AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 2.9.1998 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,24,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.
The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
On 28.5.88 deceased Pramod Kumar was travelling in his own Maruti Car bearing registration No. DIC 6974 while the respondent No. 1 was driving his car bearing registration No. DBG 1408 rashly and negligently and in a fast speed from the side of Oberoi Hotel and hit the car of the deceased. Due to the impact deceased received severe and grievous injuries and died on same day.
A claim petition was filed on 18.11.1988 and an award was passed on 2.9.1998. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
Sh. Nitinjya Chaudhary, counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- 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 1/3rd 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 wife and three children. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 13 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 30-40 yrs had she 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 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.
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others,
Smt. Hussan Bano and Others Vs. Sh. Subhash Chand and Others,
Jyoti Kaul and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Another,
A.C. Gupta and Another Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others,
Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Dy. Director General Geological Survey of India and Another,
Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.
I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
Appellant No. 1 examined herself as PW-2 and deposed that deceased was her husband and he was carrying on business of import & export and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and also that he used to give his entire earnings to her for running the household expenses and father of the deceased deposed his income at Rs. 15,000/- p.m.
After considering all these factors, I am of the view that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-. 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.
The Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased as per the said thumb rule but since no dispute in this regard is raised by the respondents, therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this Court in the interest of justice.
As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there is no material on record to award future prospects. Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in not granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.
As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher side as the deceased is survived by his wife and three children. In catena of cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances made 1/3rd deductions. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the award on this ground.
As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 13 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed no error. This case pertains to the year 1988 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 age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 39 years of age and 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 considering the applicable multiplier under the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and taking a balanced view the multiplier of 13 has been rightly applied by the Tribunal thus no interference is called for.
On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not granting compensation towards non-pecuniary damages, in this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 30,000/-; 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. Therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 6,24,000/- (6,000 x 2/3 x 12 x 13).
After considering Rs. 1,00,000/-, which is granted towards non pecuniary damages the total compensation comes out as Rs. 7,24,000/-.
In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 7,24,000/- from Rs. 6,24,000/- with interest @ 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.