Sajo and Another vs Chander and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 3.1.2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,77,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 31.12.1999 at around 7.25 AM in the morning, deceased Altaf alongwith a baildar was standing near a vehicle bearing registration No: UP-15 B 2752. In the meanwhile bus bearing registration No. DL 1PA 2717 being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner at a very fast speed came from the side of Mauzpur and hit the said vehicle bearing registration No. UP 15 B 2752 from behind. Consequently aforesaid vehicle was pushed ahead and Altaf came under truck bearing registration No. UP 15 B 2752 and was crushed to death.

A claim petition was filed on 19.5.2000 and an award was passed on 3.1.2003. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. J S Kanwar, counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 2348/- 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. 5,000/- per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune of 1/3rd 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 wife, mother and six children. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 17 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 27 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 40-50 yrs had he not met with the accident. The counsel also stated that had the deceased not met with his untimely death he would have expanded his business and would have been earning much more in the near future. 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 @12% per annum in place of only 8% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal has awarded compensation of only Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love & affection and loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants.

Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.

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

Appellant No. 1 examined herself as PW-1 and she deposed that her deceased husband was working as a labour/helper with Momin and used to earn Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per day and he used to give all his earning to her to run the household expenses, which fact was not corroborated by PW4 Momin.

The appellants claimants had not produced any documentary evidence relating to the income of the deceased. 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. 2348/- p.m. on the basis of minimum wages at the relevant time.

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.

Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this Court.

Furthermore, a perusal of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act show that to neutralize increase in inflation and cost of living, minimum wages virtually double after every 10 years. For instance, minimum wages of skilled labourers as on 1.1.1980 was Rs. 320/- per month and same rose to Rs. 1,083/- per month in the year 1990. Meaning thereby, from year 1980 to year 1990, there has been an increase of nearly 238% in the minimum wages. Thus, it could safely be assumed that income of the deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased after considering increase in minimum wages @ 3522/- p.m. Thus, no interference is warranted in this regard.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal are on the lower side as the deceased is survived by his wife, six children and mother. I am of the view, after considering the facts of the case that no interference is warranted in this regard.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 17 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year 2000 and at that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act had already been brought on the statute book. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 27 years and he is survived by his wodow, aged mother and six 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 the multiplier of 18 as per II Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable.

As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of 8% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the same should be enhanced to 12% 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 @ 8% 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, loss of estate, loss of consortium and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 25,000/- towards other non-pecuniary damages. 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 to 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 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, total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,07,168/- (3522 x 2/3 x 12 x 18).

Thus, the total non-pecuniary comes to Rs. 1,05,000/-. And total compensation comes to Rs. 6,12,168/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 6,12,168/- from Rs. 4,77,000/- 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 in the same proportion as awarded by the Tribunal.

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