Smt. Kasturi Devi and Others vs Sh. Ranjit Singh and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 31/8/1996 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,81,760 along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 17.11.1992 Govind Singh deceased along with one Vinod Kumar was walking on foot on the left side of the road near Ganda Nallah G.T. Road, Vivek Vihar fly-over, Delhi. In the meanwhile, truck No. DNG 1284 came from behind which was being driven at a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, R-1. It did not blow any horn nor gave any signal. It struck against the deceased who fell down and the left wheel of the said truck ran over his body. He was removed to GTB Hospital Shahdara but he succumbed to his injuries. A claim petition was filed on 5/2/1993 and an award was made on 31/8/1996. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellants assailed the said award on quantum of compensation. Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 4400/- 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. 5000/- 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 his widow, three daughters and two sons. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 8 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 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 45 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 15-20 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 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.

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

The appellant''s claimants had examined H.L. Chitkara, PW1 Admin. Officer, L.I.C., who had brought with him the service record of the deceased. The said witness further deposed that the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 3802.73 at the time of his death while he was working as a Record Clerk with L.I.C. He further deposed that the deceased would have got an increase in pay which would have raised the salary of the deceased in course of time to Rs. 5000/- pm. He also stated in his deposition that on promotion the deceased would have earned Rs. 8000/- pm. PW1 also deposed that the deceased would have been promoted, had he cleared the departmental test. On perusal of the award it become manifest that on computing annual dependency the tribunal took the mean of the salary of the deceased at the time of the accident, Rs. 3802.73/- pm and the presumptive raised salary of the deceased at the time of his superannuation, Rs. 5000/-, which came to Rs. 4400/- pm. The said witness, in his cross examination stated that the deceased joined L.I.C. as a peon and was promoted to the post of a Record Clerk after seven years of his service after clearing the departmental test. After considering all these factors I am of the view that the tribunal did not commit any error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 4400/- after taking into consideration presumptive raise in his salary.

As regards the future prospects, PW1, H.L. Chitkara in his cross examination stated that the deceased joined L.I.C. as a peon and was promoted to the post of a Record Clerk after seven years of his service after clearing the departmental test. The tribunal committed no error in taking into consideration the future prospects to assess the monthly income of the deceased. The increase of income claimed by the appellant from Rs. 3802-73 pm to Rs. 8,000/- pm in the absence of every evidence was rightly not considered by the tribunal to take average of the same. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned award with regard to assessment of monthly income of the deceased.

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 Widow, three daughters and two sons.

No doubt the deceased had large family comprising of his widow, three daughters and two sons and therefore he could not have afford to spend 1/3rd of income on his personal expenses. Keeping in view the large family of six members left by him 1/5th deduction on personal expenses would be appropriate.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 8 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed 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. As per Ex. Pw1/A, certificate issued by L.I.C., New Delhi, the date of Birth of the deceased was 1.8.1941. Therefore, the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 51 years but the claimants had in the claim petition stated the age of the deceased as 45 years. The age of the appellant widow was 42 years, appellants daughters was 20, 21, and 22 years and appellants sons were aged 19 and 20, respectively. 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 also considering the applicable multiplier as per II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 11 will be more appropriate. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the award is modified accordingly.

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 compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, loss of consortium and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants, I am of the view that non-pecuniary damages should be allowed by the tribunal. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 30,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 5,000/. Further, Rs. 25,000/- 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. 5704.095/- after doubling Rs. 3802.73 to Rs. 7605.46 and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/5th deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4563.27 and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 54,759.31 per annum and after applying multiplier of 11 it comes to Rs. 6,02,352/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 6,02,352/-. After considering Rs. 1,05,000/-, which is granted towards non pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 7,07,352/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 7,07,352/- from Rs. 2,81,760 /- 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 by the respondent insurance company. Out of the enhanced compensation 50% be paid to the widow of the deceased and remaining be apportioned equally amongst the children of the deceased.

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