Delhi High Court
Kailashwati & Anr. vs Gurmail Singh & Ors. on 31 May, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: April 6, 2010
Date of Order: May 31, 2010
+ FAO No. 108/1991
% 31.05.2010
KAILASH WATI AND ANR ...Petitioners
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal and Mr. Varun Kr., Advocates for the Appellants.
Versus
GURMAIL SINGH AND ORS ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Salil Paul, Adv. for R-6
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 appeal, the claimants/appellants has sought enhancement of compensation
as awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that Subhash Chand
Gulati, aged around 32 years, working as a Staff Officer in Bank of India, drawing a salary
of Rs. 1473/- per month, died in an accident on 13th December, 1979 on Delhi - Gurgaon
Road near Palam Airport. The deceased was driving his own Premier Padmini Fiat Car
and there was head on collision between his car and Bus No. DEP-2144, coming from the
opposite side. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence, came to conclusion that the
accident took place largely due to negligence of the deceased himself. However, the bus
driver was also held to be negligent and the Tribunal concluded that it was a case of
contributory negligence and the responsibility was apportioned as 50:50.
3. The deceased was married at the time of accident. He had been married only few
months before the accident. However, the wife of deceased did not prefer a claim petition
since she got re-married after two months of the accident. It is only the parents of the
victim who filed the claim petition and made wife of the deceased as one of the
respondents.
4. The learned Tribunal took into account the salary of the deceased as Rs. 1475/- per
month plus his future prospects and considered Rs. 2,000/- per month as his income for
computation of compensation. The learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the deceased
could have spared only Rs. 1,000/- per month for the maintenance of his parents being a
married person. Looking at the age of deceased, the learned Tribunal, applied a multiplier
of 18 and calculated total compensation as Rs. 2,16,000/-. Since the responsibility was
apportioned as 50:50, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,08,000/- as compensation to the
claimants/appellants.
5. It is submitted by counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal wrongly held it to be
the case of contributory negligence. It is further argued that the Tribunal did not take into
account the future prospects properly. There was lot of potential for the progress of
deceased and he would have been earning a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month at the time of
superannuation and therefore the average salary of deceased taken as Rs. 2,000/- per
month for the purpose of computation of compensation was too meager.
6. I consider that the appeal cannot succeed on either of the counts. The learned
Tribunal had held an inquiry as to how the accident took place and the evidence produced
before the Tribunal showed that the bus was coming in its own lane from Gurgaon side. It
was the car of the deceased that moved nine paces from the middle line of the road
towards right side and collided with the bus head on. Looking at the site plan, prepared
soon after the accident and the other aspects of the accident, the Tribunal rightly came to
conclusion that it was a case of contributory negligence. I find no infirmity in appreciation of
evidence done by the Tribunal or the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal regarding
contributory negligence. In every case of accident, it is not always the bigger vehicle at
fault. Even the smaller vehicle can be equally negligent and there is no presumption that
smaller vehicle should not be held negligent.
7. So far as computation of compensation is concerned, I find that the Tribunal has
been quite generous in calculating the compensation. Since the deceased was aged about
32 years, as per Sarla Verma [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and other cases, the future prospects
could have been taken at 50%. The salary of the deceased, at the time of his death, was
Rs. 1475/- per month and if 50% of this salary is added to it, the salary for the purpose of
computation of compensation would be Rs. 2212.50. Since the deceased was married at
the time of accident and only three dependents were there, he would have spent 1/3rd of
the amount upon himself, if it is presumed that he would have contributed 1/3rd of his salary
towards the maintenance of his wife, then, only 1/3rd of the amount would have been
spared by him for the maintenance of his parents, that would be around Rs. 750/- per
month. The Tribunal has taken dependency of parents @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. I
consider that it was not unjust in any manner. The multiplier is taken either looking at the
age of deceased or looking at the age of dependents, whichever age is higher. In this case
the wife had re-married soon after the accident. The claimants were only the parents of the
deceased and for the multipliers, their ages was to be looked at. The father was aged 55
years and mother was aged 51 years. As per testimony of mother, her eldest son was
having business. Her second son was working in UNESCO and residing separately, her
third son owned a factory and her fourth son was also doing the business of export. Thus,
the dependency on the deceased was nominal. I, therefore, consider that the Tribunal
shown generousness by using multiplier of 18. Normally, a multiplier of 10 is taken in such
a case.
8. In view of my above discussion, I find no force in this appeal. The appeal is hereby
dismissed.
May 31, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
acm
