AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 20.3.1990 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants.
The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
On 9.9.1986 at about 7.30 AM one Shri S N Khandelwal while driving two wheeler scooter bearing registration No: DIK 9397 commenced journey from his residence situated at Kothi No: 8, Sector-IV Urban Estate Gurgaon to attend meeting of Bharat Scouts and Guides to be held at New Delhi. At about 8.00 AM the said Shri Khandelwal was proceeding on the extreme left side on Gurgaon Road near Samalka. At that very time a truck bearing registration No: RRR 5697 driven by its driver at high speed, rashly and negligently came from behind. The front left hand portion of the truck struck against the rear of the scooter. On account of forceful impact the scooter alongwith the scooterist was thrown ahead on the road. Thereafter, the front wheel of the truck passed over the head of the scooterist. The truck came to stop after travelling a distance of about 40 paces. The facts relating to the accident speak for itself that the accident in question was caused on account of absolute negligence on the part of the driver of the truck.
A claim petition was filed on 12.11.1986 and an award was passed on 20.3.1990. 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. 4,678.80/- per months and same should be enhanced. 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, five children and aged mother. 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 13 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 50 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 20-30 yrs had he not met with the accident. 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 an year and hence, the deceased would have earned much more in her 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 @ 12% per annum in place of only 9% 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. The counsel has relied on following judgments in support of his contentions:
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others,
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others,
Mohd. Shafi and Others Vs. Om Metals and Mineral (P) Ltd. and Another,
Rani and Others Vs. Sahabuddin and Others,
Baldev Kaur and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others,
Shri Kanwal Chaudhary, counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the award passed by the ld. Tribunal is just and fair and requires no interference by this Court.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The appellant No: 1 wife of the deceased examined herself as PW-6 and deposed that the deceased was her husband and was of 50 years of age at the time of his death. She stated that he was working in Kendriya Vidhyala Sangathan and was earning Rs. 4678.80/- per month. She has brought on record original education documents of the deceased. 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. 4678.80/-. Therefore, no interference is warranted.
As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there is no sufficient material on record to award future prospects. Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in 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 widow, five children and mother. I feel that the interest of justice would be best served if the 1/5th deduction is made considering that the deceased is survived by his widow, five children and mother. Therefore, the award is modified in this regard.
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 has committed no error. This case pertains to the year 1990 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 was of 50 years of age at the time of his death and is survived by his widow, five children and mother. In the facts of the present case I am of the view that after looking at the age of the claimants and the deceased the multiplier of 10 as applied by the tribunal is just and fair. Therefore, no interference is made in the award.
As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of 9% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the same should be enhanced to 12% 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 @ 9% 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, loss of estate, 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 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. Therefore, total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,49,164.80 (4678.80 x 4/5 x 12 x 10).
After considering Rs. 1,00,000/- which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out to Rs. 5,49,165/-.
In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 5,49,165/- from Rs. 4,00,000/- 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 respondents No. 3 in the same proportion as awarded by the Tribunal.
With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.