Smt. Karamjit Kaur and Others vs Pushotam Mahajan and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 23.3.1995 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

That on 16.10.85, deceased Section Amrik Singh started from his flat situated at Curzon Road Hostel, New Delhi on his two wheeler scooter for R.K. Puram via K.G. Mark. At about 10:30 PM, Section Amrik Singh reached the crossing of K.G. Marg after giving signal with his hand, he moved towards ''C'' Hexagon, and when he had almost crossed half of the intersection, all of a sudden a truck bearing No. DL-LL-9655 being driven by R2 came at a very fast speed struck against the extreme rear corner of the scooter. As a result of which the deceased fell down on the metal road. He suffered grievous injuries which proved fatal.

A claim petition was filed on 7.2.86 and an award was made on 23.3.95/-. 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. 4000/- 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. 20,000/- per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune of 1/4th 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 wife, two sons, one daughter 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 20 should have been applied. It was urged by the counsel that Ld. tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while computing compensation despite the fact at the time of accident, deceased was 48 years old. He was also technically qualified with vast experience as an Engineer and as a Senior govt. Officer as well as the competence to work further as a consultant after his retirement. He was also entitled for extension of service beyond 58 years keeping in view his excellent service record and would have lived upto 72 yrs had he not met with the accident. 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, keeping in view the exorbitant rise in cost of living/inflation. The counsel contended that the tribunal erred in not awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation towards damages to the appellants since because of death of the deceased they have suffered mental anguish & agony and love & affection. It is further submitted that Ld. Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of one year of academic career of the son of the deceased. The Counsel for the appellants further pleaded that after the death of Section Amrik Singh, they had to borrow a large amount of loan and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is insufficient and inadequate.

Per Contra Mr. Pankaj Seth, counsel appearing for respondent insurance company submits that there is no illegality in the impugned award. Counsel further contends that award passed by Tribunal is absolutely fair, just and reasonable and no fault can be found with the same.

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

The case of the appellants claimants is that the deceased Sh. Section Amrik Singh was of 48 years of age and was working as Assistant Director in Central Electricity Authority at a monthly income of Rs. 2423/-, which fact was duly proved by PW1 who had brought the service record of the deceased. He also deposed that soon since IV pay commission was to be made applicable, deceased would have been earning Rs. 3,000/- pm. It has also come on record by way of the testimony of the PW1 that the deceased was a brilliant officer and sooner or later would have been promoted to the post of the Deputy Director or Director. The tribunal after considering the revised pay scale after implementation of the IV pay commission, income at the time of the accident of the deceased and also considering the income of the Director and colleagues of the deceased and future prospects of the deceased assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- pm. I feel that the tribunal erred in assessing the income at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. without there being any supporting evidence. The tribunal, therefore, ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2423/- as proved by PW1 and then after considering the future prospects should have doubled the same to take the mean of the same. But considering that no dispute is raised in this regard by the respondent, no interference is made in the award in this regard in the interest of justice.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the 1/4 deduction made by the tribunal are on the high side as the deceased is survived by his widow, aged parents, one son and two daughters. Considering the facts of the case, I do not feel that the same requires any interference by this Court.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has 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 1985 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 parents, one son and two daughters. 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 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 erred in not granting compensation towards non-pecuniary damages. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 50,000/-; 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.

On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 4,000/- and after making 1/4 deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,000/- and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 36,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 12 it comes to Rs. 4,32,000/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,32,000/-. After considering Rs. 1,20,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 5,52,000/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 5,52,000/- from Rs. 3,60,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the petition till the realisation of the award and the same should be paid to the appellants by the respondent No. 3. The enhanced compensation be apportioned amongst the appellants in the same ratio as done by the Tribunal.

In view of the foregoing, the present petition is disposed of.