AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 24.3.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,40,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.
The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
On 19.5.1992 deceased Khema Munshi was travelling on the pillion seat of scooter bearing registration No: DAK 2336. At about 9.30 AM, when the scooter had reached a place near Jai Appartments between sector 7 and 9 Rohini on the outer Ring Road a tempo bearing registration No: DL 1L 9839 came from behind and struck against the scooter without blowing any horn or giving any signal. As a result of the impact, Dr. Khema Munshi and the scooter fell down on the road and she received serious grievous injuries which later on proved fatal.
A claim petition was filed on 24.7.1992 and an award was passed on 24.3.1997. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
Sh. Y R Sharma, counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- 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. 15,000/- per month. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 8 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 13 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 she was of 47 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 20-30 yrs had she 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 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. The counsel has relied on following judgments in support of his contentions:
1994 ACJ I SC (Sussamma Thomas)
2001 ACJ 593 Delhi High Court.
2001 ACJ 1735 SC
2007 ACJ 2123
Nobody appeared on behalf of respondents.
I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
As regards the income, the case of the appellants is that deceased was a doctor and was serving at Medical College, Srinagar and was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m.
The appellants claimants had brought Ex PW2/A, salary certificate on record showing that the deceased was earning Rs. 6235/- p,n, . PW 2 deposed that the deceased had bright chances of promotion and could have become a professor with salary at Rs. 10,000/- p.m. 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. 8,000/- p.m. after considering the said Ex PW 2/A and also considering that the deceased must also be having a private practice apart from her said job, as deposed by her husband PW 6. The Tribunal also did not commit any error in deducting Rs. 2,000/- towards income tax returns of the deceased.
Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this Court.
As regards the future prospects I am of the view that 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.
As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 8 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year 1982 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. On the date of the accident, deceased was of 40 years of age and is survived by her husband and two daughters. 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 considering the applicable multiplier under the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and taking a balanced view the multiplier of 13 shall be applicable.
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. 20,000/-; 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. Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 10,40,000/- (10,000 x 12 x 2/3 x 13).
After considering Rs. 90,000/-, which is granted towards non pecuniary damages the total compensation comes out as Rs. 11,30,000/-.
In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 11,30,000/- from Rs. 6,40,000/- 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 in the same proportion as awarded by the Tribunal.
With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.