Smt. Bandana Kumari and Others vs Sh Imtiaz and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 25/6/1999 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,94,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On the night intervening 4/5.3.1995 Sh. Raj Kumar Minhas was going on his two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. UP 14 B 0433 at about 12:00 a.m. suddenly a truck bearing registration No. DL 1L A5652 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the said scooter. Resultantly, Sh. Raj Kumar fell on the road and died instantly.

A claim petition was filed on 12/7/1995 and an award was passed on 25/6/1999. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. O.P. Mannie Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,950/- 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. 8,000/- 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 widow, son and aged parents. The Counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 15 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 17 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 33 years of age only and would have lived for another 30-40 years 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 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 10% 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.

Nobody appeared for the respondents.

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

As regards income, the appellants case is that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 8,000/- pm. Sh. Shashi Shanker Prasad PW4 submitted that the deceased used to receive consolidated salary of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. out of which Rs. 4350/- was his basic and other amount was paid towards HRA; telephone allowance; reading allowance; news gatherings; medical reimbursements etc. As per PW4/2 salary certificate, the deceased was earning Rs. 5655/- pm including HRA. 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. 4950/- per month after considering the said salary certificate and making deductions towards income tax. 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 sufficient material on record to award future prospects also, since the deceased was working as a private employee and since salary in private sector is fluctuating, therefore, I feel that 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 1/3 deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher side as the deceased is survived by his widow, aged parents and a son. Considering the facts of the case, I am inclined to interfere with the award on this ground and modify the award by deducting 1/4 towards personal expenses of the deceased.

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 error. This case pertains to the year 1995 and by 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 33 years and he is survived by his widow, aged parents and a son. In the facts of the present case, I am of the view that after looking at the age of the claimants and the deceased and after considering the multiplier applicable as per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 17 shall be applicable.

As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of 10% 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 @ 10% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with.

On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not granting 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, in this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 30,000/-; 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.

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.

On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 4,950/- and after making 1/4 deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,712.50/- and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 44,550/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 17 it comes to Rs. 7,57,350/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,57,350/-. After considering Rs. 1,00,000/-, which is granted towards non- pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 8,57,350/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 8,57,350/- from Rs. 5,94,000/- with interest on the differential amount @ 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 directions, the present appeal is disposed of.