In this appeal against accident compensation, the court modified the interest rate from 6% to 9% per annum. The court upheld the Tribunal's application of a multiplier of 8 as just and reasonable, dismissing claims for further enhancement.
Interest on the awarded compensation amount enhanced from 6% per annum to 9% per annum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~6
RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate
versus
SATISH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent No.3
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT % (ORAL)
Impugned Award of 30th September, 2005 grants compensation of `1,47,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum to respondents-claimants, who are the parents of the unfortunate girl aged 18 years, who had died in a road accident on 9th December, 2004.
In this appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal is on the lower side and relies upon a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chetan Malhotra v. Lala Ram, II (2016) ACC 896 (Del.) to submit that in a similar case of death of a teenager, multiplier of 18 was applied and so, in the instant case also while applying the
Page 1 of 3
MAC APP. 514/2008
multiplier of 18, awarded compensation needs to be suitably enhanced.
Regarding the rate of interest granted, it is submitted that learned Tribunal has granted interest @ 6% per annum which is quite low as when the accident had taken place, the rate of interest granted by the banks on fixed deposits was more than 9% per annum . So, it is urged by appellant's counsel that interest @ 9% per annum ought to be granted on the awarded amount. Thus, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellants that the awarded amount needs to be suitably enhanced. Nothing else is urged on behalf of appellants.
On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-insurer submits that while taking into account the age of the claimants, the multiplier of 8 has been rightly applied as the father of the deceased was aged 56 years at the time of the accident. Learned counsel for respondent-insurer relies upon Supreme Court's decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, to submit that 50% towards personal and living expenses in case of a bachelor have to be deducted whereas learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and so, there is no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, record of this case and the decisions cited, I find that the grant of interest @ 6% per annum is certainly on the lower side and in view of the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Chetan Malhotra (supra), it deserves to be enhanced from 6% to 9% per annum. Impugned Award is accordingly modified to the extent that interest on the awarded amount shall be @ 9%
Page 2 of 3
MAC APP. 514/2008
per annum instead of 6% per annum .
As regards application of multiplier is concerned, there is divergent opinion as expressed in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr . (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court that due to aforesaid conflicting decisions, the matter has been referred to a Larger Bench by the Supreme Court.
Be that as it may.
Supreme Court in Shashikala & Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma & Anr . 2015 (2) TAC 867 (SC) has reiterated that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins the Courts/Tribunals to make award determining the amount of compensation which was just and reasonable. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the application of muliplier of 8 is just and proper. Thus, I find that learned Tribunal has not erred in applying the multiplier of 8 and so on this count impugned Award cannot be faulted with. This appeal is partly allowed to the extent of modifying the impugned Award to increase the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 9% per annum. No other modification of the impugned Award is called for.
The appeal and the application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 18, 2016 s
Page 3 of 3
MAC APP. 514/2008
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the interest awarded on accident compensation requires enhancement given bank deposit rates.
Whether the multiplier applied by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased's parents is appropriate.
Whether the award is just and reasonable under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chetan Malhotra v. Lala RamExplained¶11
Chetan Malhotra v. Lala Ram, II (2016) ACC 896 (Del.)
Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport CorporationExplained¶16
Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr.Explained¶21
Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 · Who else cites this
Rajesh v. Rajbir SinghExplained¶21
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 · Who else cites this
Shashikala & Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma & Anr.Explained¶23
Shashikala & Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma & Anr. 2015 (2) TAC 867 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Radhey Shyam Sharma & Anr.
Satish & Ors.
Sunil Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
