Smt. Kailash Kataria vs Shyam Sunder and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 1.12.2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 59,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 1.6.1983 at about 3 PM, deceased Ved Prakash Kataria along with his son-in-law Naresh Kumar and one Shyam Lal were going in a three-wheeler scooter bearing registration No: DER 4490 from Fatehpuri towards ISBT and when the scooter was going towards ISBT on Shyam Parshad Mukherjee Marg and reached near Chatta Rail suddenly a mini bus bearing registration No. DLP 4875 came which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner from Kashmere Gate side and hit the three wheeler scooter, with the front of the bus hitting the scooter head on and as a result both the vehicles were damaged and the deceased Ved Prakash sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

A claim petition was filed on 2.8.1983 and an award was made on 1.12.2001. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. O P Goyal, counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 500/- 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 Rs. 92.50 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, five children and parents. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 10 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 49 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 20-30 yrs had he not met with the accident. 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.

Shri S. Nandra Jog, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 6. He submitted that the award passed by the ld. Tribunal is just and fair and requires no interference by this Court.

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

Appellant No. 1 deposed as PW-2 that her husband used to give Rs. 10,000/- per month for household expenses and was running transport business in the name and style of M/s. Okara Transport, Chadha Transport and Milak Transport at Dabwali and was also working as Commission Agent. It was also claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- from the agriculture land owned by him, but no documentary evidence was placed or proved on record relating to prove the claimed income of her husband.

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.

After considering all these factors I am of the view that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 500/-. The tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 400/- p.m. as per the minimum wages notified for a skilled workman as on the date of the accident.

Therefore, interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this Court.

However, 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 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.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 10 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year 1983 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. The deceased was of 49 years of age at the time of the accident and is survived by his widow, five 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 considering the applicable multiplier under the II Schedule of the M.V. Act, the multiplier of 12 should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 12 shall be applicable.

On the contention regarding that the tribunal 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. 70,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- 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.

Taking double of Rs. 400, viz., Rs. 800/- and then taking their mean, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 600 and after applying unit method as applied by the tribunal and making 1/8 deduction the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 525/- p.m. or Rs. 6300 p.a. Applying multiplier of 12 the total compensation comes to Rs. 75,600/-.

After considering Rs. 1,40,000/-, which is granted towards non pecuniary damages the total compensation comes out as Rs. 2,15,600/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,15,600/- from Rs. 59,000/- 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 insurance company in the same proportion as awarded by the tribunal.

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