Renu Narula And Ors. vs Surinder Singh And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 858 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. FAO 55/1994 is directed against Award dated 18.11.1993 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') in Suit No. 1032/88 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,18,951/- to the petitioners on account of death of Shri Ashwani Kumar Narula in the accident which took place on 29.8.1988.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal, are as under :

"That on 29.8.88 at about 9.50 a.m. Deceased Ashwani Kumar Narula was driving his maruti car from his residence towards Patel Nagar. When his car stopped near the traffic light point of Moti Nagar crossing the offending bus No. DEP-5391 which was being driven rashly, recklessly and negligently by respondent No.1 came from the opposite direction and hit the traffic signal pole. As a result of the impact the pole fell on the maruti car causing fatal injuries to the deceased Ashwani Kumar Narula. According to the petitioners the deceased was aged about 34 years and his income was about Rs. 4,000/- per month. He was an income tax assessed. The petitioners are, the widow, two minor children of the deceased and the parents of the deceased. The respondent No.1 was alleged to be the driver. Respondent No.2, owner and respondent No.3, insurer of the offending bus. Respondent No.4 Delhi Transport Corporation was imp leaded as the offending bus was running under DTC operation."

3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :

1. Whether deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DEP-5391 (bus) and due to negligent driving of maruti car No. DBB-5007 being driven by the deceased.

2.Whether petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as stated in the written statement of respondent No.3?

3.Whether petitioners are entitled for claim compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

4.Relief.

4. To prove their case, petitioners examined 15 witnesses. PW-1, Head Constable Mahabir Singh, is the eye-witness to the accident. He deposed to the manner in which the offending bus dashed into the maruti car No. DBB-5007. PW-3, Dr. L.K. Barua, conducted the post mortem examination. PW-4, I.D. Singh, Works Manager of M/s Sikand & Company, deposed to the extent of damage of the car. PW-5, R.K. Arora, carried out the inspection of the damage of the car. PW-6, Smt. Anita, is the sister of the deceased. Her deposition is that of an eye-witness as she was in the car at the time of the accident. PW-7, Ram Singh, PW-8, Amar Singh and PW-9, SI Joginder Singh, deposed to the proceedings in the criminal case arising out of the accident. PW-11, Smt. Renu, widow of the deceased, deposed that she was about 35 years of age while the deceased was 33 years of age. She has two children, Jyoti Narula and Deepak Narula aged 12 and 6 years respectively. She also deposed to the fact that the deceased was working at the shop of her father-in-law and was also doing tuition work in addition. The salary of the deceased from the shop was Rs. 2,500/- per month while his earning from tuition work was Rs. 1,500/-. The deceased was a commerce graduate. PW-12, Narinder Kumar Garg, did not produce the records of the Delhi Transport Authority while PW-13, Pran Nath Narula, is the father of the deceased and an eye-witness to the accident. He deposed that his son was working as Manager at his shop and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,450/- per month and was also giving tuition to children of 1st to 5th standard and earning an additional sum of Rs. 1,550/- per month. The employee register of the shop was also exhibited. PW-14, Shri B.B. Srivastava, is the Assistant Commissioner Income Tax while PW-15 is D.M. Goyal of the Allahabad Bank. The respondents, on the other hand, produced RW-1 to prove copy of the agreement, Ex. RW-1/A.

5. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence adduced, decided Issue No.1 in favor of the petitioners to the effect that the deceased, Ashwani Kumar Narula, had sustained fatal injury in the accident in question which took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. DEP-5391 by the 1st respondent. Issue No.2 regarding non-joinder was also decided in favor of the petitioners and against respondent No.3. While deciding Issue No.3, the Tribunal held that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 2,450/- per month and thereby went on to apply the multiplier of '20' after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and, adding on Rs. 18,951/- on account of repairs of the maruti car, awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,18,951/-.

6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal went wrong in not appreciating that the deceased was earning an additional sum of Rs. 1,500/- on account of tuition work and that there is evidence on record to show that he had such an income. He also submits that future prospects have not been taken into consideration.

7. I have heard counsel and carefully gone through the judgment under challenge as also the evidence on record. In the statements of PW-11, Smt. Renu, PW-6, Smt. Anita and PW-13, Shri Pran Nath Narula, father of the deceased, it is stated that the deceased was doing tuition work and earning Rs. 1,550/- per month there from, surely, it cannot be said that there is no evidence to show that the deceased did not have an additional income of Rs. 1,550/- per month from tuition work. No doubt, in column No. 6 of the petition this particular aspect has not been mentioned but incomes included, 'income from property sources', 'fixed deposit' etc. find mention. Since evidence has come on record and permitted to be brought on record, it cannot be brushed aside. I, therefore, hold that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 1,550/- per month on account of tuition work. As regards future prospects, it appears to me that while giving a multiplier of '20', the learned Tribunal has already taken this aspect into consideration and needs no enhancement on that account.

8. In view of my findings above, FAO 55/1994 is remanded to the Tribunal to recalculate the amount. With this modification, the Award of the Tribunal is upheld.

9. FAO 55 of 1994 is disposed of. No order as to costs.