Yudhvir Singh Ahluwalia And Anr. vs Delhi Transport Corporation And ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 1263 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Appellant No. 1, Yudhvir Singh Ahluwalia and Nitya Ahluwalia are the husband and daughter respectively of late Geeta Ahluwalia.

2. On 24.4.1987, late Geeta Ahluwalia was waiting for a bus at Jantar Mantar when she was hit by bus No. DEP 2512, driven by respondent No. 2. The bus was owned by respondent No. 1. As a result of the injuries sustained, she died.

3. The appellants filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,40,000 on account of death of Geeta Ahluwalia.

4. By an award dated 17.12.1991, it was held that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent No. 2. Compensation was assessed in the sum of Rs. 2,30,472. Same was held to be payable with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till date of realisation. Compensation was apportioned as under:

(a)  Appellant No. 1      :   Rs.  1,00,000 
 

(b)  Appellant No. 2      :   Rs.  1,30,472 
 

5. While determining compensation, the Tribunal held that evidence on record established that the deceased was engaged as a stenographer with Amrind Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs. 1,600 per month. Deducting one-third as the personal expenses of the deceased, dependency was assessed at Rs. 1,067. Treating the age of the deceased at 37 years and date of retirement at 55 years, multiplier of 18 was applied. Rs. 1,067 x 12 x 18 gives the figure of Rs. 2,30,472 being the compensation.

6. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants contends that while passing the award and in determining the compensation, the Tribunal ignored the prospects of future increase in salary of the deceased. Besides, learned counsel contended that nothing has been paid on account of loss of consortium to appellant No. 1 and loss of mother's love and affection to appellant No. 2. Learned counsel drew my attention to C.M. No. 1068 of 2000 which was filed under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, urging the court to take on record 'Annexure A' to the said C.M. and consider the same while disposing of the appeal.

7. As per 'Annexure A' to C.M. No. 1068 of 2000, which is a certificate issued by the employer of the deceased, had the deceased continued to work with the organization, she would have earned a salary of Rs. 7,000 per month as on 7.7.2000.

8. Learned counsel drew my attention to order dated 28.2.2001 wherein it stands directed that C.M. No. 1068 of 2000 would be considered along with the main appeal.

9. In the judgment reported as General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), in a case involving a motor vehicle where the deceased was aged 39 years earning Rs. 1,032 p.m., the Hon'ble Apex Court determined the compensation to the family consisting of the parents, widow and children of the deceased as under:

(i) Future prospects of advancement in life and career resulting in increased income, on a safe basis could be assumed to be resulting in doubling of the income. The monthly income was thus treated at Rs. 2,000.

(ii) Deductions on account of personal expenses, in the absence of evidence, one-third of the income was held to be sound deduction. On this account Rs. 600 was deducted.

(iii) The loss of dependency was thus arrived at Rs. 1,400 p.m.

(iv) Annual loss of dependency was thus Rs. 1,400 x 12 = Rs. 16,800 (treated as Rs. 17,000).

(v) Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 12 was applied. Total compensation was thus worked out to Rs. 17,000 x 12 = Rs. 2,04,000.

(vi) Loss of consortium was taken at Rs. 15,000.

(vii) The total compensation was worked out to Rs. 2,25,000 as a fair, just and reasonable compensation.

10. In the judgment reported as Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC), the deceased aged 27 years died in an accident on 16.3.1975. He was survived by his widow and minor daughter. The compensation worked out was as under:

(i) The deceased was earning Rs. 1,543 p.m. rounded to Rs. 1,500.

(ii) Keeping in view future prospects the income was doubled to Rs. 3,000 p.m.

(iii) The average gross income was determined at Rs. 2,200 p.m. being the mean figure, i.e., Rs. 1,500 + Rs. 3,000 divided by 2.

(iv) Deducting one-third as the personal expenses of the deceased being Rs. 750 p.m., the income available to the family was determined at Rs. 1,450 being Rs. 2,200-Rs. 750. It was rounded up to Rs. 1,500 p.m.

(v) The annual dependency was thus arrived at Rs. 18,000. Applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation worked out to Rs. 2,70,000. Adding the figure of Rs. 15,000 towards loss of consortium, the compensation determined was Rs. 2,85,000.

11. In the judgment reported as U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a somewhat different method for determining the compensation. Hon'ble court applied the unit method. The deceased was aged 26 years when he died. Treating the income at Rs. 300 p.m. deducting one-third as personal expenses of the deceased the Tribunal estimated the loss to the family at Rs. 200 p.m. The deceased was aged 26 years. Life expectancy was fixed at 60 years. Deducting 36 years, it was held by the Tribunal that the family was deprived of the earning for 24 years. The compensation was worked out as under;

Rs. 200 x 12 x 24 = Rs. 57,600.

12. The High Court raised the amount to Rs. 81,600 Realizing that the Tribunal had wrongly taken the age of the deceased as 36 years instead of 26 years and as a consequence applied the multiplier of 34 instead of 24 years. The High Court worked out the compensation as under:

Rs. 200 x 12 x 34 = Rs. 81,600.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in reference to an illustration held that the correct method of determining the compensation would be as under;

(a) Deceased died at the age of 35 leaving behind his widow and 3 children. Monthly income was Rs. 3,500.

(b) Break the family into units taking two units for an adult and one unit for a minor, thus the family of the deceased would consist of 2+2+3=7 units. Thus the share per unit would work out to Rs. 3,500 divided by 7 equal to Rs. 500. Determine the out of pocket expenses towards transport, etc. On the figure of Rs. 3,500 being the notional income of the deceased, Rs. 250 was held to be a safe estimation. Treating Rs. 500 further as being incurred by the deceased towards other deductions the total amount to be deducted worked out to Rs. 1,250 leaving behind Rs. 2,250 (Rs. 3,500-Rs. 1,250) as the loss to the family. The annual dependency comes to Rs. 2,250 x 12 - Rs. 27,000. Taking the appropriate multiplier to be 15, the compensation works out to Rs. 27,000 x 15 = Rs. 4,05,000. Adding a further amount of Rs. 10,000 as loss of company of the deceased to the family, the compensation would come to Rs. 4,15,000.

14. It is further to be noted that after illustrating the law with reference to notional figures the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not set aside the awarded amount since as per the judgment of the Supreme Court even applying the method as suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same figure was being arrived at, I may state that in a 2 children family whether we apply the law laid down in Susamma Thomas case, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), or Trilok Chandra's case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), same figures are reached since in both, 1/3rd sum gets appropriated towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

15. I am not inclined to determine the compensation on the untested 'Annexure A' filed along with C.M. No. 1068 of 2000. Further, compensation has to be assessed on probabilities as on the date of death of the deceased. I follow the ratio of the three judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted by me above. I give the benefit of doubling the salary of the deceased which she was earning on the date of her death as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted above. The average mean income of the deceased comes to Rs. 2,400 per month. Deducting one-third towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 1,600. Applying the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, the compensation on this account comes to Rs. 3,45,600. Keeping in view the status and economic background of the deceased and the date of the accident, I allow a sum of Rs. 35,000 as compensation to the appellants on account of loss of consortium to appellant No. 1 and loss of mother's love and affection to the appellant No. 2. The total compensation payable, therefore, comes to Rs. 3,80,600. I direct that the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till 31.3.2000 and thereafter at the rate of 8 per cent per annum with effect from 1.4.2000 till date of realisation. I am so fixing the interest with effect from 1.4.2000 keeping in view the falling rate of interest.

With the directions above, appeal stands disposed of.