Brij Mohan & Anr. vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3774 Del

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              MAC APP. 54-55 OF 2006


%                                    JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:05.08.2011


BRIJ MOHAN & ANR.                                          ....APPELLANT
                                     Through: Mr. A.S. Rana, Advocate

                              VERSUS

RAJENDER SINGH & ORS.                                     ....RESPONDENT
                                Through:        Mr. JPN Shahi, Advocate for
                                                R-3 (OIC)

CORAM:

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

        1.      Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be
                allowed to see the Judgment?
        2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?
        3.      Whether the Judgment should be reported in the
                Digest?

A.K. SIKRI,J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants against the award

dated 14th October, 2005 passed by the Judge, MACT thereby

awarding a total sum of ` 1,29,984/- alongwith interest @ 8% per

annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, in

favour of the appellants herein and against the respondent no.2

Khalluddin and respondent no.3 the Oriental Insurance Company

Ltd. The appellants are not satisfied with the aforesaid

compensation and are seeking enhancement thereof. Both the

appellants are the parents of Dalip Singh who died in the road

accident. On 25th August, 1986 at about 9.30 a.m. Dalip Singh

(hereinafter referred to as deceased) was traveling in bus No. DEP

4981, route No. 364. Deceased was going to his duty at Jangpura

Bhogal, New Delhi, when bus and came opposite Inder Dharam

Kanta at truck No. URR-113, which was coming from Dharam

Kanta close to the road and the said truck which was being driven

by the respondent No.3 Rajinder Singh, hit the bus and Dalip

Singh received injuries. Later on Dalip Singh succumbed to his

injuries.

2. In the petition filed by the appellants under Section 110-A of

Motor Vehicles Act for award of compensation, it was alleged that

the deceased was aged 22 years and was working as an electric

mechanic. He was earning ` 1000/- per month and he was also

doing some job work wherefrom he was making an additional

earning of ` 2000/- per month or so. The grand-father of the

deceased was still alive and was 72 years of age and, therefore,

the expected age of the deceased could not be less than 62 years,

had he not died in the said accident. On this basis total

compensation claimed by the appellants was ` 4,80,000/-.

3. The respondent no.2 did not contest the petition and was

proceeded ex parte. Only the Insurance Company put up its

defence by filing the Written Statement. On the basis of

pleadings, following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether deceased Dalip Singh received fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 25.08.86, when he was hit DTC bus No. DEP 4987, being driven rashly and negligently by R-1, owned by R-2, insured with R-3? OPP.

2.Whether the respondent No.3 is not liable in view of the preliminary objection taken by them in their w/s?OPR?

3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP"

4. Issue no.1 was decided in favour of the appellants holding

that the deceased received fatal injuries in the aforesaid motor

accident which was being driven rashly and negligently by the

respondent no.1 and which vehicle was owned by the respondent

no.2. Issue no.2 was also decided in favour of the appellants and

against the respondent no.3 holding that respondent no.3 was

liable to pay the compensation to the appellants.

5. Coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the

appellants, the learned MACT took note of the evidence produced

before it in the form of PW-1 (father of the deceased) and PW-2

Amrit Batra who was the employer of the deceased with whom

the deceased had been working for the last six years as an auto

electrician. He deposed that he was paying a sum of ` 960 per

month to the deceased and deceased was also permitted to go

outside to repair the autos and vehicles and the deceased used to

earn about ` 2000 per month from the said job. Taking into

consideration the entire evidence and also the future prospects

etc. the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was

earning ` 2000 per month. However, since he was of marriageable

age and would have married in near future, the Tribunal took the

view that a2/3rd of the aforesaid amount of ` 2000 would have

spent by him for himself and for his own family after the marriage

and would have given 1/3rd of the aforesaid amount i.e. ` 677/- to

the parents namely the appellants. On this, a multiplier of 16 is

adopted by the learned MACT and in this manner compensation of

` 1,29,984/- was arrived at.

6. I may also state at this stage that while holding the

respondent no.3 (Insurance Company) liable to make the aforesaid

payment, the learned MACT has given opportunity to the

Insurance Company to recover the amount from respondents

no.1 and 2. There is no appeal preferred by any of the

respondents including the Insurance Company. As stated above,

the appellants are aggrieved by the amount of compensation.

According to the appellants, since the deceased was still

unmarried, 50% of the aforesaid amount should have been taken

into consideration and the multiplier should have been applied on

a sum of ` 1,000/- per month. This aspect was not be disputed by

the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Though he stated

that the multiplier applied by the learned MACT is on higher side.

However, since there is no appeal filed by the Insurance Company,

in this appeal filed by the appellants/claimants, I am of the view

that the contribution which the deceased was supposed to make

to the appellants should have been taken at ` 1000 per month

and on this multiplier of 16 would have been applied. In this

manner the total amount works to ` 1,92,000/- i.e. 1000 X 12 X 16.

7. The appellants have also challenged the order of the Tribunal

in denying the interest for six years. I find from the impugned

order of the Tribunal based on cogent evidence that the denial is

because of the reason that the delay was attributed to the

appellants and, therefore, this finding is not interfered with. I am

also of the opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case that

the interest @ 8% granted by the Tribunal is quite reasonable.

No doubt, the Tribunal has not granted any amount for loss of life

and affection, however, since the multiplier adopted by the

Tribunal is on higher side, therefore, I am of the view that no

further amount on this account should be awarded.

8. In these circumstances, this appeal is allowed partly. The

compensation amount is increased to ` 1,92,000/- and the award

is modified to that extent. Other stipulated condition in the award

would remain unaltered.

9. The appeal disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

AUGUST 5, 2011 skb