Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Dr. Nagendra Ghosh Gupta And Ors. on 26 March, 2004
Author: R Jain
Bench: D Bhandari, R Jain
JUDGMENT
R.C. Jain, J.
1. Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) has filed these appeals against the judgments of the learned Single Judge dated 19th September, 2000. By one judgment which has been impugned in L.P.A.No.603/2000, the learned Single Judge has dismissed F.A.O.No.49/2000 filed by the DTC against the order of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (for short `MACT') while by the second judgment of the even date passed in F.A.O.No.588/1999 filed by the claimants Dr. Nagendra Ghosh Gupta and Another, the order of the Tribunal has been modified and the compensation awarded has been enhanced from Rs.8,40,000/- to Rs.21,60,000/-.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our view, the impugned judgment passed in F.A.O.No.588/1999 cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside/appropriately modified for more than one reason.
3. Dr. Neerja Gupta, a 30 year old Medical Practitioner died in a road accident on 26th March, 1992, after the motor cycle on which she, her husband and their child were riding, was hit by a DTC bus. The husband and the son claimed a compensation of Rs.20 lacs plus interest. Against column No.6 of the preformed for claim relating to the monthly income of the deceased, the claimants pleaded the income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.8,40,000/- with 12% interest by assessing the average income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and taking into account the future career prospects of the deceased and deducting 1/3rd of her total income towards her own maintenance and up-keep and by applying the multiplier 14, the dependency factor of the claimant was adjudged to Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Single Judge, having regard to the prevalent medical state of affairs, held that the deceased could have earned an average income of Rs.15,000/- after a year soon and her dependency could be safely put at Rs.10,000/- and by applying the multiplier of 18 instead of 14, enhanced the compensation to Rs.21,60,000/-.
4. Mr. Vibhu Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently urged that the assessment made by the learned single Judge is not based on any cogent material or intelligible criteria. In our opinion also, the submission is not devoid of merits because as per claimants' own showing, the income of the deceased, at the relevant time of the accident, was Rs.6,000/- per month and taking the same on its face value and taking into account the future career prospects of the deceased in terms of the Supreme Court decision in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Transport Corporation vs. Mrs. Susama Thomas and Ors., 1994 A.C.J-1, we are of the considered opinion that the average income of the deceased could not have been assessed at more than Rs.12,000/- per month. Discounting her income by 1/3rd towards her own maintenance and up-keep etc., the dependency factor of the claimants would not exceed more than Rs.8,000/- per month. Even applying the higher multiplier of 18, the compensation could at best be enhanced to Rs.17,28,000/-. In our opinion, this is the just and reasonable compensation which the claimants can be awarded. It is pertinent to note that the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.21,60,000/- would even exceed the claim mount of Rs.20 lacs claimed by the claimants in their petition which on the face of the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be justified.
5. In the result, the L.P.A.No.601/2003 is hereby allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the respondents-claimants shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.17,28,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment.
6. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant DTC that the entire amount in terms of the award of the Tribunal and the order of the learned Single Judge stands deposited in the Court and the claimants have already withdrawn the entire amount which was deposited earlier in terms of the order of the Tribunal and 50% of the enhanced amount deposited pursuant to the orders of this Court. The appellant shall be entitled to refund of the balance excess amount deposited by them in terms of this modified order.
Appeal No.603/2000 is also disposed of in terms of the above order.
