Smt. Kamlesh and Others vs Surain Singh and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 25/3/1998 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,64,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

Om Prakash 34 years old person engaged in tailoring work on contract basis is stated to have died on 21.3.1991 in an accident on main road near Montfort School, Ashok Vihar Phase - I within the jurisdiction of P.S. Ashok Vihar involving two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DBZ 1126 and truck bearing registration No. DIG 6214. The deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on the scooter which was driven by one Jagdamba Prasad at slow speed on correct side of the road in the direction of Mangolpuri from Wazirupur village via main road Ashok Vihar Phase - I and when the scooter reached at the place aforesaid at about 9 p.m. the truck driven by respondent No. 3 came at a very fast speed from rear side in rash/negligent manner and hit against the scooter due to which impact the deceased fell down on the road and sustained head injuries which proved fatal.

A claim petition was filed on 18/4/1991 and an award was passed on 25/3/1998. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. Ashok Popli counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 854/- 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. 2,000/- per month. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has 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 34 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 30-35 yrs 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 @ 18% per annum in place of only 12% per annum. The counsel 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.

Nobody appeared for the respondents.

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

As regards income of the deceased, the case of the appellants claimants is that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000- 2,500/- pm from his tailoring work and this is supported by the testimony of Sh. Jagdamba Prasad. Apart from mere assertions, the appellants claimants had brought nothing on record to prove the income of the deceased. 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 has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 854/- pm as per the minimum wages notified for an unskilled person. The tribunal should have assessed the income as per the minimum wages notified for a skilled person at Rs. 1104/-, as deceased was stated to be tailor.

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

Furthermore, it has been the consistent view of this Court that whenever aid of Minimum Wages Act is taken while computing income, then increase in minimum wages should also be considered. It is well settled that future prospects are not akin to increase in minimum wages. To neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, the minimum wages are increased from time to time. 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 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.

Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in considering increase in minimum wages, while assessing the income of the deceased.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 15 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed no error. This case pertains to the year 1991 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 age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 34 years and he is survived by his widow and three 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 15 has been rightly applied by the tribunal.

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 18% 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 adequate compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas, no compensation has been granted towards 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 enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is enhanced to 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 would come to Rs. 1,656 after doubling Rs. 1,104 to Rs. 2,208 and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/3rd deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,104 and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 13,248/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 15 it comes to Rs. 1,98,720/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,98,720/-. After considering Rs. 1,00,000/-, which is granted towards non- pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 2,98,720/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,98,720/- from Rs. 1,64,000/- 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 direction, the present appeal is disposed of.