Om Prakash and Others vs Mukhtiar Singh and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 22.5.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 17.8.1985 at about 11.00 PM the deceased was driving the bus bearing registration No: DEP 3767 from Mayapuri side towards Kirti Nagar. When he reached Mayapuri chowk on Ring Road and had crossed three-fourth road, a truck bearing registration No. HRL 7999 being driven in a rash and negligent manner in fast speed came from Raja Garden side and hit the bus upon left back door. Due to the impact, the bus turned turtle and the deceased received fatal injuries. He was removed to RML Hospital by police but he expired on the way.

A claim petition was filed on 14.2.1986 and an award was passed on 22.5.1997. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. Y R Sharma, counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 900/- 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. 3100/- 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 18 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 30-40 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. 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 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 581 SC

2002 ACJ 1559 SC.

2007 ACJ 2123.

11(1992) ACC 611 DB Delhi High Court.

Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

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

PW 5 Appellant No. 1 Shri Om Prakash has deposed that deceased was his son. He was a driver and earning Rs. 1200/- per month and used to give his entire earnings to him for the household expenses. PW 4 employer of the deceased proved the salary certificate of the deceased, Ex PW 4/1 and deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 900 p.m. & Rs. 10/- per day as food allowance. Thus totalling his income to Rs. 1200/- p.m. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 900/- p.m. as proved on record.

After considering all these factors, I am of the view that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 900/- p.m.

Therefore, 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 is no 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 not committed error. This case pertains to the year 1982 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 at the time of the accident was of 23 years of age and is survived by his 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 16 has been rightly applied by the Tribunal. Therefore, no interference is made in the Award.

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/ 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. 20,000/- compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of expectation of life shall be taken to be towards @ 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 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. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,34,400/- (900-200 x 12 x 16).

After considering Rs. 40,000/- which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 1,74,400/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,74,400/- from Rs. 1,45,000/- 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.

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