FAO No. 485/2000 Page 1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No. 485/2000 Judgment reserved on: 13.3.2008 Judgment delivered on:27.4. 2009 Vimla Devi & Ors. ………..Appellants. Through: Mr. O.P.Goyal, Adv. versus D.T.C. & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jyotinder Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR, 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 7.9.2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,63,240/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants. FAO No. 485/2000 Page 2 of 8 2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows: 3. On 21.2.98 at about 7.30 P.M. when Shri Om was boarding the bus the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus with a jerk due to which Shri Om was dragged by the bus a few paces, thereafter he fell down and was injured grievously. He was rushed to the DDU Hospital and on 26.2.1998 he succumbed to his injuries. 4. A claim petition was filed on 15.5.98 and an award was passed on 7.9.2000. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal. 5. Sh. O.P.Goyal, counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 7064/- 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.9420/- 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 widow and three daughters, one son and parents. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 11, while computing compensation when according to the facts and FAO No. 485/2000 Page 3 of 8 circumstances of the case multiplier of 15 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 42 yrs of age only. 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 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 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. 6. Nobody appeared for the respondents. FAO No. 485/2000 Page 4 of 8 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 8. As regards income, PW4 wife of the deceased deposed that he was working as a cashier in DTC and was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. PW5 Jaswant Rai, Sr. Clerk, Keshopur Depot deposed that the deceased was working as an Asstt. Cashier in DTC and was earning Rs. 7064/- p.m. Thus, the Tribunal assessed income at Rs. 7064/- p.m. 9. Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this court. 10. As regards the future prospects, I am of the view that the deceased was in government employment and with passage of time would have got increments as well and the widow also deposed that his salary would have increased soon thus there was 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. 11. 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 wiodow, aged parents and four children. In FAO No. 485/2000 Page 5 of 8 the facts of the instant case, I am inclined to interfere with the award on this ground and modify the award by deducting 1/6 expenses towards personal expenses. 12. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 11 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year 1998 and at that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act had already been brought on the statute books. The deceased was of 42 years of age and is survived by his widow, four children and aged 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 the multiplier of 15 should have been applied as per the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. 13. 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 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, FAO No. 485/2000 Page 6 of 8 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 FAO No. 485/2000 Page 7 of 8 not feel inclined to award any amount as compensation towards the same as the same are not conventional heads of damages. 16. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 10596/- after doubling Rs. 7064/- to Rs. 14128/- and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/6 deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 8830/- and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,05,960/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 15 it comes to Rs. 15,89,400/-.Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 15,89,400/- After considering Rs. 1,00,000/- which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages and loss considering Rs. 30,000/- awarded towards treatment/medicines and conveyance prior to death of the deceased and deducting Rs. 1,00,000/- towards accidental insurance, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 15,19,400/-. 17. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 15,19,400/- from Rs. 8,63,240/- 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. FAO No. 485/2000 Page 8 of 8 18. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of. April 27, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR,J.