Reeta Kapoor And Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation And ...
1995 Latest Caselaw 754 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the Award dated 8th April, 1991 passed by Shri R.K. Sharma, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The appellants filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The facts as disclosed are that deceased Ashok Kumar Kapoor was employed as Junior Engineer in DDA East Plaza Indoor Stadium, New Delhi and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 1557.47. He was the only earning member of the family and used to spent almost the entire salary for the maintenance of his family which consisted of his wife, appellant No. 1, two minor children, appellant Nos. 2 and 3. The deceased was traveling on his two wheeler Lambretta Scooter No. DHD 8292 near the ITO Fly Over Bridge when the DTC Bus No. DHP 3684, being driven by respondent No. 2 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter from behind as a result of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries. The deceased was removed to LNJP hospital where he was declared dead and the police registered case under Section 279/304A IPC at P.S. Darya Ganj. It was pleaded that accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the said respondent. The deceased was a healthy person and he was not addicted to any vices. Respondent No. 2 was served through publication but he did not put in appearance and, as such, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22nd May, 1986. Respondent No. I in its written statement alleged that the application of compensation had not been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased and as such was liable to be dismissed. The said respondent also denied that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. It was further alleged that on 1st September, 1984 bus Mo. DHP 3684 was proceeding on route No. 39 and at about 1.55 p.m., the bus reached the office of AGCR near the ITO and the bus driver stopped the bus and some passengers alighted at the said bus stop. Thereafter, the driver respondent moved his bus and had hardly covered 40 to 50 yds. and reached the crossing, there was red signal and, as such, the driver stopped the bus behind another DTC bus of route No. 318. When green signal appeared the police constable on duty gave signal to the driver to move towards ITO Fly Over Bridge. The driver was very slowly moving behind the bus of route No. 318 at a very slow speed. In the meantime the deceased who was driving two wheeler scooter rashly, negligently and at a fast speed without noticing the traffic on the road came from left hand side and tried to cross ahead of the bus while the bus was in the process of negotiating a turn. The deceased hit against the front left corner of the bus and fell down and received some injuries. The accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:

1. Whether Shri Ashok Kumar Kapoor died due to an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DHP-3684 being driven by respondent No. 1 ?

2. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled and from whom, and in what proportions ?

3. Relief.

2. The Tribunal assessed the evidence on record. PW-3 Nirmal Singh, Traffic Constable deposed in his statement before the Court that on 1st September, 1984 he was on duty from 11.00 A.M. to 2.00 P.M. Along with one Prem Chand at ITO Fly Over Bridge. He further deposed that he was controlling the traffic and a scooterist who was driving scooter No. DHO-8292 came from the side of the I.P. Police Post and a bus was following him. He further stated that the deceased scooterist was driving on the correct side of the road and the DTC driver came at a very fast speed and hit the scooterist from behind, as a result of which the scooterist fell down and sustained injuries and he was bleeding from nose and ears. He Along with Constable Prem Chand removed the deceased to LNJP Hospital. This witness was duly cross-examined but nothing could be elicited which favored the respondents. Similar narration of the incident was given by another eye witness PW 6 Shri B.M. Mehra. The appellants also examined Shri Raghunandan Singh Tyagi, S.I., PW 4, who conducted the investigation. He deposed that respondent No. 2 was challaned under Sections 279/304A IPC. The site plan Ex. PW 4/1 was prepared. PW 1, Dr. Bharat Singh who conducted the post-mortem examination proved the report, Ex. PW 1/1 and stated that the death had occurred on account of coma and shock resulting from injuries. The evidence produced was considered by the learned Judge and it was noticed that respondent No. 2 himself had not come to witness box and there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PWs 3 and 6 who had witnessed the accident which resulted in the death of Shri Ashok Kumar Kapoor. There is, therefore, no illegality and infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of bus No. DHP 3684. This finding is accordingly affirmed.

3. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced by the appellants accepted the income of the deceased as Rs. 1557.47 rounded off to Rs. 1,500/- per month. The deceased was 34 years of age at the time of his death. The learned Judge deducted a sum of Rs. 300/ on account of personal expenses of the deceased including the amount he used to spend on the maintenance of the scooter as well as a further sum of Rs. 200/- on account of food and clothing and assessed the dependency of the appellants to Rs. 1,000/- per month. The multiplier of 20 was used as an appropriate multiplier giving an award of Rs. 2,40,000/-. It was however, noticed that the deceased would have remained in service for a period of another 24 years but lower multiplier was used since the lumpsum payment was being paid to the appellants.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the award of compensation is not commensurate with the status of the deceased with regard to his service as well as on the basis of future prospects in his career. The deceased was a junior engineer in the Delhi Development Authority and there was no doubt that there would be time bound consideration for promotion. There have been upward revisions in the pay scales of all personnel in the recent years. The consideration for lumpsum payment for assessment of reduced compensation as well as for application of a multiplier could not be sustained as a valid criterion in view of the high rate of inflation. There was, therefore, no justification for using the lower multiplier in the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court in two judgments have adopted different criteria for assessment of award of compensation in the accident cases. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. , the Court took into account the future prospects of advancement of life and career to augment the multiplier. The deceased in that case was 39 years of age and the multiplier of 12 was used as an appropriate to the age of the deceased. It is noticed that in the English Courts the multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased goes up. The following paragraph may be reproduced in this regard:

The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. Take, for instance, a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,000/-. If a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is invested at 10 per cent annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5 per cent per annum and not 10 per cent, then the multiplier needed to capitalise the loss of the annual dependency at Rs. 10,000/- would be 20. Then the multiplier, i.e. the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last etc. Usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependents, whichever is higher) goes up.

5. In the other judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in Hardeo Kaur and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. the Court adopted the higher multiplier of 24. The deceased in that case was 36 years of age and was Major in Army and earning Rs. 2200/- per month. It was held that the Courts below were not justified in taking the normal span of life to be 60 years and that of an Army Officer 56 years. The deduction for lump sum payment was rejected and it was categorically stated that the Tribunal could not become oblivious of the fact that there was time bound consideration for promotion in the Army and the upward revisions in the pay scales. The deduction of l/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased was however reiterated. This Court, therefore, has to consider the award of compensation on the basis of the law laid down in the above said two decisions. The first case takes into consideration the future advancement and prospects of career of the deceased by taking into consideration notional income for further progress for assessment of dependency and uses a lower multiplier. The second case does not add any amount in respect of future prospects and advancement in life and career but uses a higher multiplier. The ultimate assessment will not be much different if any of the above said criteria is adopted.

6. In the present case the deceased who was held to be earning Rs. 1557.40 per month, the Tribunal deducted an amount of Rs. 300/- in the first instance for personal expenses including the amount which the deceased was expected to spend on the maintenance of his scooter and a further amount of Rs. 200/- on account of food and clothing and fixed dependency at Rs. 1,000/- per month. The deceased had to cater for his family which included his wife and two minor children and it will be reasonable to accept that he would not have spent more than Rs. 300/- per month for his personal expenses. The multiplier has to be considered on the basis of his retirement age and usual span of life. The normal span in the facts of the case can be assessed at 60 years which will give a multiplier of 26. The amount which the deceased was expected to spend for his family can be assessed at Rs. 14,000/- per annum (Rs. 1200 x 12) which multiplied by 26 comes to Rs. 3,74,000/-. The said amount is accordingly allowed to the appellant/claimants as damages and compensation as a result of the death of the deceased. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. The amount which has already been disbursed shall be taken into consideration in arriving at the amount now held payable. The enhanced amount Along with the proportionate interest shall be payable to appellant No. 1 who is the widow of deceased.

7. The appeal as a consequence is allowed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,500/-