Sh.Siri Lal & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corpn And Anr
2009 Latest Caselaw 1505 Del

     * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       FAO No. 248/1997

                 Judgment reserved on: 5.3.2008
%                Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009


Sh. Siri Lal And Ors.                       ...... Appellants
                        Through: Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Adv.

versus


Delhi Transport Corpn And Anr      ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Adv.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers may
       be allowed to see the judgment?                   No

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?                No

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest?                                    No


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated

26.3.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby

the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,24,272/- along with

interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

3. On 23.5.1984 at about 11 a.m., the deceased boarded

bus bearing registration No. DHP 3853 owned by DTC and

driven by Sh. Mahinder Singh, driver from Naroji Nagar to

go to Raja Garden. Another DTC Bus was standing ahead of

this bus. As soon as the deceased got into the bus, the

driver started the bus speedily without getting any signal

from the conductor and dashed the parked bus very closely

in a very rash and negligent manner due to which the left

rear of bus bearing registration No. DHP 3853 got struck

with the right rear portion of the parked DTC bus as a

result of which the deceased got sandwiched between the

two vehicles and fell down. He was removed to AIIMS by

employee of the DTC where he expired later on, on the

same day.

4. A claim petition was filed on 21.11.1984 and an

award was passed on 26.3.1997. Aggrieved with the said

award enhancement is claimed by way of the present

appeal.

5. Sh. Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellants

contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income

of the deceased at Rs. 1700/- per month whereas after

looking at the facts and circumstances of the case the

tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased

at Rs. 1929/- per month. The counsel further maintained

that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune

of Rs.708/- from the income of the deceased towards

personal expenses when the deceased was supporting a

large family at the time of accident and is survived by his

parents and wife. It was urged by the counsel that the

tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while

computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the

deceased would have earned much more in near future as

he was of 25 yrs of age only and would have been earning

much more in the near future. It was also alleged by the

counsel that the tribunal did not consider the fact that due

to high rates of inflation the deceased would have earned

much more in near future and the tribunal also failed in

appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are

revised twice in an year and hence, the deceased would

have earned much more in her life span.

6. The counsel also contended that the tribunal has

erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love &

affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, mental pain and

sufferings and that an amount of only Rs.10,000/- has been

awarded towards loss of expectancy of life of the deceased.

7. Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, counsel for the respondent - DTC

refuted the contentions of counsel for the appellants &

submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is exorbitant and no further enhancement is

required, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the

award.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

9. The appellants claimants had testified Sh. Suresh

Kumar, Clerk in DTC as PW5 and he had brought on record

the salary slip Ex PW5/1 of the deceased. The deceased

was working as a conductor with DTC, according to him

and the salary slip of the deceased, his total salary was

Rs.858.92 in April 1984 out of which his basic pay was

Rs.2841 and his carry home salary was Rs. 760.92. The

said witness also deposed that the scale of the conductors

on the date of his deposition i.e. 28.6.1993 was Rs. 950-

1500 and he also deposed that the total salary of the

conductor was Rs.2300-2400/- pm. he also testified that the

retirement age of conductor in DTC is 58 years & mostly

the persons who join as a conductor retires as a conductor

and rarely retire as an ATI. PW6 Sh. Siri Lal, father of the

deceased deposed that the deceased was only 25 years of

age at the time of accident and had he been alive and had

not met with the accident then he would have been earning

Rs.3,000/- as a conductor in DTC as pay scale in DTC have

been revised after 4th Pay Commission. But nothing has

been brought on record to prove the same. After

considering all these factors, I am of the view that the

tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the

deceased at Rs.760.92/- on the basis of the salary slip Ex.

PW 5/1 duly proved on record.

10. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions

regarding the income and future prospects of the

deceased are of no help to the claimants in the absence of

any reliable and corroborative evidence being brought on

record.

11. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that

there is no sufficient material on record to award future

prospects. Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in

not granting future prospects in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

12. However, the Tribunal considered the rise in price

index & the effect of 4th Pay Commission and assessed the

income of the deceased at Rs.1700/- p.m. I do not find any

infirmity in the award in this regard and the same is not

interfered.

13. The other contention of the counsel for the appellant

is that deduction of Rs.708/- made by the tribunal are on

the higher side as the deceased is survived by his parents

and wife. The Tribunal adopted unit method for calculating

compensation as the case pertains to the year 1984 and at

that time IInd Schedule was not brought on the Statute

Book. The Tribunal accordingly assessed Rs. 566.66 as

expenses which the deceased would have spent on himself

and Rs.141.66 as expenses towards out of pocket and

transport expenses. The Tribunal assessed dependency of

Rs. 992/- after deducting Rs.708/- as personal expenses in

the light of the decision of the Apex Court in UPSRTC &

Ors vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors 1996 JT (5) 356.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any

infirmity in the award on this count and, thus, no

interference is made in the award in this regard.

15. On the contention regarding that the tribunal erred in

not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection,

funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium, in

this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection

is awarded at Rs.10,000/-. Compensation towards funeral

expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-. Further, Rs. 50,000/-

is awarded towards loss of consortium. Rs.10,000/- has

already been awarded towards loss of expectation of life,

which shall be treated as compensation under the head of

loss to estate.

16. As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of

amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the

appellants due to the sudden demise the deceased and the

loss of services, which were being rendered by the

deceased to the appellants is concerned, I do not feel

inclined to award any amount as compensation towards the

same as the same are not conventional heads of damages.

17. On the basis of the discussion, the total loss of

dependency comes to Rs. 2,14,272/- as calculated by the

tribunal. After considering Rs. 80,000/-, which is granted

towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation

comes out as Rs. 2,94,272/-.

18. In view of the above discussion, the total

compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,94,272/- from Rs.

2,24,272/-, thus, the differential amount shall be paid with

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the

petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the

appellants by the respondent insurance company in the

same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal

19. With the above direction, the present appeal is

disposed of.

20.4.2009                    KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
'raj'