U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Anita Verma And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 55 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The 6 captioned appeals and the 2 cross-objections in F.A.O. Nos. 864 and 865 of 2003 arise out of the same accident involving a bus owned by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and a Maruti car bearing No. DL 1 C-F 0943.

2. Admittedly, the bus and the car had a collision. This fact has not been disputed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. However, parties were at variance as to how the accident took place and who was rash and negligent.

3. As a result of the accident Anoop Verma, Nitesh Verma, Renuka Verma and S.K. Singhal, all traveling in the car died. Anita Verma and Ashish Verma sustained injuries.

4. Dependants of the deceased filed claims for compensation. The injured did likewise.

5. After discussing the evidence on record pertaining to the accident and holding the driver of the bus guilty of rash and negligent driving, learned Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation to the claimants.

6. Since a common question arises in all the appeals pertaining to the findings of the Tribunal relating to the manner in which the accident took place, it would be advisable for me to look into the findings of the Tribunal and the evidence on record to satisfy myself regarding the findings returned by the Tribunal.

7. Suffice would it be to record that principles of res ipsa loquitur apply. If, the admitted facts brought on record are such wherefrom an inference can be drawn akin to the facts speaking for themselves, I need do no more but to apply the principles of res ipsa loquitur after noting the admitted facts.

8. The first and foremost admitted fact is that the bus in question and the motor vehicle met with an accident. The second admitted fact is that the bus was proceeding from the town of Rishikesh to town of Hafidwar. The next admitted fact is that Maruti car was proceeding from Haridwar town to Rishikesh. The next admitted fact is that the car was found at a distance backwards by 10 ft from the site where the vehicles collided. The next admitted fact is that the front of the car was found facing the town of Haridwar. The next admitted fact is that the car was on the left side of the road and the bus was found on the wrong side. The next admitted fact is that the front of the car was totally smashed and the car was totally written off. The next admitted fact is that 4 out of the 6 persons traveling in the car died at the spot.

9. The aforesaid facts are sufficient to establish that the car was hit with great momentum.

10. Weight of a moving object multiplied by its speed gives to us the momentum.

11. The damage caused to the car shows that the bus and the car collided with each other at a higher speed. It could be argued that an inference could be drawn that either both were driving at a high speed or either one of them was being driven at a very high speed. To break this impasse it would be relevant to project the fact that it was the bus which was on the wrong side. The said fact establishes that it was the bus which went out of control and a presumption would, therefore, legitimately arise that the driver, being in high speed, lost control of the bus. The inference gets fortified by the fact that the car was pushed back by 10 ft. If the bus was in normal speed and the car was being driven at a very high speed, the car would not have been pushed back by 10 ft. Obviously, even after the impact, the bus continued to move at least a distance of 10 ft. This also shows that it was the bus which was being driven at a break neck speed. Lastly, the car reversing its position shows that the car rotated by 180°. It is impossible for the car to have rotated by 180° if the bus was not traveling at a high speed and the car was being driven at a high speed.

12. Admitted facts speak for themselves and, therefore, I need speak no further. However, we have the testimony of two surviving occupants of the car who have withstood the test of cross-examination. Apart there from we have the testimony of PW 10, Kishan Chand who was traveling on a two-wheeler scooter and was behind the car moving from Haridwar to Rishikesh when the accident took place. He is an independent eyewitness. He is the author of the F.I.R. which was registered at P.S. Raiwala. The accident admittedly took place at 10.45 a.m. The F.I.R. was registered at 11.10 a.m. In the F.I.R., PW 10 had disclosed that bus in question was being driven at a speed of 70-80 kmph and that the car was being driven approximately at the speed of 35-40 kmph.

13. The time lag between the accident and the F.I.R. is hardly 25 minutes. There would hardly be any occasion for PW 10 to be tutored by the relatives of the deceased persons.

14. That apart, the driver and the conductor of the bus who deposed in favor of appellant as R1/W1 and R2/W2 attempted to shift the burden on the shoulders of the driver of the car. In cross-examination R1/W2 admitted that after the accident, the bus hit a tree on the left side of the road. This admission of R1/W2 completely belies the version of the accident as projected by the appellant being that the car was attempting to overtake the bus from the wrong side. If that was so, where was the occasion for the bus to have hit the tree on the wrong side of the road. Inherently, the theory is preposterous because the bus and the car collided head-on evidenced by the fact that the front side of the car was totally smashed up and the front side of the bus showed that it was hit with a blunt object.

15. I am in perfect agreement with the findings of the learned Tribunal that the evidence on record establishes that the driver of the bus was guilty of causing the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. I am in agreement with the finding that the evidence on record negates any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car.

16. Dealing with the compensation determined to the claimants, pertaining to Anoop Verma, learned Tribunal has noted that Meera Devi, mother of the deceased and a minor brother and sister of the deceased were claimants. For some reasons, father of the deceased could not join as a claimant. He was imp leaded as respondent No. 5. Rejecting the testimony of the mother of the deceased pertaining to the earnings of the son and noting that there was no evidence to show the qualifications of the deceased, compensation has been determined in the context of the minimum wages payable to unskilled workers. Minimum wages payable to unskilled workers as of 2.6.1998 was Rs. 1,937 per month. This has been adopted. Appropriating 1/3rd as the personal expenses of the deceased, loss of dependency has been worked out treating loss to the family at Rs. 1,300 per month. Multiplier of 17 has been adopted. Total compensation granted is Rs. 2,65,200. Rs. 5,000 has been awarded for funeral expenses and Rs. 30,000 for loss of the deceased to the family due to his untimely death.

17. In F.A.O. No. 867 of 2003 award has been challenged pertaining to the compensation granted on account of death of Anoop Verma.

18. Except for a vague statement in the grounds of appeal that the compensation awarded is excessive, no specific ground has been urged as to in what manner the computation of compensation is bad in law.

19. At this stage, I may note that the appeal and the grounds of appeal in F.A.O. Nos. 864, 866, 867 and 871 of 2003 are photocopies of each other.

20. In all the appeals on same set of grounds urged, quantum of compensation has been questioned.

21. Death of each deceased had different consequences on the family members. The age of the deceased was different. The surviving family members were different. I fail to understand as to how same set of grounds of appeal could justify a challenge to different facts relating to the compensation awarded in different cases.

22. I do not find any infirmity in the compensation awarded to the claimants of Anoop Verma. I therefore dismiss F.A.O. No. 867 of 2003.

23. Since grounds of appeal in F.A.O. No. 864 of 2003 are a verbatim copy of grounds of appeal in F.A.O. No. 867 of 2003,1 get no clue as to in what manner compensation awarded to Anita Verma the respondent in the appeal is stated to be excessive.

24. Qua Anita Verma, I may note that she is the mother of Nitesh Verma. As per the award Nitesh Verma was aged 11 years and was a student of class VI, Gyan Sarovar Public School. Learned Tribunal has granted lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the mother.

25. No grounds have been urged to show as to how lump sum compensation awarded to the mother on death of her only son in sum of Rs. 1,50,000 is excessive.

26. As noted above, Cross-objections No. 253 of 2006 have been filed in F.A.O. No. 864 of 2003.

27. In the cross-objection, the mother has stated that the compensation awarded is inadequate.

28. I note the decision of the Supreme Court reported as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender .

29. Apex Court has drawn a distinction in compensation to be paid where the age of the child is above 10 years and less than 10 years. It has been held that traditionally, courts in India have been recognizing that a child of tender age could not show his future propensities and, therefore, it would be impossible to determine the future prospects of such a child.

30. A child above 10 years shows his acumen evidenced by his ratings in the school and some measures of his provisional excellence can be gathered there from.

31. In the decision noted in para 28 above, compensation to the parents for the death of a child aged 9 years was granted at Rs. 1,80,000.

32. Considering that Nitesh was aged 11 years and was a student of a public school and was studying in class VI, following the decision of the Supreme Court, I enhance the compensation awarded to the mother by increasing the same by a further sum of Rs. 1,25,000.

33. Cross-objection No. 253 of 2006 accordingly stands allowed. The award pertaining to the death of Nitesh Verma decided vide Suit No. 1462 of 1998 by the learned M.A.C.T. is modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 2,75,000.

34. I further direct that the enhanced compensation shall be paid to Anita Verma together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realisation.

35. In F.A.O. No. 876 of 2003 award has been challenged insofar it relates to the claim of Ashish Verma. I find that no specific ground has been urged in the appeal pertaining to the compensation allowed. I therefore dismiss F.A.O. No. 876 of 2003.

36. In F.A.O. No. 866 of 2003 compensation granted to Anita Verma, mother of Nitesh Verma for injuries sustained by Anita Verma has been questioned. As noted above, Anita Verma was also a passenger in the car. The grounds of appeal are photocopy of the grounds urged in F.A.O. No. 867 of 2003.

37. I get no clue as to on what account compensation granted to Anita Verma for injuries sustained by her have been questioned.

38. I have otherwise perused the award pertaining to Anita Verma. Her claim has been discussed under Suit No. 1463 of 1998. For injuries sustained by her compensation awarded is Rs. 20,000. Rs. 5,000 for reimbursement of medical expenses has been allowed to her.

39. As a result of the accident she had suffered head injury (right parietal region). Considering the nature of injury I do not find sum of Rs. 20,000 awarded to her as compensation is excessive.

40. F.A.O. No. 866 of 2003 is accordingly dismissed.

41. In F.A.O. No. 865 of 2003 compensation awarded to Anil Kumar Verma, Ashish Verma and Akash Verma has been questioned.

42. Claim of these 3 persons arose on account of the death of Renuka Verma. Her husband and two sons were the claimants.

43. The compensation determined to these claimants has been considered by the Tribunal under Suit No. 1464 of 1998.

44. It was stated by her husband that the deceased was an expert worker of meena-kari and dastkari, an art to manufacture kundan jewellery. It was stated by them that she would procure work from many jewellers. It was stated that she was aged 31 years.

45. The learned Tribunal has rejected the testimony of the husband. Learned Tribunal has noted that the persons from whom the deceased was procuring work have not been examined. Compensation has been worked out treating the deceased being a housewife. In view of the decision of the Apex Court that even a housewife contributes to the family, learned Tribunal has treated that contribution of the deceased to the family could be taken at Rs. 3,000 per month. Deducting 50 per cent as the personal spending of the deceased, compensation has been awarded by treating the loss to the family at Rs. 18,000 per annum. Multiplier adopted is 17. Compensation worked out is Rs. 3,06,000. Rs. 5,000 for funeral charges and Rs. 20,000 for pain and suffering of the family on account of the untimely death of the deceased have been awarded.

46. I do not find any worthwhile objection raised as to how the award pertaining to the death of Renuka Verma suffers from an infirmity as projected by the appellant.

47. As noted above, Cross-objection No. 254 of 2006 has been preferred in the present appeal.

48. The cross-objections are predicated on the ground that the income of the deceased ought to have been determined in the context of minimum wages.

49. I agree with the submission made by learned Counsel for the respondents for the reason that contribution of the housewife quantified in material terms is a notional income which goes to the family. Question of appropriating one-third or one-half as the personal expenses of the deceased housewife does not arise. The contribution of the housewife to the family has to be allowed in toto to the family.

50. The award pertaining to Suit No. 1464 of 1998 is accordingly liable to be modified in that the compensation to the family is liable to be enhanced.

51. It could logically be argued that since the Tribunal has reduced the annual loss by half, compensation awarded should be doubled.

52. Considering that the age of the deceased was 31 years, multiplier of 17 has been adopted. There is hardly any evidence of the age of the husband and the children but I would presume that assuming that the husband was 5 or 6 years elder to his wife, his age would be 36 years. Even on said count multiplier comes to 17.

53. I accordingly modify the award pertaining to Suit No. 1464 of 1998 by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 3,31,000 to Rs. 6,37,000. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,06,000 shall be paid together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till date of realisation. The amount would be distributed amongst the husband and the children of the deceased in the same manner as has been directed under the award.

54. Noting that the present appeal is being decided after only 9 years of the accident I do not direct any amount to be kept in fixed deposit. Enhanced compensation would be paid over to the claimants.

55. In F.A.O. No. 871 of 2003 the compensation awarded to Rekha Singhal, Abhishek Singhal and Ashish Singhal, the wife and minor children of the deceased S.K. Singhal is not challenged.

56. The learned Tribunal has dealt with the compensation to these claimants under Suit No. 11 of 1999.

57. From the grounds of appeal I note that it is a photocopy of the grounds urged in F.A.O. No. 867 of 2003.

58. No specific amount has been urged as to in what manner compensation awarded is excessive.

59. These claimants have got compensation on account of death of S.K. Singhal aged 43 years. The deceased was employed with the Public Works Department, State of Uttar Pradesh. K.R. Verma, Junior Engineer from the Public Works Department, State of Uttar Pradesh was examined as PW 2. He proved the last drawn salary certificate of the deceased as Exh. PW 2/2. He also proved the annual increments which deceased would have got. In the context of the salary certificates and after taking the personal expenses of the deceased being one-third of the income, loss to the family has been accorded.

60. I find no infirmity in the award insofar it determines the compensation to the family members of S.K. Singhal. F.A.O. No. 871 of 2003 is dismissed.

61. All appeals are dismissed. Cross-objections are allowed in Appeal Nos. 864 and 865 of 2003 as per paras 33 and 53 above.

62. No costs.