Associates Traders & Engg.Ltd. vs Bharti Rana & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 4545 Del

28
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +       FAO.No.307/1980

%                              Date of decision: 9th November, 2009


      ASSOCIATES TRADERS & ENGG.LTD.            ..... Appellant
                    Through : Mr. R.K. Kohli, Adv.

                   versus

      BHARTI RANA & ORS                        .....Respondents
                    Through : Mr. H.S. Dhir and
                              Mr. Ataul Haque, Advs.
                              for R-1 and 3.
                              Ms. Harsh Lata, Adv. for
                              Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv.
                              for OIC.


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.50,000/- has been awarded

to claimants/respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The accident dated 19th November, 1966 resulted in the

death of Surendra Singh Rana. The deceased left behind his

widow and minor son who filed the claim petition before the

learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was aged 26 years at the time of the accident

and was working as a teacher with Higher Secondary School,

Alipur Road, Delhi earning Rs.220.50 per month.

4. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of

Rs.50,000/- to claimants/respondents No.1 and 2.

5. The appellant is the registered owner of the offending

vehicle which was driven by respondent No.4 and insured by

respondent No.5 at the time of the accident.

6. The learned Tribunal has held the liability of respondent

No.5 to be Rs.20,000/- along with interest thereon on the ground

that the liability of respondent No.5 was limited. The remaining

award amount, i.e., Rs.30,000/- along with interest thereon has

been directed to be paid by the appellant.

7. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the

short ground that the offending vehicle was in the ownership of

respondent No.3 and, therefore, the liability of the appellant of

Rs.30,000/- along with interest thereon should have been

imposed on respondent No.3.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that

the appellant was the registered owner of the offending vehicle

at the time of the accident. In that view of the matter, the

appellant is liable to pay the award amount being registered

owner of the offending vehicle and there is no merit in the ground

raised by learned counsel for the appellant at the time of the

hearing on this appeal.

9. Claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 have filed cross-

objections seeking enhancement of the award amount.

10. The deceased was aged 26 years at the time of the accident

and was earning Rs.220/- at the time of the accident. The

deceased had permanent employment and, therefore, 50% is

added towards future prospects and the income of the deceased

at the time of the accident is taken to be Rs.330/- per month.

1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and

the dependency of the claimants is taken to be Rs.220/- per

month. The appropriate multiplier at the age of 26 years is 17

and, therefore, by applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of

dependency of the claimants is computed to be Rs.44,880/-.

Considering that the accident relates to the year 1996, Rs.5,120/-

is computed towards loss of consortium, loss of love and

affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses. The total

compensation is computed to be Rs.50,000/-.

11. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- though for

different reasons. This case is squarely covered by Section 167

of the Indian Evidence Act which provides that if the learned

Tribunal has ignored some relevant evidence or has taken into

consideration some irrelevant evidence, it shall not be a ground

for setting aside the judgment of the learned Tribunal if on

inclusion of relevant evidence wrongly excluded or exclusion of

irrelevant evidence wrongly considered, the result remains the

same. By applying the well settled principles of law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129, the

quantum of compensation in this case is computed to be

Rs.50,000/-. No ground of enhancement is made out. The award

of compensation of Rs.50,000/- by the learned Tribunal is upheld

for the reasons stated hereinabove.

12. The appeal as well as cross-objections are dismissed.

13. Ms. Rajni Sharma, Manager of the appellant company is

present in the Court and she submits that she has paid the

principal award amount of Rs.30,000/- as back as on 19th May,

1982 and the outstanding interest shall be paid to

claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 before this Court.

14. The learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 and 2

submit that they have not received the principal award amount of

Rs.30,000/-. Let both the parties file their respective affidavits

and statements of account before this Court on the next date of

hearing.

15. The payment due and outstanding according to the

appellant be made before this Court on the next date of hearing.

Claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to remain present

in the Court on the next date of hearing.

16. List on 16th December, 2009.

17. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel for the

parties under signatures of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

NOVEMBER 09, 2009 aj