Smt. Raj Kumari Gupta and Others vs Shri Munna and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award of compensation passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 21.2.95 for enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 2,15,000/- with an interest @ 12% PA for the injuries caused to the claimant appellant in the motor accident.

The brief conspectus of facts is as under:

On 30.9.88 at about 9.45 a.m., the deceased Ramesh Chand Gupta was driving his maruti car bearing registration No. DDU 7243 on Defence Colony Flyover while going towards High Court of Delhi from his residence, and was hit by truck bearing registration No. DBL 7071 being driven rashly and negligently due to which Ramesh Chand Gupta sustained fatal injuries.

A claim petition was filed on 1.11.88 and an award was passed on 21.2.95. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. Navneet Goel counsel for the appellants contended that the income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/- to 6,000/- p.m and he used to give Rs. 3000/- for household expenses. It is further contended that the tribunal erred in not assessing the economic loss suffered by the appellants at the rate of Rs. 5000/- p.m for a period of 30 years. The counsel contended that the Ld. tribunal ought to have fixed the dependency of the appellants at least at Rs. 5000/- per month. 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 51 yrs of age only and would have earned for another 30 yrs had he not met with the accident. The counsel also stated that had the deceased not met with his untimely death he would have expanded his business and would have been earning much more in the near future. It was also contended 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 a 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 interest @ 18% per annum in place of only 12% per annum. The Ld. Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs. 2.00 lac for the marriage of eldest daughter and Rs. 3.00 lac for the marriage of the younger daughter of Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta. It is further contended that the Ld. tribunal has not considered the circumstances that the sole bread earner of the family expired in this accident on 1.11.88 and the case had been decided on 21.2.95 and a multiplier of only 10 was adopted by the Ld. Tribunal for arriving at the compensation. The counsel contended that the tribunal also erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium.

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

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

PW 6 widow of the deceased deposed that her husband was an advocate and she had proved on record the income tax returns and assessment orders, Ex. PW6/1 to PW6/4; PW6/8; PW6/21; PW6/31 and PW6/39. The tribunal after considering the said documents came to the conclusion that near about the death of the deceased the income of the deceased was Rs. 21440/- pa. The tribunal also noted the fact that the income of the deceased was fluctuating. After considering all these factors, I am of the view that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- p.a Therefore, no interference is made in the award in relation to income of the deceased by this Court.

As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there is no material placed on record to award future prospects. But still considering the entire circumstances that the income of the deceased, as per the income tax returns and assessment orders, was fluctuating and also considering that the deceased had purchased a car 6-1/2 months before the accident the tribunal assessed the income at the higher rate of Rs. 30,000/- pa as the income of the deceased. Therefore, no interference is justified to include any further amount towards future prospects.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal is on the high side as the deceased is survived by his wife, two daughters and a son. In catena of cases the Apex Court in similar circumstances has 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 erred in applying the multiplier of 10 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal committed an 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 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. At the time of the accident, the deceased was of 52 years of age and was survived by his widow, 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 11 should be more appropriate. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 11 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 has erred in not granting adequate compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses and loss of consortium and estate. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is granted at Rs. 30,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is granted at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of Consortium is granted at Rs. 50,000/- & compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-.

On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 30,000/- p.a. After making 1/3rd deductions the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 20,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 11 the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,20,000/-. After considering Rs. 1,00,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 3,20,000/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 3,20,000/- from Rs. 2,15,000/- 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 No. 3 on the same ratio as awarded by the Tribunal.

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