Kailash Gambhir, J.@mdashThe present appeal arises out of the award dated 15th March 1999 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- with a simple interest @ 12% p.a.
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
On 8th June 1995, the deceased Ms. Veena, aged 26 Years was travelling with her relatives in a TSR from Mayur Vihar to Sarojini Nagar. On reaching near Kotla Road, a DTC bus bearing license No. DLIP-9168 came from the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the said TSR. Resultantly, the occupants of the TSR received grievous injuries and Ms. Veena received fatal injuries and when she was taken to the hospital the doctors declared her as ''brought dead''.
3. A claim petition was filed on 9th November, 1995 and an award was passed on 15th March, 1999. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
4. The appellants have assailed the said award on quantum of compensation. Sh. O.P. Mannie, Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/- 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. 5,000/- to 6,000/- per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune of 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 5 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 24 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 26 yrs of age only and would have lived longer had she not met with the accident. 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 @ 24% per annum in place of only 12% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal also erred in not awarding just compensation towards loss of love & affection and funeral expenses.
5. Nobody has appeared for the respondents.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
7. The appellants claimants did not produce on record anything cogent to prove the income of the deceased. The appellants claimants had placed on record the certificate of the deceased to show that she was a postgraduate. It was also averred by them that the deceased was running a school in Baroda and was earning about Rs. 4000 to Rs. 6000. Apart from these bald assertions no other corroborative evidence was placed on record by them. They could have examined the teachers or the staff members of the said school i.e. Veena Public School to prove the income of the deceased at the time of the accident. There is nothing on record to substantiate that the deceased was running the school and was earning between Rs. 4000 to Rs. 6000 per month. After considering all these factors, I am of the view that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the deceased according to the Minimum Wages Act at Rs. 2500/- per month.
8. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions regarding the income of the deceased are of no help to the claimants in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought on record. Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this Court.
9. As regards the future prospects, it has been the consistent view of this Court that whenever aid of Minimum Wages Act is taken while computing income, then increase in minimum wages should also be considered. It is well settled that future prospects are not akin to increase in minimum wages. To neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, the minimum wages are increased from time to time. A perusal of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act show that to neutralize increase in inflation and cost of living, minimum wages virtually double after every 10 years. Thus, it could safely be assumed that income of the deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years.
10. On perusal of the award it is manifest that the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased after doubling the income of rupees 2500 to rupees 5000 and then taking the mean of the same. Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in this regard and the award is not interfered with on this count.
11. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that 50% deduction made by the tribunal is on the higher side as the deceased is survived by her parents and two brothers. On perusal of the award it comes into light the tribunal made 50% deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased after considering the fact that the parents of the deceased would not be solely dependent on the deceased who was of marriageable age and was survived by two brothers as well. I feel that the tribunal rightly deducted 50% towards personal expenses. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the award on this ground.
12. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 5 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed no error. The deceased was aged 26 years and the claimant father of the deceased was of 62 years at the time of the accident. It is no more res integra that the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants, whichever is higher. In this regard in
7. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.
13. In the facts of the instant case the tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier of 5 in accordance with the age of the claimants, which is higher than the age of the deceased.
14. 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 24% 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 u/s 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 @ 12% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with.
15. On the contention regarding that the tribunal erred in not granting adequate compensation towards loss of love & affection and funeral expenses, I feel that the same is inadequate. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- and compensation towards funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs. 5000/-.
16. 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 their only 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.
17. Therefore, after doubling Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 5000/- and taking its mean, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 3750/- and after making 50% deductions, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1875/- and annual dependency would be 22,500/- Applying multiplies of 5, the total compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,12,500/-. Considering non-pecuniary damages and loss of dependency together, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,37,500/-18. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,37,500/- from Rs. 1,25,000/- 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/insurance company in the same proportion as awarded by the tribunal.
19. With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.
