claim petition the income of the deceased is stated to be Rs. 10,000/- p.m.

The appellants claimants had not brought on record any other documents relating to the income of the deceased. After considering all factors I am of the view that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- p.m.

As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there was 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 that the deduction to the tune of 30% made by the Tribunal is on the higher side as the deceased is survived by his two children and aged parents, I feel that the interest of justice would be best served if 1/4 deduction is made towards personal expenses of the deceased.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 8 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has not committed any error. This case pertains to the year 1992 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 55 years of age and is survived by his two children and aged parents. 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 8 has been rightly applied by the Tribunal.

On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection, 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. 40,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-.

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, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,20,000/- (10,000 x 3/4 x 12 x 8) and considering Rs. 60,000/- awarded towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes to Rs. 7,80,000/-

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 7,80,000/- from Rs. 5,76,000/- 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 respondent insurance company in the same proportion as awarded by the Tribunal.

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