Chiranji Lal Sharma & Anr v. Manjit Singh & Ors

Judgment reserved on:

14.3.2008 Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009. Chiranji Lal Sharma

..... Appellant.

Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate. Versus Manjit Singh

..... Respondent Through: None.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

No

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

No

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

No

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

¶1The present appeal arises out of the award dated

16.3.2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants.

¶2The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 10.4.93 deceased Virender Kumar Sharma while driving his two wheeler scooter bearing registration no. DDP-4958 along with one Rajdev reached Raja Garden Chowk and stopped his scooter due to the red light signal. In the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration no. DIG-8247 being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner reached there and hit against the scooter, because of which both Virender Kumar Sharma and Rajdev suffered fatal injuries. The present appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Virender Kumar Sharma. A claim petition was filed on 27.7.1993 and an award was passed, on 16.3.2002. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

¶3Sh. O.P. Mannie, Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 2676/- 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.4000/- per month. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously

applied the multiplier of 12 while computing compensation to the appellants when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 17 should have been applied. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the minimum statutory wages payable to a graduate. It was further submitted that Ld. Tribunal erred in deducting Rs.1176/- towards personal expenses of the deceased from his monthly income. Further, it was submitted that Ld. Tribunal erred in computing monthly dependency of the appellants @ Rs.1500/-. It was argued that 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. 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 simple interest @ 18% per annum in place of only 12% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants.

¶4Nobody has been appearing for the respondent.

¶5I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record.

¶6The case of the appellants claimants was that the deceased was a graduate and was earning Rs. 2,000/- pm at the time of his death while working with M/s. Kabra & Co. This has come on record by way of depositions of PW1 father of the deceased and PW2 Sh. Radhey Shyam who was also working at M/s. Kabra & Co. but nothing was produced on record to prove the income of the deceased with the help of any documentary evidence. The tribunal believed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and after considering future prospects, assessed the

income of the deceased at Rs. 2676/- per month. Considering that no dispute is raised by the counsel for the respondents in this regard, no interference is made in the award on this count.

¶7As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there is no 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. Hence, no interference is made in the award on this count.

¶8As 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 aged parents and since he was a bachelor he did not have much personal expenses. In catena of cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances made 1/3rd deductions. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the award on this ground.

¶9As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 12 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year

1993 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 21 years and he is survived by his parents aged 39 years and 32 years. 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 14 shall be applicable.

¶10As 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 18% 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

under Section 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.

¶11On the contention regarding that the tribunal erred in not granting compensation towards non-pecuniary damages, In this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 20,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-.

¶12As 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 their only son 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.

¶13On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 2,676/- as assessed by the tribunal after considering increase in minimum wages and after making 1/3rd deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,784/- and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 21,408/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 14 it comes to Rs. 2,99,712/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,99,712/-. After considering Rs. 40,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 3,39,712/-.

¶14In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 3,39,712/- from Rs. 2,16,000/- 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 respondent no.3. The enhanced compensation be apportioned between the appellants equally.

¶15With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.

13.4.2009

KAILASH GAMBHIR J.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No. 289/2002