Delhi High Court

Uttar Pradesh State Road ... vs Neeru @ Namrata & Anr. on 22 October, 2009

Author: J.R. Midha

29 & 30
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Date of decision: 22nd October, 2009


                      +      MAC.APP.No.139/2008

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

                    versus

      RAM RATI & ORS.             ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Alok Kumar and
                              Ms. Manisha Aggarwal, Advs.

                        +         MAC.APP. 154/2008

      UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD
      TRANSPORT CORPORATION                 ..... Appellant
                   Through : Ms. Garima Parshad, Adv.

                    versus

      NEERU @ NAMRATA & ANR.            ..... Respondents
                  Through Mr. Alok Kumar and
                            Ms. Manisha Aggarwal, Advs.

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 common award passed by

the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.6,42,000/- has

been awarded in respect of the death of Mukesh Kumar Tiwari

and Rs.4,38,000/- has been awarded in respect of the death of

Meena Tiwari to the claimants.

2. The accident dated 28th June, 2005 resulted in the death of

Mukesh Kumar Tiwari and his wife, Meena Tiwari. Mukesh Kumar

Tiwari was survived by his mother and two minor children who

filed separate claim petitions for compensation arising out of the

death of their parents before the learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased were travelling in Maruti Van bearing

No.DL3C-F-8636 near Dhanipur, G.T. Road near Aligarh, when the

UP Roadways bus bearing No.UP14-G-9608 came from behind

and hit the Maruti Van. Satish Kumar Tiwari, brother of the

deceased was also travelling in the Maruti Van at the time of the

accident and he appeared as PW-1 before the learned Tribunal

and deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the UP Roadways bus bearing No.UP14-G-

9608. PW-1 proved the FIR - Ex.PW-1/9, challan - Ex.PW-1/10

post mortem report - Ex.PW-1/11, mechanical inspection

report - Ex.PW-1/12 and the site plan prepared by the

police - Ex.PW-1/13.

4. The driver of the UP Roadways bus appeared as R1W1 and

deposed that the Maruti Van came from behind the bus and

overtook the bus and collided with some other truck. R1W1

further deposed that the bus did not touch the Maruti Van. The

statement of R1W1 is contrary to the plea taken in the written

statement of the driver of UP Roadways bus. In the written

statement, it has been pleaded that the Maruti Van was

overtaking the bus from behind when a truck came from the

opposite side whereupon the driver of the van applied the brakes

and the van overturned on the road.

5. From the testimony of PW-1 corroborated by the FIR,

challan and the site plan, it has been proved that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the UP

Roadways bus bearing No.UP14-G-9608.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged two

grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal. The first ground of

challenge is that the accident in question did not occur due to the

rash and negligent driving of the UP Roadways bus. The second

ground of challenge is that the amount awarded by the learned

Tribunal is on the higher side. The respondents have filed counter

claim seeking the enhancement of the award amount.

7. The plea taken by the appellant is clearly contrary to the

statement of R1W1. There is no evidence of collision between

Maruti Van and the truck as per the record of investigating

agency. R1W1 has also not even cared to give the number of the

truck. The case set up by the appellant in the written statement

and in the statement of R1W1 was not even put to PW-1 in cross-

examination.

8. From the evidence of PW-1 corroborated by the FIR - Ex.PW-

1/9, challan - Ex.PW-1/10, post mortem report - Ex.PW-1/11,

mechanical inspection report - Ex.PW-1/12 and the site plan

prepared by the police - Ex.PW-1/13., it has been proved by

sufficient evidence that the accident in question occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of UP Roadways bus bearing

No.UP14-G-9608. The appellant has taken contradictory pleas in

the written statement and in the evidence of R1W1. The finding

of the learned Tribunal with respect to the rash and negligent

driving of the UP Roadways bus is correct and is upheld.

9. The deceased, Mukesh Kumar Tiwari was aged 33 years at

the time of the accident and was working as a driver earning

Rs.5,000/- per month. The salary certificate was proved as

Ex.PW1/7. However, the learned Tribunal did not consider the

aforesaid income of the deceased and took into consideration the

minimum wages of Rs.3,488/- for skilled worker. The learned

Tribunal presumed the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/-

per month. The multiplier of 17 was applied and after deducting

1/3rd towards personal expenses and adding Rs.10,000/- towards

loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation expenses,

Rs.6,42,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that having

taken the minimum wages of Rs.3,488/- for skilled worker, the

income of the deceased should not have been taken to be

Rs.4,500/- per month.

11. It is well-settled by the catena of judgments of this Court in

the cases of Kanwar Devi vs. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ

2182, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi

III (2008) ACC 134 and UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi,

MAC.APP.No.310/2007 decided on 28.07.2008 that the Court

should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet

the increase in price index and inflation rate. This Court has taken

the view that the minimum wages get doubled over the period of

10 years and increase in minimum wages is not akin to future

prospects.

12. Following the aforesaid judgments, the income of the

deceased according to the minimum wages is computed to be

Rs.5,232/- [(Rs.3,488 + Rs.6,976)/ 2]. The learned Tribunal has

taken the lower amount than computable according to law. The

income of the deceased is taken to be Rs 5,232/- per month.

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

and the loss of dependency of the claimants is computed to be

Rs.3,488/- (5,232 x 2/3). The deceased was aged 32 years at the

time of the accident and, therefore, the learned Tribunal applied

the multiplier of 17 according to the Second Schedule. However,

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 for the age of 32

years is 16. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,

the multiplier of 17 is not disturbed. However, this case shall not

be treated as a precedent with respect to the multiplier applied.

By applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency is

computed to be Rs.7,11,552/- (Rs.3,488 x 12 x 17). Rs.10,000/-

is awarded towards loss of love and affection. The learned

Tribunal has awarded Rs 10,000/- each towards loss of estate,

funeral expenses and transportation expenses of dead body,

which is upheld. The total compensation is computed to be

Rs.7,51,552/- (Rs.7,11,552 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000

+ Rs.10,000).

13. With respect to the death of Meena Tiwari, housewife aged

25 years, the learned Tribunal has taken the value of services to

the family to be Rs.3,000/- per month following the judgment of

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadwa Vs State

of Bihar, (8) SCC 197. The learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd

towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 17 to

compute the loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal awarded

Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and

transportation expenses of dead body. The total compensation

awarded is Rs.4,38,000/-.

14. The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent submits

that the value of the services of Meena Tiwari be taken to be at

least equal to the minimum wages of Rs.3,488/- per month for

skilled worker. The learned counsel for the claimants submit that

in the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

considered Rs.3,000/- as value of service of a housewife in

respect of an accident pertaining to the year 1989.

15. The learned counsel for the claimants further submits that

the multiplier be increased from 17 to 18 in view of recent

judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla

Verma (supra). The learned counsel further submits that the

deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased is

liable to be set aside as no deduction was made by the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadwa (supra). The learned

counsel also seeks compensation towards loss of love and

affection.

16. With respect to the value of service of the housewife,

considering the status of the family of the deceased, no case for

taking higher amount is made out. However, the learned counsel

for the claimants is right in contending that no deduction of 1/3 rd

is permissible while assessing the value of the services of the

housewife. Reference in this regard be made to para 11 of the

judgment in Lata Wadhwa‟s case which is reproduced hereunder:-

"So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000/- per annum in cases of some and Rs.10,000/- for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration, the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore should be re-calculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs.36,000/- and therefore applying the multiplier, as has been applied."

17. Following aforesaid judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the

deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is set aside.

According to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the

case of Sarla Verma (supra), the appropriate multiplier is 18

instead of 17 and, therefore, the multiplier is enhanced from 17

to 18. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection.

The claimants are entitled to the total compensation of

Rs.6,88,000/- [(Rs.3,000 x 12 x 18) + 10,000 + 10,000 + 10,000

+ 10,000]

18. Both the appeals are dismissed. The cross objections are

allowed. The award amount in respect of death of Mukesh Kumar

Tiwari is enhanced from Rs.6,42,000/- to Rs.7,51,552/- and in