Panwati Devi and Others vs Satish Bhardwaj and Another

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 2.1.91 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,53,000/ along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 26.11.88 at about 2.35 p.m deceased Kapleshwar Pandit aged about 40 years was doing the job of Labourer on truck No. DIL 3702 and was sitting in the cabin. When the said truck reached opposite Palam Hospital on Palam Road, one DTC bus bearing registration No. DHP 3281 on route No. 772 driven in a rash and negligent manner by Satish Bhardwaj , respondent No. 1, came from opposite direction at a very fast speed and struck against the truck due to which the occupants of the truck received injuries and Kapleshwar Pandit deceased received fatal injuries and he died on the spot.

A claim petition was filed on 19.1.89 and an award was passed on 02.01.91. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Mr. YR Sharma counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the age of the deceased which itself was about 40 years only. It was further contended that the Ld.Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 40/-to Rs. 45/-per day whereas the deceased was earning Rs. 60/-per day and his monthly income was Rs. 1800/-. The counsel further submitted that the Ld. Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 15 years only in computing the total compensation while multiplier of atleast 25 should have been applied. The counsel urged that the Ld.Tribunal erred in not awarding the compensation on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. It was also submitted 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 interest @ 18% 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.

Per Contra Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, counsel for the respondent insurance company submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned award. Counsel further contended that award passed by Tribunal is absolutely fair, just and reasonable and no fault can be found with the same.

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

The appellants claimants did not produce on record any income proof of the deceased. The versions of the widow of the deceased and Pw2, a colabourer who was also travelling with the deceased in the said truck, cannot be considered as authentic in the absence of any document on record. 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. After considering all these factors I am of the view that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 850/-pm and it should have assessed the income in accordance with the wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act as on the date of the accident. But since the respondent did not raise a dispute regarding the income of the deceased and also considering the fact that if at this stage income is assessed in accordance with the MW Act, then the compensation would further dwindle down, therefore, in the interest of justice no interference is made in the award in this regard by this court.

As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there is no material on record to award future prospects. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions regarding the future prospects of the deceased are of no help to the claimants in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought on record. 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 erred in applying the multiplier of 15 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed no 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. According to the post mortem report, Ex.P1 the deceased was of 40 years of age at the time of the accident and he is survived by his wife, two daughters and two sons. 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 15 has been rightly applied by the tribunal.

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 18% 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 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. 40,000/-; 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.

On the basis of the above discussion, the loss of dependency as assessed by the tribunal after taking income of the deceased at Rs. 850/pm and applying multiplier of 15 comes to Rs. 1,53,000/-. After considering Rs. 1,10,000/-towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 2,63,000/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,63,000/-from Rs. 1,53,000/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till final realisation and the same should be paid to the appellants by the respondent No. 2 in the same ratio as awarded by the tribunal.

The appeal stands disposed of.