Delhi High Court
Bhoj Raj vs Oriental Fire And General ... on 16 February, 1989
Equivalent citations: II (1989) ACC 195
Author: S Wad
Bench: S Wad
JUDGMENT
S.B. Wad, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle No. DLP-4997 which caused the accident on 13-7-1977 resulting into the death of Shri K.B. Subramanian. Relying on the evidence of the eye-witnesses PW-2, Lalit Mohan and PW-7 Gopi Chand and further looking into the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who prepared the site plan and also seeing the photographs, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently. I have also been taken through the evidence and I do not find that the finding of fact of the Tribunal is in any way unreasonable or perverse. The appreciation of evidence is quite correct. The finding is, therefore, confirmed.
2. The next question is of quantum. The deceased was a Divisional Engineer in Microwave Survey, under the Tele Communication Project, Northern Zone, New Delhi. Considering his salary the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the annual dependency was Rs. 14,400/-. The deceased was only 32 years old at the time of accident. The Tribunal was quite right in taking 23 as the multiplier, considering the age of retirement of the Government servants. The Tribunal was also right in deducting a sum of Rs. 59,520/- towards pension, which the widow would receive for about 23 years After deduction the Tribunal came to the figure of Rs. 2,71,740/-. The Tribunal thereafter erred in making further deductions on account of Insurance, G.P.F. and lump sum payments. The claimants were thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,71,740/- as the compensation. There is also cross-objection filed by the claimants, in which Rs. 6 lacs has been claimed. There is no evidence to show as to how much the claimants would have earned by way of promotions in future. So also the question of the increase of the multiplier on the basis of longevity is also not supported by any evidence. The cross objection being CM. 1132/81 is, therefore, allowed to the extent that the said deductions mentioned above should not have been deducted and the claimant was entitled to the amount of Rs. 2,71,740/-. Under the orders of this Court the appellant had undertaken to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the claimants. The counsel for the appellant states that the appellant had been depositing an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month in the Trial Court. The claimants would be entitled to collect the same amount, if they have not already done so. The appellant would be entitled to the credit for the amount already deposited. The balance of the amount should be paid within two months from today. A crossed cheque for the balance amount should be drawn up and deposited with the Registrar of this Court within two months from today. The Registrar will, after issuing notices to the claimants, disburse the amount to them.
3. For the reasons stated above the appeal is dismissed. The cross-objections are partly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
