a* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: April 08, 2010
Date of Order: May 25, 2010
+ FAO 161/1994
% 25.05.2010
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. ...Appellants
Through: nemo
Versus
Sushma Bhatnagar & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Varun Kumar and Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocates
AND
+ FAO 194/1994
%
Sushma Bhatnagar & Ors. ...Appellants
Through: Mr. Varun Kumar and Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocates
Versus
Lal Singh & Anr. ...Respondents
Through: nemo
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the above two appeals assailing an order dated 6th May, 1994 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Tribunal for short). The first appeal being FAO 161 of 1994 was preferred by DTC whereby DTC has assailed the order of Tribunal on the ground that the learned Tribunal wrongly came to FAO Nos. 161 & 194 of 1994 Page 1 Of 5 conclusion that the accident was caused by the driver of DTC bus. It is submitted that the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased who was trying to cross the crossing at red light when signal was red by overtaking the bus.
2. The other grounds taken by the appellant are that the Tribunal did not calculate the compensation properly as per the law laid down in various judgments and the Tribunal wrongly computed the compensation. The Tribunal gravely erred in not reducing the damages by Rs.80,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- received by the dependents on account of group insurance scheme, gratuity and payment for death on duty from the employer. It is also stated that the Tribunal wrongly awarded 12% interest.
3. The second appeal being FAO No.194 of 1994 is filed by the claimants assailing the quantum of compensation awarded on the ground that the Tribunal did not take into account the correct parameters and did not award amount on account of loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and the Tribunal wrongly applied a multiplier of 10 and allowed only a sum of Rs.4,80,000/-
4. The facts relevant for purpose of deciding these appeals are that Shri Ramesh Swaroop Bhatnagar while going on his two wheeler scooters on 5th December 1987 had stopped his scooter at traffic signal since the signal was red. In the meanwhile, DTC bus number DHP 3564 driven by DTC driver came from behind and ran over the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 6th December 1987. The FAO Nos. 161 & 194 of 1994 Page 2 Of 5 deceased was working as an Assistant Manager in Tool Room & Training Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Area and was earning Rs.4223/- per month at the time of accident. His age was 41 years at the time of death. He left behind a wife and two daughters as dependents. The Tribunal after considering the evidence led before it came to conclusion that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of DTC bus. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased. It was proved on record that the salary of the deceased was Rs.4223/- per month. The deceased was also getting Rs.1200/- per month as productivity linked bonus. Thus, it was considered that income of the deceased per month was Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal considered future prospects of the deceased and assessed income of the deceased after future prospects as Rs.6,000/- per month. Out of it, one-third was deducted on account of personal expenses. Considering the age of deceased, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10 and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,80,000/-.
5. A perusal of testimony of PW-5 Head Constable Bhanu Sanjay, a witness to the accident being on duty at the crossing at Liberty Cinema where the accident took place would show that the DTC bus number DHP 3564 came at a fast speed from behind the scooter on which deceased was sitting and hit the stationary scooter of the deceased from behind, resulting into fall of deceased on left side or the road and front wheel of the bus ran over him. The driver was apprehended by the same head constable on the spot. PCR came and the driver was handed over to PCR. No suggestion was given to this witness that the deceased was trying to jump the red light or it was deceased who was negligent. I FAO Nos. 161 & 194 of 1994 Page 3 Of 5 consider that the Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that the negligence was on the part of DTC driver due to which deceased lost his life in the accident.
6. As far as calculation of compensation was concerned, I consider that after Smt. Sarla Varma's case, just and fair compensation has to be calculated as per parameters laid down by the Supreme Court. There is no dispute about the fact that income of deceased was Rs.4223/- per month and deceased was also getting productivity bonus of about Rs.1,000/- per month. Thus the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.5223/-. The deceased was paying income tax of around Rs.223/- per month. His salary after deductions of income tax would be around Rs.5,000/-. In view of the fact that there were three dependents, 1/3rd of his income would be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the dependency would be Rs.5000-1666.65 = Rs.3333.64. As per Sarla Varma's case, since the deceased was aged around 41 years, a multiplier of 14 and the future prospects of 30% is to be taken. So the salary for the purpose of computation of compensation will have to be taken as Rs.4333/-. Thus, the total compensation for dependency would come at Rs.7,28,364/- (4333x12x14). The claimants would also be entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and for funeral expenses. I consider that Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses would be reasonable amount. Rs.5,000/- each on account of loss of consortium and loss of estate would be appropriate compensation.
7. I consider that no deduction could be made from this FAO Nos. 161 & 194 of 1994 Page 4 Of 5
compensation in view of the fact that dependents of the deceased were paid group insurance of Rs.80,000/-, Rs.25,000/- as gratuity of Rs.25,000/- as amount due to his death during service. The claim of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is independent of other benefits granted to the dependents of the deceased by employer of the deceased granted by employer would have been there even in case of natural death. The death of an employee may take place due to illness or due to any other reasons. The compensation granted under Motor Vehicles Act cannot be reduced because the dependents got some amount from the employer of the deceased.
8. I also consider that the claimant would be entitled to reasonable rate of interest. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 12% per annum. I consider that interest of 12% is on the higher side. Interest @ 8% per annum would be an appropriate rate of interest. Thus, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent and the claimants would be entitled to an amount of Rs.7,43,364/- with interest @ 8% per annum. The enhanced amount compensation be paid by DTC to the claimants within 60 days. Both appeals stand disposed of in terms of above order.
May 25, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd FAO Nos. 161 & 194 of 1994 Page 5 Of 5