Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 942 (HP)

KAUNAL RAM v. SAGAR DASS

2009-10-30

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed for enhancement of compensation. 2. The undisputed facts are that Smt. Sumitra Devi died in an accident involving bus No.HP-06-5011 which was owned by Shri Sagar Dass and insured with respondent No.2- National Insurance Company. The claimants who are the husband and two minor children of the deceased Sumitra Devi filed a petition for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month by maintaining cattle. The learned Tribunal has taken the deceased to be a house wife and held that there is no proof on record to show that she was dealing in sale of milk. He has assessed the services rendered by her to her family at Rs.70/- per day or Rs.2100/- per month. He has deducted a sum of Rs.500/-for her personal expenses and taken the contribution to the family at Rs.1600/- per month. Multiplier of 10 has been used and compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- was awarded. Aggrieved by the award, the claimants have filed the present appeal. 3. Shri Dibender Ghosh, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the award is extremely conservative. He submits that the learned Court below has been extremely miserly in assessing the value of the gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. He also submits that the multiplier used is on the lower side. He further urges that no amount has been granted for conventional damages, post death ceremony and loss of consortium. 4. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments raised by Shri Dibender Ghosh, Advocate and find that the award, to say the least, is extremely niggardly. 5. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased besides being a house wife was also doing agriculture work and had maintained cattle and was selling the milk of cattle and was earning Rs.2000 to Rs.3000/- per month from the sale of milk alone. The learned Court below has held that no evidence has been led to show that she was selling the milk. Even if this fact is accepted to be correct one fact which has to be kept in mind is that the deceased belongs to an agricultural family. The learned Court below has held that no evidence has been led to show that she was selling the milk. Even if this fact is accepted to be correct one fact which has to be kept in mind is that the deceased belongs to an agricultural family. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that in agriculturist family the women not only do the work at home but also help their family in agricultural pursuits. Therefore, the deemed income has to be taken into consideration by evaluating the services rendered by the deceased to the family. The deceased was not only rendering services at home but was also looking after the cattle and other agricultural pursuits. Probably, the learned Tribunal has assessed the contribution at Rs.70/- per day by taking into consideration the prevalent daily wages at the relevant time. But this in my considered view is not the proper method while assessing the income of a house wife who is also helping in agricultural pursuits. Her services as a house wife have to be taken into consideration and her services as a helper in the fields must also be taken into consideration. These women work from early morning till late at night and there are no fixed hours of work. Keeping in view all these factors into consideration, it would not be unreasonable to assess the contribution of the deceased to her family i.e. her minor children and husband and also to the agriculture work at Rs.100/per day or Rs.3000/- per month. Out of this keeping in view the number of family members i.e. husband and the two minor children and following the JUDGMENT of the Apex Court in case Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, it is held that the deceased would have been spending about Rs.1000/- on herself and Rs.2000/- is assessed as loss of dependency of the family members. The annual loss of dependency of the family works out at Rs.24,000/-. 6. Next comes the question of appropriate multiplier. This Court in FAO No. 437 of 2004 decided on 17.9.2009 following the JUDGMENT of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case has held that the column No.4 as approved in Sarla Verma’s case must be followed. 7. The annual loss of dependency of the family works out at Rs.24,000/-. 6. Next comes the question of appropriate multiplier. This Court in FAO No. 437 of 2004 decided on 17.9.2009 following the JUDGMENT of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case has held that the column No.4 as approved in Sarla Verma’s case must be followed. 7. Keeping in view the law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case the proper multiplier in the case of the deceased aged about 38 years would be 15 and not 10 as applied by the learned Tribunal. The compensation on account of loss of dependency works out to Rs.3,60,000/-. In addition, thereto husband must get Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium. Rs.10,000/- is awarded on account of conventional damages and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, etc. Total compensation is accordingly assessed at Rs.3,85,000/-. The amount is apportioned as follows:- 8. The learned Tribunal gravely erred in not awarding interest to the claimants. It directed payment of interest only in case of failure to deposit the awarded amount. This is not proper. Section 171 reads as follows: Shri Kaunl Ram Rs.1,35,000/- Sh. Ranbir Singh (son) Rs.1,25,000/- Sh. Yashpal (son) Rs.1,25,000/- “171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed. Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.” 9. A bare reading of this provision shows that normally the Court has to grant interest and interest can only be refused by giving specific reasons. Interest can be refused only when the delay has been caused by the petitioner but in normal course interest should always be awarded to the claimants. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the petition till payment/deposit of the awarded amount. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation in the Registry of this Court within 12 weeks from today. 10. The award of the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified and the compensation enhanced from Rs.1,92,000/-to Rs.3,85,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum as detailed above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.