Delhi High Court
Vidya And Anr. vs Madan Singh And Anr. on 16 November, 2004
Equivalent citations: I (2005) ACC 154, 116 (2005) DLT 197, 2005 (79) DRJ 527
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents in spite of service. This is an old case and can brook no further delay. I therefore, proceed to dispose it of.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.4.1990 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Suit No. 565/1979 whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award in the sum of Rs. 79,000/- with cost and simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the passing of order in favor of the petitioner while granting one month's time failing which the award shall carry an interest of 12% per annum.
3. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are as follows:-
''.... on 29.8.1979 in the morning at about 9.30 a.m., the deceased Dalip Singh aged about 25 years was going on a motorcycle from his residence Gita Colony towards Faridabad on Mathura Road with Ajit Singh injured sitting as a pillion rider who were both brothers. It is stated that the motorcycle No. WBN 6692 was driven by Dalip Singh in a normal speed on their left hand side and in the meantime one truck No.DLL 1578 driven by respondent No. 1 Madan Lal came from opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent and reckless manner and when it came near the motorcycle driven by Dalip Singh the truck driven by respondent No. 1 took a sudden turn towards his right without giving any horn or signal and came on the road meant for the traffic going from Delhi to Faridabad side on which road the deceased and the injured were going on their motorcycle for going towards Faridabad side and in this process by driving the truck rashly and negligently, the respondent No. 1 struck against the motorcycle but it is stated that the respondent No. 1 had no right to take sudden turn which he has taken without waiting for the motorcycle to pass and it resulted into a fatal accident causing fatal injuries on the person of the driver of motorcycle Dalip Singh which resulted n to his death and also caused grievous injuries on the person of Ajit Singh. It is stated that the deceased Dalip Singh was aged 25 years and was working as a supervisor with M/s Ajit Erectors on a monthly salary of Rs. 800/- p.m. and possessed good physique and if he had not died in this accident he would have lived up to the age of 80 years as there was a history of longevity in the family of the deceased. It is stated that in case of Suit No. 565/79 the petition has been filed by the parents of the deceased namely Smt. Vidya Devi and Sh. Karam Singh as petitioner No. 1 and 2 who have suffered a great loss due to the sudden death of their son who used to contribute a sum of Rs. 600/- p.m. to his mother. It is also stated that a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a should be awarded to the petitioners regarding the death of Dalip Singh.''
4. Counsel submits that the Tribunal while computing compensation has not taken into consideration the future prospects and has failed to apply the judgment in Sarla Dixit and Anr. V. Balwant Yadav and Ors. 1996 ACJ 581. He also submits that the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of '12', when in accordance with the 'Schedule' the multiplier ought to have been '15' since the claimant/dependent was 45 years of age at the time of death of the deceased.
5. I have heard counsel and have carefully gone through the judgment under challenge. It appears that the Tribunal while computing the loss of earning and making the award has not taken into consideration the future prospects of earning of the decease d and has gone on to apply a multiplier of '12', when in fact there is evidence on record to show that the claimant was 45 years of age, in which event, the multiplier of '15' ought to have been applied.
6. The Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit's case (supra) has held that it is proper and in the interest of justice to take into consideration the future earnings of the deceased while computing the claim of the claimant.
7. In that view of the matter, I remand the matter to the Tribunal to recalculate the amount due, taking into consideration the judgment in Sarla Dixit's Case (supra), as also applying the multiplier of '15'.
8. FAO 182/1990 is disposed of.
9. Parties to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 6th December, 2004 The Tribunal may dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
