V GANGU BAI Vs. INDERJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the award dated 13/8/2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants.

(2.) Sh. Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellants has assailed the said award on quantum of compensation. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 5 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 8 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 he was of 64 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 10-15 yrs had he not met with the accident. It was also contended 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 a year and hence, the deceased would have earned much more in his life span. 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 @ 12% per annum in place of only 9% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding adequate compensation towards non- pecuniary damages.

(3.) In the instant case, the only proof regarding the income of the deceased were the testimonies of the appellants, according to which, he was earning Rs. 40,000/-pa. The tribunal has given observation in the impugned award that the same appears to be correct as since the deceased was a graduate, then on considering that the rates of minimum wages for an unemployed in the year 2002 was 3,427.40/-pm, thus no fault can be found in the deposition the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs. 40,000/- pa. On this line of thinking, the tribunal instead of applying minimum wages as notified under MW Act, went on to assess the income according to the averments of the appellants. As regards the future prospects, I am of the view that there is no sufficient material on record to award future prospects. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions regarding the future prospects of the deceased are of no help to the claimants in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought on record. In this regard the relevant portion of para 8 of the judgment in the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta, (2006) 3 SCC 242 is reproduced below :