Smt. Jagrani and Others vs Pradeep Kumar and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.

1 . The present appeal arises out of the award dated 5.8.1996 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

2 . The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 24.11.1990 Jagdish Ram aged 39 years was going on cycle via outer Ring Road. It was about 1.00 PM when the truck bearing registration No: DEG 196, driven rashly and negligently hit the cycle from the back side with great force as a result of which Jagdish fell down and the wheel of the truck passed over him and he died on the spot.

A claim petition was filed on 8.2.1991 and an award was passed on 5.8.1996. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

3 . The appellants have assailed the said award on five grounds. Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1439/- 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. 2800/- per month. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 8 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 16 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 39 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 40 yrs had he not met with the accident. The counsel also stated that had the deceased not met with untimely death he would have earned much more in the near future. 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 her 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 @ 15% per annum in place of only 12% per annum. The counsel further contended that the tribunal has 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.

4 . Shri Pradeep Gaur, Advocate appeared on behalf respondent insurance company . He submitted that the award passed by the ld. Tribunal is just and fair and requires no interference by this Court.

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

6 . The appellants claimants had produced salary certificate on record showing that the deceased was working as a peon in Delhi Administration and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1439/- per month. 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. 1439/- per month.

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

8 . As regards the future prospects the Tribunal considered that since the deceased was in government service he would have clearly received increment from time to time and thus assessed the income after considering future prospects assessed the income at Rs. 2800/-. Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.

9 . As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal is on the higher side as the deceased is survived by his widow, 4 children and aged parents. In catena of cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances made 1/5th deductions. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the award on this ground and modify the award making 1/5th deductions towards personal expenses.

10 . As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed an error. This case pertains to the year 1990 and at that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles act was not brought on the statute book. 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. At the time of accident as per Ex. PW 1/1, salary certificate, the date of birth of the deceased was 2.1.1952 thus he was of 38 years of age and is survived by his widow four children and aged parents. 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 applicable multiplier under II Schedule to the MV Act and taking a balanced view, the multiplier of 12 should be more appropriate. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 12 shall be applicable.

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 15% 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 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. 60,000/-; 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.

In view of the above discussions, the income of the deceased after considering future prospects is taken as Rs. 2800/- per month and after 1/5th deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2240/- per month and annual dependency comes to Rs. 26,880/- per annum. After applying multiplier of 12 the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,22,560/-.

After considering Rs. 1,30,000/-, which is granted towards non pecuniary damages the total compensation comes out as Rs. 4,52,560/-.

17 . In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,52,560/- from Rs. 1,82,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the present petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the appellants by the respondent No. 3, in the same ratio as awarded in the tribunal.

With the above directions, the matter is remitted back to the tribunal for apportionment of the differential amount in favour of the appellants.

Disposed of.