Saroj Devi and Another vs Pawan Kumar and Others

Reva Khetrapal, J.—The Appellants in this appeal seek to assail the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahdara, Delhi dated

02.02.1999 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,93,840/- was awarded to the Appellants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing, that is, 19.09.1990 to 16.07.1995 and from 23.09.1997 till realization.

The concise facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that on 7.4.1990, Constable Balraj Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") met with an untimely end while driving his motor cycle on G.T. Road, near the Apsara Border, when he was hit by a bus being driven rashly and negligently by the Respondent No. 1. He, having succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, the Appellants who are his legal representatives, filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The said Claim Petition was not contested by the Respondents No. 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending bus, who absented themselves from the proceedings and were accordingly proceeded ex parte. The Respondent No. 3-M/s. New India Insurance Company Ltd., however, filed a written statement denying each and every averment made in the Claim Petition, but admitting the factum of insurance of the offending vehicle in the name of the Respondent No. 2 on the date of the accident. The proceedings eventually culminated in the passing of the aforesaid impugned award. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to them, the Appellants, who were the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, have preferred the present appeal on the ground that a very niggardly amount of compensation has been awarded to them.

Mr. Ashok Popli, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, in the course of arguments, contended that the manner of computation of the award amount by the learned Tribunal was not in consonance with the well settled principles of law. Relying upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in this regard, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, Mr. Popli further contended that once it stood established on record that the deceased had met with the unfortunate accident in the prime of his life and he died leaving behind him his young wife, an unborn daughter (who was only six years of age even at the time when the evidence of the Petitioners was recorded) and a widowed mother, there was No. reason for the Tribunal to not take into account the future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased, more so as the deceased had a stable job in the Delhi Police and his salary certificate had been proved on record as Ex.P1. He also contended that the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the fact that the deceased was in the age group of persons between 26 years to 30 years of age and the appropriate multiplier for this age group was the multiplier of 17, approved of by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and tabulated in paragraph 40 of the aforesaid decision. He pointed out that apart from awarding a very meagre amount of pecuniary compensation, the learned Tribunal had awarded No. amount whatsoever towards the loss of consortium and loss of love and affection of the deceased. Interest on the award amount had also not been awarded for the period intervening 17.07.1995 to 22.09.1997 on the ostensible ground that the claimants had taken two years'' time for bringing on record the testimonies of their witnesses and filing certified copies of documents, though there was No. delay caused by the claimants in adducing their evidence.

Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, sought to counter the aforesaid contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellants and to support the award of the learned Tribunal on all counts.

After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal while computing the compensation payable to the Appellants did not abide by the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in its various decisions. The deceased was only 27 years of age on the date of the accident and his entire career stretched in front of him. Indubitably, with the passage of time, he would have earned increments and promotions. It is settled law that where a person is in a stable job and is earning increments and he dies in a vehicular accident, the legal representatives of such a person cannot be denied the benefit of the anticipated increase in his earnings while computing their loss of dependency. The average annual income of the deceased is thus assessed to be in the sum of Rs. 1,700/- (salary at the time of the accident) plus Rs. 850/- (anticipated increase in his earnings to the extent of 50%) = Rs. 2,550/- x 12 = Rs. 30,600/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 17 to the aforesaid multiplicand constituting the average annual loss of dependency of the Appellants, the total loss of dependency of the Appellants comes to Rs. 5,20,200/-, which may be rounded off to Rs. 5,20,000/-. As regards non-pecuniary damages, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards the funeral expenses of the deceased and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards the loss of estate of the deceased. A further sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards the loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of love and affection of the deceased is awarded to the Appellants. In all, a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/- is awarded to the Appellants. Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum shall be paid to the Appellants on the enhanced amount from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of realization while interest on the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal shall be paid at the rate of 12% from the date of the petition till realization.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms with the direction to the Respondent No. 3 to deposit the entire award amount as enhanced by this Court alongwith the interest thereon with the Registrar General of this Court within 30 days from the date of the passing of this order. The enhanced amount shall enure to the benefit of the Appellant No. 1 - the widow of the deceased.

The records be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Parties shall bear their own costs.