FAO 135/2002 Page 1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No. 135/2002 Judgment reserved on: 1.4.2008 Judgment delivered on: 20.4. 2009 Smt. Raj Rani & Ors. ..... Appellants. Through: Mr. S.C. Dhawan, Adv. versus Malook Chand & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR, 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 12.12.2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,24,840/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants. FAO 135/2002 Page 2 of 8 2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows: 3. On 15.1.1989 at about 3.10 PM, the deceased was going on his motor cycle bearing registration No. DDX 8890 from Hari Nagar to Lajwanti Garden on Maya Puri Phase-II. When he reached near C-108, a truck bearing registration No: DEL 5307 came from rear side and hit the said motor cycle driven by the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell on the road and died on the spot. 4. A claim petition was filed on 9.4.1989 and an award was passed on 12.12.2001. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal. 5. Sh. S.C. Dhawan counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1200/- 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. 3500/- per month. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 12 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 16 should have been FAO 135/2002 Page 3 of 8 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 37 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 her 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 9% 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. FAO 135/2002 Page 4 of 8 Shri Kanwal Chaudhary, counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the award passed by the ld. Tribunal is just and fair and requires no interference by this court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. PW1 widow of the deceased deposed that her husband was a seller of readymade garments in different markets and used to carry them on his Vicky and was earning Rs. 3500/- p.m. and used to give her entire earnings to meet household expenses. She also deposed that the business of the deceased was flourishing day by day and had he not met with the accident he would have been earning Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- p.m. PW 2 Radhey Shyam also supported the testimony of PW 1. But in the absence of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal took notional income of the deceased at Rs. 1200/- p.m. Considering that no dispute is raised by the respondents in this regard, in the interest of justice, no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this court. 8. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there is no material on record to award future prospects. Therefore, the FAO 135/2002 Page 5 of 8 tribunal committed no error in not granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. As 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 1989 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 of 38 years of age at the time of the accident and was survived by his widow, 4 children and aged father. 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 considering the applicable multiplier under II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and taking a balanced view, the multiplier of 14 should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 14 shall be applicable. FAO 135/2002 Page 6 of 8 10. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of 9% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the same should be enhanced to 12% 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 @ 9% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with. 11. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection, FAO 135/2002 Page 7 of 8 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 awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of expectation of life as awarded by the Tribunal shall be taken to be awarded towards loss of estate @ Rs. 10,000/-. Further, Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium. 12. 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. 13. On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1200/- and after applying unit method and after making deductions to the tune of Rs. 340/- as assessed by the Tribunal the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 860/- FAO 135/2002 Page 8 of 8 and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 10,320/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 14 it comes to Rs. 1,44,480/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,44,480/-. After considering Rs. 1,10,000/- which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 2,54,480/-. 14. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,54,480/- from Rs. 1,34,000/- 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 respondents in the same proportion as awarded by the Tribunal. 15. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of. 20.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.