Samratha Ram and Others vs Hari Bhai and Others

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—For the contesting respondent-insurer having appeared in response to the notice issued in this case, for the record having also been received, for the short point involved, and looking to the overall circumstances of the case, at request, matter has been heard finally at this stage.

For quantification of compensation to be awarded in relation to the parents and brother of the vehicular accident victim Jeeva Ram (about 25-30 years in age), the Tribunal has taken note of the assertion of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month while working as a khalasi with one Veerdarshan Travels and was further getting Rs. 30/- per day in allowance; and with reference to the age of the deceased, the salary certificate Ex.6, and statement of AW-3 - Gopal Ram, the employer of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/- per month, i.e., Rs. 30,000/- per annum; and after deducting one-third on personal expenditure of the deceased, has put an estimate on the loss of dependency at Rs. 20,000/- per annum. With the observation that the age of the father of the deceased was 70 years, that of his mother 68 years, and that of his brother 12-13 years; and further that the deceased was an unmarried person and was likely to get married soon, the Tribunal has considered it appropriate to apply a multiplier of 7 to assess pecuniary loss at Rs. 1,40,000/- (20,000 x 7). While allowing Rs. 6,000/- each to the father and mother of the victim and Rs. 1,000/- to the brother towards non-pecuniary loss, and further Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal has assessed total loss for the claimants at Rs. 1,55,000/-.

While making the award in the sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- in favour of the claimants, the Tribunal has observed that after adjustment of the amount received under No Fault Liability, the claimants would be entitled for interest from the date of filing of the claim application but then has observed that the claimants ought to have concluded their evidence within three months from the date of framing of issues and in the present case issues were framed on 08.07.2002, therefore, the claimants ought to have concluded their evidence by 15.10.2002 but as they concluded their evidence only on 07.01.2004 hence would not be entitled for interest for this period, i.e., from 16.10.2002 to 07.01.2004.

Aggrieved by the award aforesaid made on 28.01.2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirohi, the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.

Learned Counsel Mr. Surendra Surana for the claimantsappellants has strenuously contended that the Tribunal has been seriously in error in taking age of the father of the victim at 70 years and that of his mother at 68 years though they were respectively 60 and 58 years of age at the time of accident. Learned Counsel submitted that application of multiplier of 7 in the facts and circumstances of the present case remains much on the lower side and the same has resulted in serious injustice; and the Tribunal has further erred in restricting the award amount on general damages also on the lower side. Learned Counsel further contended that the Tribunal has been in error in not awarding reasonable rate of interest and restricting the same at 6% per annum and then in slashing out a part of interest from 16.10.2002 to 07.01.2004 on entirely irrelevant considerations.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-insurer has duly supported the award impugned but in all fairness submitted that slashing of interest for a particular period on the assumption that the evidence ought to have been concluded within three months can not be justified by him.

Having examined the record of the case and having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, this Court is of opinion that the award in question on its quantification of compensation does not require interference.

The Tribunal has put a reasonable estimate on the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/- per month and there appears no error in such estimate. Though the Tribunal has assessed pecuniary loss with application of multiplier of 7 only, noteworthy it is that the Tribunal has taken two-third of the estimated income of the deceased towards loss of contribution. Such estimate in the context of the facts of the present case appears to be rather on the higher side. The deceased was an unmarried person and the possibility of his getting married in future and thereby a larger part of his income getting diverted to his own family cannot be ruled out and cannot be ignored. In this view of the matter and looking to the overall circumstances of the case, this Court is clearly of opinion that not more than one-half of the estimated income of the deceased could have been taken towards loss of contribution for the claimants. Viewed in that light, even if the assessment of loss is made with application of multiplier of 8, pecuniary loss would be lesser than that assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded other amount towards general damages, of course on a moderate scale; but in the ultimate analysis, the principal amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,55,000/- even if moderate, cannot be said to be too low or grossly inadequate so as to warrant interference in appeal. Similarly, the rate of interest at 6% per annum is not inadequate or inappropriate so as to call for modification in this appeal.

However, depriving the claimants of a part of interest from 15.10.2002 to 07.01.2004, on the notion that evidence has to be concluded by the claimants within three months from the date of framing of issues, cannot be said to be based on any sound proposition; and appears absolutely unrealistic and contrary to law. While disapproving such propositions, this Court in the case of Rajiv v. Sumer Singh and Ors. R.L.W. 2007 (3) 1883 has held,-

The provisions of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have specifically been enacted so as to empower the Claims Tribunal to order awarding of simple interest at the reasonable rate from a date not earlier than the date of making the claim and this Court is of opinion that it shall be a travesty of justice if the provisions so contained in the beneficial legislation be not given their true meaning and effect; and if award of interest be curtailed with mere counting of months and days while ignoring the ground realities.

The observations by the learned Tribunal that a particular period of about 4 months is ordinarily sufficient for leading evidence, to say the very least, are unrealistic and are not correct even in abstract theory what to say of practice. Placing such kind of a stopwatch over the trial of a vehicular accident claim case would hardly be compatible with the requirements of interest of justice.

and further,-

Moreover, once the Tribunal has exercised its discretion in awarding interest from the date of making of claim application, slashing out a part of such interest component, of the period between framing of issues and closure of evidence of the claimant, cannot be said to be a sound exercise of discretion.

Even from the perusal of record, it appears that on the very first date fixed for evidence after framing of issues, the claimant Samarath Ram was present but his statement was not recorded for the learned Presiding Officer being on leave and there being bereavement in the family of one of the advocates appearing. The claimant Madhu Bai was examined on the next date 06.09.2002 and the claimant Samarath Ram was examined on the next date fixed by the Tribunal i.e 12.11.2002. When the Tribunal itself fixes first date for evidence after framing of issues beyond one month and even on that date the Presiding Officer remains on leave it is beyond comprehension that such period too becomes the liability of the claimants! Then, it beats imagination that the Tribunal would fix the date of evidence after 06.09.2002 only to 12.11.2002 and yet believe that evidence ought to have completed by 15.10.2002! It is seen that larger part of the proceedings after 12.11.2002 was directed towards summoning of the Police Sub-Inspector of City Police Station, Vadodara who did not appear despite summons issued by the Tribunal; and ultimately the claimants closed their evidence on 07.01.2004 after examining AW-3 Gopal Ram and AW-4 Mangilal. The Tribunal having permitted issuance of repeat summons for the purpose of a witness, it cannot be said that the claimants be deprived of interest for the time spent therefor. All through the period, the old aged claimants who had lost their grown up son in accident were taking reasonable steps to prosecute their claim application. The considerations adopted by the Tribunal for slashing out a part of interest are neither correct in law nor on facts of this case; and being absolutely unrealistic and incorrect, cannot be approved.

Therefore, while the principal amount awarded by the Tribunal in the sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- deserves to be maintained, the proposition of slashing out a part of interest deserves to be set aside and the claimants deserve to be allowed interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till final payment.

As a result of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds in part and to the extent indicated above. While the award of compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- to the claimants-appellants is maintained, the proposition of disallowing interest for the period 15.10.2002 to 07.01.2004 is set aside and the claimants are held entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application until payment. Remaining amount now payable as a result of this modification shall be deposited by the respondent-insurer with the Tribunal within 30 days from today. No costs.