Uttar Pradesh State Road ... vs Dr.Indu Bala & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 5143 Del

26
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +   MAC.APP.No.675/2007

                               Date of Decision: 11th December, 2009
%

      UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
      CORPORATIOIN                     ..... Appellant
                   Through : Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv.

                      versus

      DR.INDU BALA & ORS.             ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.
                              Adv. with Mr. Milind P.
                              Singh, Adv. for R-1 to 3.

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                  YES
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                 YES

3.      Whether the judgment should be                         YES
        reported in the Digest?

                          JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.14,24,760/- has been

awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 3.

2. The accident dated 27th November, 1998 resulted in the

death of Kamal Kishore Remi. The deceased was survived by

his widow, one minor son, one minor daughter and mother

who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was aged 41 years at the time of the

accident and was a qualified doctor working with Indian

Counsel for Medical Research earning Rs.21,153/- per month.

The learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased as

Rs.17,753/- after permissible deductions, deducted 1/3rd

towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applied

the multiplier of 13 to compute the loss of dependency at

Rs.27,69,520/-. The learned Tribunal held the appellant's

liability to be 50% and, therefore, reduced the aforesaid

amount to 50% i.e. Rs.13,84,760/-. Rs.40,000/- has been

awarded towards loss of estate, funeral expenses,

transportation of body and loss of consortium. The total

compensation awarded is Rs.14,24,760/-.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the

following two grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) The driver of the appellant's bus was not at all

negligent and, therefore, the appellant is not

liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

(ii) The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal be

reduced.

5. With respect to the first ground of challenge, it is noted

that the deceased was travelling in appellant's bus No.UP-81-

F-2745 while going from Dadri to Delhi. There was a head-on

collision of the said bus with truck No.H-29-C-785. The police

registered the case of rash and negligent driving against the

bus driver. The site plan prepared by the police shows that

the head-on collision between both the vehicles took place in

the middle of the road. The learned Tribunal has given a

finding of contributory negligence of both the vehicles. The

finding of the learned Tribunal with respect to the 50%

contributory negligence of both the vehicles is upheld.

6. With respect to the second ground of challenge, the

learned counsel for the appellant submits that the GPF of

Rs.2,200/- should be deducted from the salary of Rs.17,753/-

of the deceased. There is no merit in this submission. The

GPF forms part of the income of the deceased for

computation of compensation. It is noted that the learned

Tribunal has awarded lower amount of compensation.

According to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129, the appropriate

multiplier at the age of 41 is 14 and the appropriate

deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is

1/4th as the deceased has left behind four legal

representatives whereas the learned Tribunal has applied the

multiplier of 13 and has taken the personal expenses of the

deceased as 1/3rd instead of 1/4th. However, since there are

no cross-objections by the claimants, no further order is

required to be passed in this regard.

7. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

8. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount

along with interest with the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad on 15 th

December, 2007 by virtue of the orders passed in the

execution proceedings but the said amount was not released

to the claimants in view of the ex-parte stay order obtained

by the appellant from this Court on 7 th December, 2007. The

stay order was finally vacated by this Court on 31 st August,

2009 and the amount was deposited by the Tehsildar,

Ghaziabad with UCO Bank on 16th November, 2009. The

amount deposited by the appellant with the Tehsildar,

Ghaziabad included interest up to 7th December, 2007.

9. The learned Senior Counsel for claimants/respondents

NO.1 to 3 submit that the claimants are entitled to interest

for the period 7th December, 2007 up to 16th November, 2009

as there was a stay order which was ultimately vacated by

this Court. The learned counsel refers to and relies upon the

judgments in the cases of Haryana Engineering &

Foundry Water vs. UOI, 1998(47) DRJ 172;

MANU/DE/1171/1998, Delhi Development Authority vs.

Bhai Sardar Singh & Sons, 158(2009) DLT; 2009(109)

DRJ 384 and M/s Engineering Projects India Ltd. vs.

Arvind Construction Co. Ltd., MANU/DE/0744/2009.

10. Following the aforesaid judgments, it is held that

claimants/respondents N o.1 to 3 are entitled to interest on

the principal award amount from 7th December, 2007 to 16th

November, 2009. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest

@10% per annum. However, in the facts and circumstances

of this case, it is held that the appellant shall be liable to pay

interest @5.5% per annum on the principal award amount

from 7th December, 2007 up to 16th November, 2009 if the

same is deposited within 30 days failing which the appellant

shall be liable to pay the interest @10% per annum as per

the original award. The interest amount be deposited by the

appellant with UCO Bank A/c Dr. Indu Bala within 30 days.

11. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, UCO Bank

is directed to release the same to respondent No.1 by

transferring the said amount to the Saving Bank Account of

respondent No.1.

12. UCO Bank is also directed to release the three FDRs

issued in terms of the order dated 19th November, 2009 with

the endorsement that claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 shall

not be entitled to raise any loan or withdraw the amount

before the expiry of the period of FDR without the permission

of this Court.

13. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel

for the parties under the signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

DECEMBER 11, 2009 aj