Smt. Subhdra Devi and Others vs Om Prakash and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 5.3.1999 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 75,920/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 3.12.1987 at about 8 PM, the deceased Inder Dev Singh was going on his cycle towards Bhajanpura. When he reached near Jamuna Pul on Wazirabad Road, a bus bearing registration No. URP 7480 which was being driven by respondent No. 1 Om Prakash at a very high speed, rashly and negligently struck against the cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and became unconscious. He was removed to hospital where he later on died.

A claim petition was filed on 26.2.1988 and an award was passed on 5.3.1999. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. JS Kanwar counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 650/- 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. 1000 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, three children and mother. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 14 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 18 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 30 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 30-40 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 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.

Nobody appeared for the respondents.

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

As regards income, PW-1 has testified that deceased was her husband and was in private service. He was earning Rs. 1000/- per month. She has also exhibited salary certificate marked as ''A'' as per which his salary was Rs. 650/- p.m.

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. 650/- p.m.

Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this court.

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 not granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the 1/3 deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher side as the deceased is survived by his widow, aged mother and three children. Considering the facts of the case, I am inclined to interfere with the award on this ground and modify the award by deducting 1/4th expenses towards personal expenses of the deceased.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 14 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed no error. This case pertains to the year 1987 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 34 years of age and is survived by his widow, aged mother 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 the multiplier of 14 has been rightly applied by the Tribunal.

On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not granting adequate 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. 40,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is enhanced 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. 81,900/- (650 x � x 12 x 14).

After considering Rs. 1,10,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 1,91,900/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,91,900/- from Rs. 75,920/- with interest on the differential amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation and the same shall be paid to the appellants by the respondent insurance company in the same proportion as awarded by the Tribunal within 30 days of this order.

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