D.T.C. vs Smt. Satya Devi and Others

Reva Khetrapal, J.—By way of this order, it is proposed to decide the appeal filed by the Appellants against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 03.03.2010, whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,34,196/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till its realization in favour of Respondents and against the Appellants.

The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 26.06.1998, one Sh. Sarup Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), while de-boarding the offending bus bearing No. DEP-9971, came under the rear wheel of the said bus and succumbed to his injuries on 29.06.1998. A claim petition claiming compensation u/s 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the Respondents No. 1 to 4 (being the widow and three children of the deceased), against the Appellants No. 1 and 2 (being the owner and the driver respectively of the said offending bus).

The learned Tribunal, after noting that no evidence was placed on record regarding the income of the deceased, proceeded to calculate the loss of dependency of the Respondents on the basis of minimum wages payable to a semi-skilled worker on the date of the accident, which were in the sum of Rs. 1,937/- per month. After giving the benefit of doubling of minimum wages and after deducting one-fourth towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 8, the total loss of dependency suffered by the Respondents was calculated by the Tribunal to be in the sum of Rs. 2,09,196/-. Adding thereto non-pecuniary damages in the sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,34,196/- to the Respondents.

Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, has challenged the aforesaid award of the Tribunal on the following three grounds:

(i). The Claims Tribunal, even though relied upon the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , failed to appreciate that since the deceased was of 65 years of age, the appropriate multiplier, as held in the said case, was the multiplier of 7. Instead the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 8.

(ii). The Claims Tribunal while calculating the loss of dependency of the Respondents, erred in giving the benefit of periodical increase in minimum wages due to inflationary trends without having regard to the fact that the deceased was 65 years of age, which is the age of retirement and as such, no future increase in income of the deceased could have been taken into account.

(iii). The award of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection is on the higher side.

Regarding the first ground pertaining to multiplier, I am in agreement with the learned Counsel for the Appellant. It has been noted by the Tribunal that as per the certified copies of MLC and death summary report of the deceased, he was 65 years of age at the time of his death and the said fact has not been disputed by the Respondents. However, the Tribunal, even after noting the age of the deceased to be 65 years, applied the multiplier of 8, which is not in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra). In the said case, the multiplier of 7 has been held to be the appropriate multiplier for the age group of victims between 61 to 65 years of age. The Tribunal, thus, ought to have applied the multiplier of 7 in the instant case.

Adverting to the second contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the benefit of periodical increase in minimum wages due to inflationary trends ought not to have been granted by the Tribunal having regard to the fact that the age of the deceased was 65 years and he was nearing retirement, I find substance in this contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well. No benefit on account of increase in minimum wages is called for as the age of the deceased was 65 years.

As regards the last contention of the counsel for the Appellants that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is on the higher side, I do not find any merit in the same.

In view of the aforesaid, the amount of compensation payable to the Respondents on account of loss of dependency has to be re-computed without giving the benefit of rise in minimum wages on account of inflation and by augmenting the multiplicand with the multiplier of 7 instead of the multiplier of 8. Thus calculated, the loss of dependency of the Respondents works out to Rs. 1,22,031/- i.e Rs. 1,937/- x 12 x 7 x 3/4. Adding thereto, Rs. 1,25,000/- as non-pecuniary damages, as awarded by the Tribunal, the total compensation payable to the Respondents comes out to Rs. 2,47,031/-. The Appellants shall pay this amount to the Respondents alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization within 30 days of the receipt of the order by the learned Counsel for the Appellants.

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and stands disposed of. A copy of this order be given to the counsel for the Appellants for compliance thereof.

The Appellants shall be entitled to the release of sum of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in this Court as statutory deposit by them.