Smt. Dolly Loyall and Others vs Shri Juggan Lall and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 10/5/1995 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 9/1/1992 Sh. Edwin Messy aged 48 years was going on his scooter and his son Deepak was a pillion rider. When they reached near ridge-Malka Ganj, a truck bearing registration No. DIG 2832 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1 came from behind and hit the scooter. In the said accident Sh. Edwin received fatal injuries and later died.

A claim petition was filed on 22/1/1992 and an award was made on 10/5/1995. 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. 3,000/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. 4,000/- 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 her widow, aged mother and two children. The Counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 12 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 13 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 48 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 20 yrs had he not met with the accident. It was also contended 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 further 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, Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary Counsel for the respondent insurance company contended that the award passed by the tribunal is just and fair.

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

The appellants claimants had produced on record the salary register Ex. PW2/1, which was duly proved by PW2, a clerk at South Town School, where the deceased was working as an accountant and according to it the deceased at the time of the accident was earning Rs. 2,100/- pm. The tribunal after considering future prospects of the deceased assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- pm. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions regarding the income and the future prospects of the deceased are of no help to the claimants in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought on record. In the instant case, the appellants have duly proved the income of the deceased, therefore, I do not feel that the tribunal committed any error in assessing the income after considering the future prospects of the deceased at Rs 3,000/-. Therefore, no interference is made in the award in relation to income of the deceased by this court.

As regards the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher side as the deceased is survived by his widow, aged mother and two children. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the award should be modified in this regard. The deduction to the tune of 1/4th of the personal expenses is made in this regard.

As regards the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 12 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed no error. This case pertains to the year 1992 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 48 years of age and is survived by his widow, aged mother and two 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 and after taking a balanced view considering the multiplier applicable as per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 12 has been rightly applied by the tribunal. Therefore, no interference is made in this regard.

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 award 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 as assessed by the tribunal after considering future prospects comes to Rs. 3,000/-. After making 1/4th deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2250/- and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 27,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 12 it comes to Rs. 3,24,000/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,24,000/-. After considering Rs. 1,00,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 4,24,000/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,24,000/- from Rs. 2,88,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the appellants, in the same proportion as mentioned by the tribunal in the award, by the respondent insurance company.

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