Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Sajni Devi And Ors. on 22 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: RLW2004(2)RAJ1068
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Prakash Tatia
JUDGMENT Tatia, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. These appeals are against the judgment and decrees passed by the trial court in various claim cases filed by the different claimants on the basis of common cause of action, i.e., death of the persons in accident dated 15.1.94. The deceased persons Sahabram, Laxman Singh, Bheem Sen, Girdharilal, Gopal Ram, Chunilal and Jainarayan were travelling in the Jeep No. DBB 4839. In the early morning at about 5.45 AM when the Jeep was crossing the railway gate No. C-64, the train come on the rout of Hanumangarh to Chandigarh, 4588 down express and hit the Jeep resulting into death of all the above persons travelling in the Jeep. All the deceased person are either owner of their agricultural filed or having income from the agriculture only. The claimants-legal representatives of above deceased instituted suits for damages against the defendant-appellants. The trial court after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, held that the appellant-defendants are liable for the accident causing deaths of above persons and consequently the appellant- defendants are liable for the compensations, which were awarded by the trial court in all the different suits.
3. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, therefore, all the appeals are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
4. For the sake of convenience necessary details are given in the chart below.
Case No. Appeal by Deceased Age Claimed Award Multi Plier CFA 27/98 Sajani Devi Sahabram 50y 6195000 136000 8 CFA 37/98 Surjeet Khaur Laxman Singh 23y 6220000 126000 15 CFA39/98 Anusuya Bhimsen 25y 4020000 180000 15 CFA40/98 Jamna Devi Girdhari 45y 5520000 120000 10 CFA28/98 Anguri Gopal Ram 31y 3520000 180000 15 CFA38/98 Gayatri Chunnilal 30y 7670000 168000 14 CFA29/98 Chandravali Jainarayan 35y 7020000 156000 13
5. The appeals are preferred by the Union of India and Northern railway challenging the award of interest against the appellants. The appellants did not choose to challenge the finding of fact recorded by the trial court with respect to the fact of accident and negligence of the appellants in the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that since the claimants lodged the claim, which is exorbitantly high, therefore, appellants were not in position to make the payment of the claim amount and it was also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that unless and until there is an adjudication of the claim of the claimants, the appellants were not in position to make payment of the claim amount. The appellant for the first time came to know about the exact amount of compensation, which can be given to the claimants only when decrees were passed by the trial court in the suits of the claimants. Therefore, the appellants cannot be held liable for the interest amount. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the award of interest is in the discretion of the court and it is not a contractual liability, therefore, also the trial court should not have allowed the interest over the claim amount. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in a recent judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kaushnurna Beguam (Smt) and Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors.(1), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that looking to the downward trend of the interest, 9% is the reasonable rate of interest, which can be awarded on compensations.
6. In this case due to the accident seven persons died. The facts are not in dispute. It is also true that the trial court passed the decree in favour of the claimants on various dates, but at the same time, it was the duty of the appellants, who are none else than the Union of India and the Railway department, to reasonably assess the damages suffered by the claimants and should have made reasonable compensation forthwith. The claimants were entitled for the claim amount on the day when they suffered the loss, the time taken in the process of determination of exact amount of compensation is not due to the fault of the claimants. Fact is that claimants were deprived of the amount and the amount of compensation was with the defendant-appellant. What the appellants have to pay is not a penalty, but the amount of interest which is being normally awarded by the courts in case of withholding of money by the other party. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the relief of the interest to the claimants only because of the time taken by the court to determine the amount of compensation in judicial manner after following the process of the court. The denial of interest to the claimants without there being any fault of the claimants will be absolutely unjust and unreasonable. Therefore, there is not substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that claimants are not entitled for the interest over the claimed amount.
7. So far as rate of interest is concerned, I am constrained to say that this type of plea should not have been raised by the Union of India and Railway in such type of fatal accident. When it is not expected from the Union of India and Railway to contest for the interest then contest for the rate of interest also cannot be justified unless and until it is shown that rate of interest awarded by the Court is too excessive and cannot stand to reason by any means. It is further relevant to mention here that the interest in commercial transaction is awarded even on the basis of the contractual rate of interest, but nor exceeding rate of interest levied by the Bank. Here in this case all the persons, who died in the accident were engaged in the agriculture. Some of the deceased were having their own agricultural filed meaning thereby they were engaged in the commercial transaction of the agricultural products. The amount of interest awarded by the trial court in all the decrees in only @ 12% per annum, which is the rate of interest normally decree by the trial courts in the cases of tort, particularly in the cases of Motor Accident Claims. Therefore, award of interest @ 12% per annum neither is on any higher side nor it can be said to be an amount so excessive to raise any grievance.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Kaushnuma Begum mentioned above wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is a change in the economic policy of the Reserved Bank of India and the interest rate has been lowered down. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that interest @ 9% per annum is a reasonable rate of interest. Here in this case accident took place on 15.1.94. The rate of interest had been lowered down by the Banks after 1997 only, i.e., after the decree passed by the court below. Therefore, at the time of passing of the decree, the trial court has not committed any illegality in awarding interest @ 12% per annum. But in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case the compensation amount is enhanced in cross-objections then claimants will be entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum.
9. Therefore, appeals of the appellants are dismissed with costs.
10. In these appeals the claimants have preferred the corss- objections and submitted that the amount awarded in favour of the claimants are too low. According to learned counsel for the respondent-defendants all the deceased persons were agriculturists and there is ample evidence available on record to prove the fact that daily wages of even agricultural labour is not less than Rs. 100/- per day. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-defendants that the deceased were resident of district Sri Ganganagar, which is known for its agricultural activities in the Rajasthan. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent - defendants that the entire area is irrigated area and even the labour in this area gets the work for full year. Therefore, if Rs. 100/- is taken as income per day of deceased as labour, the claimants are entitled for the higher amount of compensation. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-defendants that the trial court has committed illegality in not taking into account the future prospects of income of the deceased persons and also wrongly applied the multiplier
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the deceased persons were either having their own agricultural field or they were agricultural labour. The owner of the agricultural field Sahabram, Girdharilal, Gopal Singh, Chunilal and Jainarayan left behind the entire agricultural land and business of agricultural produce, therefore, in fact, the plaintiffs respondents have not suffered any lass so far as income is concerned and others only suffered at the most loss of labour, which could not have been saved personal employment of the deceased himself in agricultural field.
12. 1 considered the rival submission and perused the record. It is true that the deceased were engaged in the agricultural activities either as owner of the agricultural land or a agricultural labour. Though there is oral evidence saying that the labourers of the field in Sri Ganganagar are getting Rs. 100/- per day and the work is available for while of the year, but this evidence cannot be accepted in totality. If the land is irrigated then at the most it can be said that the labourers get more work than the work available where the land is not irrigated. It cannot be said that there can be labour work for whole year or for all the 365 days in the year. The process of agriculture is time consuming process. There are intervals between the work to be performed through labourers and it cannot be said that labourers will be required to do the 'work for all the 365 days. It is difficult to calculate the days for which there will be no work available to the labourers and, therefore, even if per day labour rate is accepted to be Rs. 100/-even then it requires to be reduced as the labour will not get the wages for all the 365 days in a year. The trial court after considering the evidence determined the daily wages of the labour as Rs. 35/- per day and awarded Rs. 15/- additional to the persons, who were having their own agricultural land on the ground of their supervision over the field. The average income of one labour will not be more than Rs. 35/- day as the labours will not get the work for all the 365 days. In view of these reasons the trial court has not committed any error in determining the amount or per day income of the deceased in case of labour as well as in case of the person who himself is also engaged in supervision of the agricultural work.
13. The trial court has not determined the future prospects of the income of the deceased persons and, therefore, has committed illegality. The court can presume that the persons engaged in the agricultural activities or working as agricultural labour, will in due course of time, will be able to increase their income in developing country like India. Since this is a matter relating to agriculture and the persons, who are having the agricultural land died in the accident leaving behind the agricultural land and income from the agriculture, therefore, future prospects of earning of these persons can be presumed to be 1/3rd of their income, but at the same time, it is also true that 1/3rd amount is the amount, which is likely to be consumed by the deceased himself for his own personal use. Therefore, it is held that the respondents are entitled for the enhanced claim amount by increasing it by 1/3rd of the assessed income, but this 1/3rd amount is also deducted as it is the amount, which would have been ultilized by the deceased himself, therefore, net amount available to the claimants in each case will be Rs. 35/- per day and Rs. 35+15 = Rs. 50/- as calculated by the trial court. The deduction of 1/3 of income will not be needed as it is to be appropriated by future prospects of income of the deceased.
14. It is also found that the multiplier applied by the trial court in all the cases are on lower side. There is no hard and fast rule for applying the multiplier, it depends upon the facts of the case, but it will be reasonable to adopt the manner provided under the schedule of the MV Act and in view of the above multiplier will be as mentioned is schedule. Therefore, the compensation will be as under:-
Case No. Appeal by Deceased Age Multi Plier by Trial Court Increased Multiplier Enhanced to CFA 27/98 Sajani Devi Sahabram 50y 8 13 1500x12x13= 234000 CFA 37/98 Surjeet Khaur Laxman Singh 23y 15 17 1050x12x17= 214200 CFA 39/98 Anusuya Bhimsen 25y 15 17 1500x12x17= 306000 CFA 40/98 Jamna Devi Girdhari 45y 10 15 1500x12x15= 270000 CFA 28/98 Anguri Gopal Ram 31y 15 17 1500x12x17= 306000 CFA 38/98 Gayatri Chunnilal 30y 14 17 1500x12x17 = 306000 CFA 29/98 Chandravali Jainarayan 35y 13 17 1500x12x17= 306000
15. In view of the above reasons, the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff-respondents are partly allowed and suit of the plaintiffs in all the cases are decreed for the amount mentioned herein below.
C.O.No. Claimants Awarded Amount Enhanced to 106/96(388/94) Sajani Devi & Ors.
136000/-
234000/-
96/96(375/94) Surjeel Kuar & Ors.
126000/-
214200/-
93/96Ansuiya 180000/-
306000/-
95/96 (374/94, 6/94) Jamna Devi & Ors.
120000/-
270000/-
91/96(370/94, 2/94) Anguri Devi & Ors.
180000/-
306000/-
92/96(371/94) Gayatri Devi & Ors.
I68000/-
306000/-
94/96 (373/94, 5/94) Chandravati & Ors.
156000/-
306000/-
16. The plaintiff-respondents shall be entitled to the interest over enhanced amount @9% per annum form the date of filing of the suit.