Smt. Usha Kaushik and Others vs Pramod Kumar and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 17/8/1998 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:

That on 17.9.88 at about 6.30 p.m. Shri Anoop Kumar Kaushik was going driving his two wheeler scooter No. DEQ 587 from his office towards his residence via Dhaula Quan round about at a slow speed and on his correct side of the road and when he was about to enter the Ridge Road at that time bus bearing registration No. DEP 6172 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 came from behind and hit the scooter of the deceased with the front of the bus causing the deceased fatal injuries.

A claim petition was filed on 1/2/1989 and an award was passed on 17/8/1998. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. O.P. Goyal counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,500/- 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. 7,000/- per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- pm 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, aged parents and two children. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has 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 20-25 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 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 simple interest @ 15% per annum in place of only 12% 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.

Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.

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

As regards the income of the deceased, PW5 deposed that her husband was working as Asst. Manager at New Bank of India, Vasant Vihar and was getting Rs. 400-500/- pm over and above the salary of Rs. 5,000/- pm. And out of it, he used to give Rs. 2,500-3,000/- pm towards household expenses. Sh. Rajinder Rastogi, clerk of Punjab National Bank deposed that the deceased was working with PNB and was earning Rs. 4313 pm as salary apart from other perks. The said witness also deposed that the deceased had good chances of promotion and thus would have been earning salary drawn by a Sr. Manager had he not met with the accident. After considering all these factors, I am of the view that the tribunal has erred in assuming the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,500/- pm in the absence of there being any cogent evidence in this regard and ought to have assessed the same at Rs. 4,313/- pm as duly proved by Sh. Rajinder Rastogi, clerk of Punjab National Bank. Though the Tribunal has taken into account the future prospects, but the formula applied by the Tribunal is bereft of any sound reasoning.

As regards the future prospects, I am of the view that there is sufficient material on record to award future prospects and the tribunal erred in not considering the same. Sh. Rajinder Rastogi, clerk of Punjab National Bank deposed that the deceased had good chances of promotion and thus would have been earning salary drawn by a Sr. Manager had he not met with the accident. Therefore, the tribunal committed error in not granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same are awarded herein.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the deduction to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- pm made by the tribunal are on the higher side as the deceased is survived by his widow, aged parents and two children. The tribunal applied unit method and accordingly assessed that the deceased must have been spending atleast Rs. 1500/- towards personal expenses. I do not feel that the same warrants interference by this Court.

As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has not committed any 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 and he is survived by his widow, aged parents and two 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 after taking a balanced view considering the multiplier applicable as per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 13 has been rightly applied by the tribunal. 12. 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 consortium and loss of estate, whereas, no compensation has been granted towards funeral expenses, loss of love & affection 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 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.

On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 6469.50 after doubling Rs. 4313.50 to Rs. 8627/- and after taking the mean of them. After making deductions to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- as assessed by the tribunal, the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4969.50 and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 59634/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 13 it comes to Rs. 7,75,242/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,75,242/-. After considering Rs. 1,10,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 8,85,242/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 8,85,242/- from Rs. 6,24,000/- 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 respondents jointly and severally 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.