Dtc & Anr. vs Sushma Bhatnagar & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2761 Del

 a*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                  Date of Reserve: April 08, 2010
                                                     Date of Order: May 25, 2010
+ FAO 161/1994
%                                                                   25.05.2010
    Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.                         ...Appellants
    Through: nemo

         Versus

         Sushma Bhatnagar & Ors.                    ...Respondents
         Through: Mr. Varun Kumar and Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocates

AND

+ FAO 194/1994
%
    Sushma Bhatnagar & Ors.                    ...Appellants
    Through: Mr. Varun Kumar and Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocates


         Versus

         Lal Singh & Anr.                                      ...Respondents
         Through: nemo


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?



         JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the above two appeals

assailing an order dated 6th May, 1994 passed by learned Motor

Accident Claim Tribunal (Tribunal for short). The first appeal being FAO

161 of 1994 was preferred by DTC whereby DTC has assailed the order

of Tribunal on the ground that the learned Tribunal wrongly came to

FAO Nos. 161 & 194 of 1994 Page 1 Of 5 conclusion that the accident was caused by the driver of DTC bus. It is

submitted that the accident was caused due to negligence of the

deceased who was trying to cross the crossing at red light when signal

was red by overtaking the bus.

2. The other grounds taken by the appellant are that the Tribunal

did not calculate the compensation properly as per the law laid down in

various judgments and the Tribunal wrongly computed the

compensation. The Tribunal gravely erred in not reducing the damages

by Rs.80,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- received by the dependents

on account of group insurance scheme, gratuity and payment for death

on duty from the employer. It is also stated that the Tribunal wrongly

awarded 12% interest.

3. The second appeal being FAO No.194 of 1994 is filed by the

claimants assailing the quantum of compensation awarded on the

ground that the Tribunal did not take into account the correct

parameters and did not award amount on account of loss of love and

affection, loss of consortium and the Tribunal wrongly applied a

multiplier of 10 and allowed only a sum of Rs.4,80,000/-

4. The facts relevant for purpose of deciding these appeals are that

Shri Ramesh Swaroop Bhatnagar while going on his two wheeler

scooters on 5th December 1987 had stopped his scooter at traffic signal

since the signal was red. In the meanwhile, DTC bus number DHP 3564

driven by DTC driver came from behind and ran over the deceased. The

deceased succumbed to the injuries on 6th December 1987. The

FAO Nos. 161 & 194 of 1994 Page 2 Of 5 deceased was working as an Assistant Manager in Tool Room & Training

Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Area and was earning Rs.4223/- per month

at the time of accident. His age was 41 years at the time of death. He

left behind a wife and two daughters as dependents. The Tribunal after

considering the evidence led before it came to conclusion that the

accident took place due to negligence of the driver of DTC bus. The

Tribunal considered the income of the deceased. It was proved on

record that the salary of the deceased was Rs.4223/- per month. The

deceased was also getting Rs.1200/- per month as productivity linked

bonus. Thus, it was considered that income of the deceased per month

was Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal considered future prospects of the

deceased and assessed income of the deceased after future prospects

as Rs.6,000/- per month. Out of it, one-third was deducted on account

of personal expenses. Considering the age of deceased, the Tribunal

applied a multiplier of 10 and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,80,000/-.

5. A perusal of testimony of PW-5 Head Constable Bhanu Sanjay, a

witness to the accident being on duty at the crossing at Liberty Cinema

where the accident took place would show that the DTC bus number

DHP 3564 came at a fast speed from behind the scooter on which

deceased was sitting and hit the stationary scooter of the deceased

from behind, resulting into fall of deceased on left side or the road and

front wheel of the bus ran over him. The driver was apprehended by the

same head constable on the spot. PCR came and the driver was handed

over to PCR. No suggestion was given to this witness that the deceased

was trying to jump the red light or it was deceased who was negligent. I

FAO Nos. 161 & 194 of 1994 Page 3 Of 5 consider that the Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that the

negligence was on the part of DTC driver due to which deceased lost his

life in the accident.

6. As far as calculation of compensation was concerned, I consider

that after Smt. Sarla Varma's case, just and fair compensation has to be

calculated as per parameters laid down by the Supreme Court. There is

no dispute about the fact that income of deceased was Rs.4223/- per

month and deceased was also getting productivity bonus of about

Rs.1,000/- per month. Thus the monthly income of the deceased would

be Rs.5223/-. The deceased was paying income tax of around Rs.223/-

per month. His salary after deductions of income tax would be around

Rs.5,000/-. In view of the fact that there were three dependents, 1/3rd

of his income would be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the

dependency would be Rs.5000-1666.65 = Rs.3333.64. As per Sarla

Varma's case, since the deceased was aged around 41 years, a

multiplier of 14 and the future prospects of 30% is to be taken. So the

salary for the purpose of computation of compensation will have to be

taken as Rs.4333/-. Thus, the total compensation for dependency would

come at Rs.7,28,364/- (4333x12x14). The claimants would also be

entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium, loss of

estate and for funeral expenses. I consider that Rs.5,000/- towards

funeral expenses would be reasonable amount. Rs.5,000/- each on

account of loss of consortium and loss of estate would be appropriate

compensation.

7.       I   consider        that   no   deduction   could   be   made   from    this


FAO Nos. 161 & 194 of 1994                                                 Page 4 Of 5

compensation in view of the fact that dependents of the deceased were

paid group insurance of Rs.80,000/-, Rs.25,000/- as gratuity of

Rs.25,000/- as amount due to his death during service. The claim of

compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is independent of other benefits

granted to the dependents of the deceased by employer of the

deceased granted by employer would have been there even in case of

natural death. The death of an employee may take place due to illness

or due to any other reasons. The compensation granted under Motor

Vehicles Act cannot be reduced because the dependents got some

amount from the employer of the deceased.

8. I also consider that the claimant would be entitled to reasonable

rate of interest. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 12% per annum. I

consider that interest of 12% is on the higher side. Interest @ 8% per

annum would be an appropriate rate of interest. Thus, the award

passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent and the

claimants would be entitled to an amount of Rs.7,43,364/- with interest

@ 8% per annum. The enhanced amount compensation be paid by DTC

to the claimants within 60 days. Both appeals stand disposed of in

terms of above order.

May 25, 2010                               SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




FAO Nos. 161 & 194 of 1994                                        Page 5 Of 5