Smt. Vidya Devi and Others vs Shri Subhash Chand and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

The deceased Late Sh. Hans Raj, aged about 35 yrs was working as a self employed businessman, working under the name and style of M/s Jyoti Travels. On October 1, 1988 he was driving a maruti car bearing licence plate No. DBP-14 from Pooth Kalan towards Kutabgarh via Karala. When the car reached near village Karala, a half body truck bearing registration No. DLL- 3195 came from the opposite direction, at a high speed and without blowing horn. The offending truck violently dashed against the maruti car and Sh. Hans Raj succumbed to his injuries at the accident site itself, whereas the other occupants sustained fatal injuries and were removed to Hindu Rao Hospital.

A claim petition was filed on 31st March 1989 and an award was made on 14th February 1995. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Mrs. Manjeet Chawla, counsel for the appellants assailed the said award on quantum of compensation. Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/-, without considering future prospects of the deceased. 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. The counsel pleads that the Tribunal should have applied the formula laid down under General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, , and applying that, the income should have been doubled and then the loss of dependency should have been decided. Secondly, the counsel contended that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal i.e. 10 is very less and the same should have been 17. Thirdly, no amount towards Non Pecuniary head is granted, thus the counsel pleaded that some compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses etc. should be granted. Fourthly, the counsel also raised the contention that the rate of interest allowed by the tribunal has been awarded only for 4 years and same should have been allowed from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation.

Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.

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

The appellants claimants had examined only one witness as regards the quantum of compensation. The said witness, Smt. Vidya Devi, PW4, deposed that her deceased husband was running a bus under the name & style of M/s. Jyoti Travels, Poothkalan, Delhi. She had brought on record the original as well as the photocopy of the registration book, Ex. PW 4/A, according to which, the bus bearing registration No. DEP 6463 was registered in the name of Sh. Hans Raj. She deposed that her husband used to give her Rs. 2000/-pm for household purposes. According to her, the deceased could have bought more buses and could have enhanced his income had he not died in the accident. 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. 2250. There is no justification to interfere in the same.

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 tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 10 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed 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 deceased was aged about 35 yrs at the time of the accident and is survived by his widow wife, 2 minor children and parents. 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 applicable multiplier as per II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier of 15 should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 15 shall be applicable.

As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest should have been awarded by the tribunal from the date of filing of the petition in place deducting interest for the period four years only, I feel that the deduction of interest by the tribunal is just and fair and requires no interference. The tribunal observed that the rate of interest has not been awarded to the appellants, since as per the record, the claimants did not act with due diligence in prosecuting the petition on some dates of hearing and no steps had been taken by them to summon the witnesses. I feel that no interference is warranted in this regard.

On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not awarding 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, I feel that the same should have been awarded by the tribunal. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 40,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 5,000/- 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 is taken as Rs. 2250/-. After making 1/3rd deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1500/- and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 18,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 15 it comes to Rs. 2,70,000/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,70,000/-. After considering Rs. 1,05,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 3,75,000/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 3,75,000/- from Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the appellants by the respondent insurance company. The enhanced compensation be apportioned in the same ratio as done by the Tribunal.

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