Smt. Neeta Jha & Anr. vs Suraj Bhan & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4853 Del

39
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +       MAC.APP.No.13/2009

%                               Date of decision: 26th November, 2009


      SMT. NEETA JHA & ANR.                     ..... Appellants
                     Through:        Mr. Arjayveer Singh Jain and
                                     Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advs.
                     versus

      SURAJ BHAN & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
                    Through:         Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv.

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 appellants have challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.1,33,000/- has been

awarded to the appellants. The appellants seek enhancement of

the award amount.

2. The accident dated 8th January, 1990 resulted in death of

Pradeep Kumar Jha. The deceased was survived by his widow

and son who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was 28 years at the time of the accident and

was employed with M/s. Magnavision Electronics Ltd. at a

monthly salary of Rs.1,500/-. Appellant No.1 appeared in the

witness box and deposed that the deceased was working with

M/s. Magnavision Electronics Ltd., A-12, Commercial Complex,

Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110024 at a salary of Rs.1,500/-

p.m. The appellants also proved the original certificate issued by

M/s. Magnavision Electronics Ltd. certifying that the deceased

was working with them at a basic salary of Rs.1,500/- was being

paid to him. The original certificate of M/s.Magnavision

Electronics Ltd. was exhibited as Ex.PW1/1.

4. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the statement of PW1 as

well as Ex.PW1/1 on the ground that the witness from M/s.

Magnavision Electronics Ltd. has not been summoned to prove

the same. The finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard is

misconceived and is set aside. It has time and again been

emphasized by this Court that proceedings before the learned

Tribunal are not in the nature of civil trial. Section 168 of the

Motor Vehicles Act provides that the Tribunal shall conduct an

inquiry. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act further provides

that the inquiry shall be summary in nature and the Tribunal shall

formulate such procedure as it thinks fit. The duty has been cast

on the learned Tribunal to conduct an inquiry to find out all the

relevant facts including income of the deceased to award

compensation in accordance with law.

5. The income of the deceased has been sufficiently proved by

the statement of PW1 and Ex.PW1/1. However, if the learned

Tribunal had any doubt on the veracity of the statement or the

genuineness of the document, the leaned Tribunal could have

conducted further inquiry into the matter. However, the learned

Tribunal failed to discharge the duty cast by law.

6. Be that as it may, this Court finds the evidence of PW1 and

Ex.PW1/1 sufficient to prove the income of the deceased to be

Rs.1,500/- per month. The deceased was aged 28 years at the

time of the accident and 50% is added towards future prospects

following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6)

Scale 129 and the income of the deceased for computation of

compensation is taken to be Rs.2,250/- (Rs.1,500 + 50%). 1/3 is

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the

loss of dependency is taken to be Rs.1,500/- per month. Applying

the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is computed to be

Rs.3,24,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-

towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of

consortium and loss of estate and loss of love and affection which

is fair and reasonable. However, no compensation is awarded for

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

The appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,59,000/-

(Rs.3,24,000 + Rs.5,000 + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.10,000/-).

7. The appeal is allowed and the award amount is enhanced

from Rs.1,33,000/- to Rs.3,59,000/-. The learned Tribunal has

awarded interest @ 9% per annum which is not disturbed on the

original award amount of Rs.1,33,000/-. However, on the

enhanced award amount, the rate of interest shall be @7.5% per

annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

8. The enhanced award amount along with interest be deposited

by respondent No.3 with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch A/c

Neeta Jha by means of a cheque to be handed over to Mr. M.M.

Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament

Street, New Delhi (Mobile No. 09310356400) within 20 days.

9. The order with respect to the disbursement of the award

amount shall be passed after examining the appellants who are

directed to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.

10. List the appeal on 22nd December, 2009.

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

both the parties under signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 26, 2009 s.pal