Delhi Transport Corporation vs Aruna Sawhney
1995 Latest Caselaw 177 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

(1) This judgment will dispose of appeal filed by Delhi Transport Corporation (FAO 11/92) as well as cross objections filed by the respondents/claimants against the judgment dated 3rd December, 1991 of Shri Jaswant Singh, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Delhi. The respondents/claimants had filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act whereby they claimed compensation on account of the death of Shri Jagjot Sawhney. The respondents are' the widow of the deceased, his minor children and theparents. The minors, respondents 2 and 3 are represented by their mother, Mrs. Aruna Sawhney who is respondent I to the appeal. The amount claimed by the respondents/claimants was.Rs. 15 lakhs.

(2) The facts briefly stated are that on 12th August, 1987 at about 1.30 p.m. the deceased Jagjot Sawhney was riding his scooter No. Dbv 7694 with one Harish Vij sitting in the pillion seat of the scooter. The deceased was going at a slow speed on the correct side of the road and after crossing the

(3) The appellants, Delhi Transport Corporation filed the written statement and took various objections such as that the application was not filed by the legal representatives of the deceased and the deceased did not receive injuries which resulted in his death. On merits it was denied that the deceased was working as Supervisor and earning a salary' of Rs. 5499.00 per month. The factum as well as date and place of accident was, however, not denied. It was also admitted that bus no. Dlp 1562 was involved in the accident and it was being driven by the driver of the appellant. The appellant further claimed that the bus was at a slow speed and on their own admission as referred to in the claim petition the accident took place because the deceased went over to the wrong side of the road with a view to avoid impact with a pedestrian and hit the bus despite the fact that the driver of the bus swerved the vehicle to his extreme left just close to the footpath. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of vehicle no. Dlp 1562? 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom? 3. Relief.

(4) The learned Judge examined the evidence on record and referred to the testimony of PW7 Dr. L.N. Sharma who was the sole eye witness of the occurrence. This witness was proceeding on the date of occurrence at about 1.30 p.m. behind Madras Hotel to catch a bus for his residence in Safdarjung Enclave. He stated that at that very moment he saw that a scooter no. Dbv 7694 came from Connaught Circus side and going towards Lady Harding Hospital on Bhagat Singh Marg with a pillion rider on it. He further stated that, in the meantime, a Dtc bus came from the side of Goal Market at a fast speed and hit the scooters as a result of which the driver of the scooter received severe injuries and started bleeding. The pillion rider also received injuries on his leg and they became unconscious. Thereafter, the Dtc bus dashed against the bus stand which was on the side of the Lady Harding hospital and damaged its shelter. It is not denied that this witness did not accompany the injured to the hospital but he gave his name and address to some persons present there. The driver of the appellant, Jai Pal Singh, also appeared as Rw 1 and admitted that the bus came to a halt after hitting the bus Q shelter. He also admitted that he did not see any pedestrian coming in the way of the deceased before the impact. He has given the speed of his bus as 5 Kmph yet he could not stop the bos before the impact with the deceased and the learned Judge believed the testimony of Public Witness 7 and held that the accident took place due to rash.and negligent driving of bus no. Dlp 1562 which was driven by an employee of the appellant Corporation.

(5) The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to assail the findings of the Tribunal and no material has been placed before me to justify the contrary conclusion. The evidence of Public Witness 7 who was an eye witness to the occurrence is believed and the facts establish that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving on the part of the' driver of the appellant corporation. There is no illegality and infirmity in the finding and I accordingly confirm the same.

(6) The learned Judge then proceeded to dispose of issue no. 2 and came to the conclusion that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 4907.00 per month and this assessment was made on the basis of salary certificate as produced in the court. The carry home salary of the deceased immediately before his death was assessed at Rs. 3713.00 . It was also brought in evidence that the deceased had good prospect of his promotion if he had not died untimely and on the basis of the assessed income at Rs. 3713.00 per month the deduction of l/3rd was made on account of personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency was fixed at Rs.2476.00 . The age of the deceased was accepted as 43 years and there is no contrary finding in this regard. The Tribunal took note of the fact that in case the deceased had remained in service he would have retired at the age of 60 years which is normal age of retirement in the office where he worked. The patents of the deceased are alive and there has been a history of longevity in the family of the deceased. Taking an overall view of the circumstances and facts of the case the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 20 years and on that basis assessed and awarded compensation of Rs.5,94,240.00 . The respondents/claimants were also held entitled @12% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The respondents have also- filed cross objections and claimed enhancement on the grounds that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was rather low and they are entitled to compensation of Rs.15 lakhs as claimed in the petition as well as to a higher rate of interest @18% per annum.

(7) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. They have not been able to assail the findings of the Tribunal on any cogent grounds. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is based on the settled principles and does not call for any interference. The deceased was 43 years of age at the time of accident and he would have contributed to the family till the age of 60 years. The multiplier of 20 as adopted by the Tribunal can neither be termed on the higher side nor taken to be on ' the lower side. The life expectancy of the deceased could easily be taken up in the range of 60-65- years and this has been held by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hardeo Kaur and Ors Vs.Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another 1992 Acj 300 and Urmila Pandey and others Vs. Khalil Ahmad and Ors 1994 ACf 805. Therefore, the multiplier of 20 as adopted by the Tribunal is justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has also contended that the deduction of l/3rd for personal expenses of the de- ceased was on the higher side. I am not inclined to agree with this contention as the usual deduction which is acceptable in similar circumstances is 1 /3rd of the salary of the deceased. This may be little less or more but no material has been placed before me that the deceased was contributing more than the amount which has been treated as dependency for the family and in the present case dependency has been correctly assessed at Rs.2476.00 per month. In view of the aforesaid reasons the appeal as well as the cross objections are dismissed.

(8) The Tribunal has awarded the compensation and the minor daughters of the deceased were entitled to receive Rs. 60,000.00 each and this amount was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit account till they attained the age of majority; The learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants has contended that these amounts are lying in fixed deposit with the Uco Bank for a fixed period. He seeks modification of the order of the Tribunal to the effect that Mrs. Aruna Sawhney who is. the widow of the deceased should be given the liberty to re-invest the amounts awarded to the minor children in Government securities such as Unit Trust of India so that a better yield can be obtained which may be more beneficial. The learned counsel for the appellant does not oppose this prayer. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified to the extent that the amounts accrued to the minor children of the deceased, respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein may be invested in any Government securities such' as Unit Trust of India at the discretion of respondent No. 1 The judgment of the Tribunal is only modified to this extent.'

(9) There will be no order as to costs.