Rita Kishore & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority
2011 Latest Caselaw 3921 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%              Judgment Reserved on: 10.08.2011
               Judgment Pronounced on: 12.08.2011
+ CS(OS) 417/2005

RITA KISHORE & ORS                       ..... Plaintiff
              Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate
              With Mr. J.L.Grover & Ms. Puja Anand,
              Advocates

                     versus


DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY           ..... Defendant
              Through: Mr. B.P.Aggarwal, Advocate
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes

V.K. JAIN, J

1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.42 lakh as damages

and compensation. Late Sh. Giri Raj Kishore, husband of

plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 and 3, was an

employee of defendant DDA, working as Assistant Field

Investigator and he died in a fatal accident while on duty, in

DDA office at Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, when he was

crushed by a lift. It is alleged that the defendant had

provided defective and ill-maintained lift for its employees,

in violation of safety rules, which resulted in the aforesaid

fatal accident claiming the life of Sh. Giri Raj Kishore. At

the time of his death Sh. Giri Raj Kishore was about 37

years old and had another 21 years to retire. It is alleged

that he was drawing a salary of Rs.4000/- per month at

that time. The plaintiffs have claimed Rs.37 lakh towards

loss of salary benefits, economic loss, retirement benefits,

etc. and a sum of Rs.5 lakh has been claimed as damages for

installing unsafe lifts which resulted into the fatal accident,

causing corporeal loss, mental torture and agony to the

plaintiffs.

2. The defendant has contested the suit and has

claimed that since it has already paid leave encashment,

gratuity, the amount lying in GIS and benevolent fund and

is also paying family pension, the plaintiffs are not entitled

to any amount. It is also alleged that the accident occurred

due to failure of the machine and not on account of any

negligence of any official of DDA. On merits it has been

admitted that late Sh. Giri Raj Kishore was working as

Assistant Field Investigating Officer and was survived by the

plaintiffs. It is also admitted that the accident occurred on

21st April 1994 when lift No.1 broke down and took an

upward jump when Sh. Giri Raj Kishore put his foot

outward, as a result of which he got stuck and was

seriously injured. He was taken to All India Institute of

Medical Science, but could not be saved. The accident,

according to the defendant, occurred due to technical defect

in the lift. It is further alleged that an enquiry was setup by

the defendant wherein two officials of DDA namely Om Vir

Singh, Lift Operator and B.C. Joshi, Mechanic, were blamed

for allowing the passengers in the lift which otherwise was

not found functioning satisfactorily for last ten days. The

chargesheet was accordingly issued to Sh. Om Vir Singh,

who was suspended on 21st April 1994. However,

consequent to his acquittal by the Court his suspension was

reviewed and he was reinstated vide order dated 7th June

1996. It is, however, not disputed that Sh. Giri Raj Kishore

was about 37 years old at the time he died and had he

remained alive, he would have continued to serve DDA for

21 more years. It is also alleged that DDA had offered

allotment of a flat to the plaintiff for a consideration of

Rs.4,01,400/-, which was less than half of the prevailing

market price and this allotment was also a compensation

since late Sh. Giri Raj Kishore was not registered with DDA

for allotment of a flat.

3. The following issues were framed on the pleadings

of the parties on 4th March 1998:-

(i) Whether the death of Giri Raj Kishore took place due to improper maintenance of the lift by the defendant?

(ii) If so, what amount of compensation the plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the defendant?

(iii) Whether sale of flat whose market value was more than double the amount of sale consideration to plaintiff No.1 was by way of compensation as alleged?

(iv) Whether Om Vir Singh, lift operator and B.C. Joshi, mechanic alone were responsible for the death of Giri Raj Kishore?

     (v)     Whether   the   accident    was   beyond   the
             control of the defendant?

     (vi)    Relief.

ISSUES No.(i), (iv) & (v)

4. As noted earlier, the defendant itself has alleged in

the written statement that the enquiry ordered by it had

revealed that its employees Sh. Om Vir Singh, Lift Operator

and Sh. B.C. Joshi, Mechanic, were to be blamed for

allowing the passengers to board the lift which was not

found functioning satisfactorily for last ten days. Thus, the

written statement contains an admission of the defendant

that the lift boarded by late Sh. Giri Raj Kishore dated 21st

April 1994 had developed some defect and was not

functioning satisfactorily at the time it was allowed to be

used by the employee of DDA and the Lift Operator as well

as the Mechanic were to be blamed for this lapse on their

part. This is not the case of DDA in the written statement

that the lift which was otherwise functioning satisfactorily

and properly broke down and took an upward jump all of a

sudden. The written statement indicates that the defect in

the functioning of the lift was very much in the knowledge of

the employees of DDA and had persisted for about ten days

before this fatal accident took place on 21st April 1994.

5. The plaintiffs have examined plaintiff No.1 Smt.

Rita Kishore whereas the defendant has examined two

witnesses namely Sh. Om Vir Singh and Smt. Asma Manzar.

6. In his affidavit by way of evidence Sh. Om Vir

Singh has stated that there are four lifts in DDA building,

which have been given serial No.1 to 4. On 21 st April 1994

at about 8:30 AM, he went to lift No.1, opened its door and

took out the keys of lift No.2. He then made lift No.2

operational by switching on its mains from the machine

room on the 7th floor and brought that lift to the ground

floor. Since that lift was not running smoothly, he brought

it back to the 7th floor and locked it. He then made lift No.3

operational. That lift was also found giving jumps so he

brought it back to the 7th floor and locked it. He then

opened lift No.1 and made it operational. The lift was fully

functional and he made several runs in it till 9:30 AM.

Thereafter, he gave the key of lift No.1 to Shiv Dutt, Lift

Operator and went to the room of Lift Supervisor. Sh. Ram

Prakash, Supervisor asked him to operate the lift from

10:30 AM. He took the key and came to lift No.1 in the B

Block, where he learnt that the lift had stopped on the 7 th

floor. He went to the 7th floor through stairs and found the

door of lift No.1 open and the emergency switch was found

on. The lift, however, did not start despite his trying to

make it functional by using the key and making it auto-

attendant. He heard the voice of the mechanic from the

machine room, asking him not to start the lift. After a

couple of minutes, the mechanic asked him to operate the

lift. He then brought the empty lift to the ground floor and

again made a trial run back to the 7th floor. The lift was

found working satisfactorily. Several passengers got into

the lift at the ground floor to go to the upper floor. The lift

stopped at the second floor. When the door opened, a

passenger started stepping out of the lift. However, before

the passenger could get out completely, the lift started

moving and gave a jump. He immediately pressed the

emergency switch as well as the emergency call bell.

However, the passenger had got stuck on account of the

jump taken by the lift and despite efforts, it could not be

brought back into the cage of the lift. Thereafter, the lift

was brought down from the machine room and other

employees helped the passenger, who was trapped inside

the lift. He has stated that there was no negligence and he

had satisfactorily performed his duties as a Lift Operator.

7. In her affidavit by way of evidence, Ms. Asma

Manzar, Director (P) of DDA has stated that since 1991-92,

the contract for service and maintenance of lift was given to

M/s. Brisk Services Limited and that company was

responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the lifts.

She has further stated that this accident occurred when Sh.

Giri Raj Kishore was stepping out of the lift on the second

floor. According to her, the accident was completely

unforeseen and beyond the control of DDA. She has stated

that the Date of Birth of Sh. Giri Raj Kishore was 30th

September 1956 and at the time of his death he was about

37 years and 7 months old, receiving salary of Rs.3774/-

per month and he would have retired on 30th September

2016.

8. In para 2 of its written statement on merits, the

defendant has specifically stated: "the accident occurred

due to technical defect in the lift". Thus this is defendant's

own case in the written statement that a technical defect in

the lift was the cause of the accident in which Mr. Giri Raj

Kishore lost his life, while on duty in DDA office at Vikas

Sadan, New Delhi. In para 4 of the written statement on

merits, it is stated that the Inquiry Officer, who conducted

the enquiry into this extent recommended: "both Mr. Om Vir

Singh and Mr. B.C. Joshi deserve to be blamed for allowing

the passengers in the lift, which otherwise was not found

functioning satisfactorily for the last ten days". Hence, it

cannot be disputed that the lift which Mr. Giri Raj Kishore

boarded on that date was not giving satisfactory

performance for ten days prior to this incident and it was a

defect in the lift which resulted in this incident. Even

otherwise, there is no way an incident of this nature could

have happened, had the lift been in order, and free from any

defect on 21st April 1994. There is no likelihood of a lift

which is otherwise free from any technical defect, all of a

sudden taking a jump and start moving upward. This can

happen only because of a technical snag in the lift. The

plaintiff before this Court was not a witness to the incident

in which Mr. Giri Raj Kishore lost his life. They are not in a

position to tell the Court what exactly led to the lift taking

jump and start moving up all of a sudden. It is only the

owner of the lift, who can tell the Court as to how this

incident took place. The well-known maxim "res ipsa

loquitur" can be safely applied in an accident of this nature

where the cause of accident is primarily within the

knowledge of the defendant. This maxim is stated as under

in its classic form:-

Where the thing is to shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper case, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.

With respect to the aforesaid maxim Supreme

Court in Shyam Sunder and Ors. vs. The State of

Rajasthan AIR 1974 SC 890 inter alia observed as under:-

The maxim is only a convenient label to apply to a set of circumstances in which the plaintiff proves a case so as to call for a rebuttal from the defendant, without having to allege and prove any specific act or omission on the part of the defendant. The principal function of the maxim is to prevent injustice which would result if a plaintiff were invariably compelled to prove the precise cause of the accident and the defendant responsible for it, even when the facts bearing on the matter are at the outset unknown to him and often within the knowledge of the defendant.... The maxim is based on common sense and its purpose is to do justice when the facts bearing on the causation and on the care exercised by defendant are at the outset unknown to the plaintiff and are or ought

to be within the knowledge of the defendant (see Barkway v. S. Wales Transport [1950]1 AER 392)....

The plaintiff merely proves a result, not any particular act or omission producing the result. If the result in the circumstances, in which he proves it, makes it more probable than not that it was caused by the negligence of the defendant, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is said to apply, and the plaintiff will be entitled to succeed unless the defendant by evidence rebuts that probability....

Over the years, the general trend in the application of the maxim has undoubtedly become more sympathetic to plaintiffs. Concomitant with the rise in safety standards and expanding knowledge of the mechanical devices of our age less hesitation is felt in concluding that the miscarriage of a familiar activity is so unusual that it is most probably the result of some fault on the part of whoever is responsible for its safe performance (see John, G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, 4 th ed., p.260).

As noted by Supreme Court in Shyam Sunder

(Supra), the mere fact that the cause of the accident is

unknown does not prevent the plaintiff from recovering

damages, though as far as the case before this Court is

concerned, the defendant has itself has stated in the written

statement that it was a technical defect in the lift which

caused this accident.

In the case before Supreme Court, the engine of a

truck caught fire on the way and the deceased, in order to

prevent himself, jumped out of the truck and died. It was a

driver of the defendant who was driving at that time.

Holding the defendant liable to pay damages, Supreme

Court held as under:-

It is clear that the driver was in management of the vehicle and the accident is such that it does not happen in the ordinary course of things. There is no evidence as to how the truck caught fire. There was no explanation by the defendant about it. It was a matter within the exclusive knowledge of the defendant. It was not possible for the plaintiff to give any evidence as to the cause of the accident. In these circumstances, we think that the maxim res ipsa loquitur is attracted.

9. In K.L. Juneja vs. M/s. Bawa Dan Singh and

Sons. 1997 I AD (DELHI) 317, the plaintiff, who had visited

the building on the invitation of an employee of defendant

No.1, fell into the basement of a building through an

opening which had not been fenced, as a result he received

multiple fractures. This Court was of the view that as the

building was owned by defendants No.1 to 3 it were they

who were responsible for the safety of the visitors and were

obliged to keep the dangerous openings closed adequately

so that there was no chance of a mishap. Applying the

principle of res ipsa loquitur the Court was of the view that it

was not for the plaintiff to prove that defendants were

negligent or lacked foresight. On the contrary it was for the

defendants to prove that they were not negligent and had

taken every precaution to safety and precaution of all

invitees and visitors.

10. In Klaus Mittelbachert & Ors. vs. The East India

Hotels Ltd. & Ors. 65 (1997) DLT 428, the plaintiff visited

the swimming pool of a five star hotel, hit his head on the

bottom of the swimming pool and sustained serious

injuries. He sought damages amounting to Rs.50 lakh from

the defendant. It was found by the Court that the

swimming pool was defective in design. The Court was of

view that any latent defect in the structure or service, which

is hazardous to guests, would attract strict liability to

compensate for consequences flowing from its breach of

duty to take care and a guest in the hotel enjoys an implied

assurance from the hotel that not only the building

structure but the services offered by it were safe and

immune from any danger inherent or otherwise. Applying

the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur the Court was of the view

that where the thing which causes the accident is shown to

be under the management of the defendant or his employees

and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things

does not happen if those who have the management use

proper case, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence

of explanation from the defendant, that the accident arose

for want of care. The Court was of the view that three

conditions must be satisfied to attract the applicability of

the doctrine: (i) the accident must be of a kind which does

not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone's negligence;

(ii) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within

the exclusive control of the defendant; (iii) it must not have

been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part

of the plaintiff.

11. In K.V. Narasappa vs. Kamalamm and Ors. AIR

1968 Kant 345, the building contractor undertook to

construct a receiving station for the State Government.

During casting of beam, one beam came down, pulling down

along with it one of the stone pillars on which it was

intended to be rested. Three workmen, who were employed

by the defendant and working in the casting were killed.

The husband of plaintiff No.1, who was also father of

plaintiffs No.2 and 3 in that case was amongst those who

lost their life. The suit was filed against the contractor as

well as against Mysore State Electricity Board to which the

Department of Electricity was transferred by the

Government. Though the plaintiff alleged that the beam

had come down on account of defective material and

carelessness in the construction of the beam, the defendant

maintained that every reasonable precaution had been

taken for construction of the beam. The State Electricity

Board also contended that contractor alone was responsible

to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. The contractor

claimed that accident was attributable to the sudden

coming down of the lintel beam during concreting causing

the pulling down of the stone pillar. Applying the maxim res

ipsa loquitur, the Court felt that in a case of this nature

accident speaks for itself and that the beam would not have

come down had it been properly constructed and had there

been no negligence. The Court was of the view that

collapsing of the beam raises a presumption of negligence

which should have been dispelled by the person who was

under a duty to counteract the inference emanating from

the nature of the accident. The contractor also claimed that

the liability to pay damages was exclusively of the Board

since he was not an independent contractor and was to

work under the instructions of the Superintendent/Chief

Electrical Engineer or his authorized representative and the

beam was constructed in obedience to their instructions. It

was held that both, the contractor as well as the Board,

were liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. Applying

the ratio in the above referred cases, the defendant is liable

to pay damages for the accident, which resulted from a lift

owned by it.

12. It has come in evidence of the defendant that it

had outsourced the service and maintenance of lift to M/s

Brisk Services Limited which was responsible for their

upkeep and maintenance. However, there is absolutely no

pleading to this effect. No such averment has been made in

the Written Statement. Hence the evidence being beyond

the pleadings needs to be excluded from consideration.

Even if I proceed on the assumption that the

maintenance and upkeep of the life had been outsourced to

another agency, being the owner of the lifts, the defendant

would still be liable to an outsider including an employee of

the defendant, it is immaterial whether the accident

occurred due to negligence of the defendant or due to

negligence of the agency to which the maintenance and

upkeep of the lift had been outsourced. This is a matter

between defendant and the agency stated to have been

employed by it for upkeep and maintenance of the lifts.

Since the accident occurred on account of some defect in

the lift owned by the defendant, it would be liable to pay

compensation even if it had outsourced the maintenance of

the lifts to another agency. If the contract between the

defendant and the agency to which upkeep and

maintenance of the lifts was outsourced by it so provides

the defendant can claim reimbursement from that agency

for the damages it is made to pay to the plaintiffs, but, it

cannot escape its liability qua the defendants on the ground

that maintenance and upkeep of the lifts had been

outsourced by it.

13. It has come in the deposition of Shri Om Vir Singh,

who claims to be operating the lift in which this incident

took place, that though lift No. 1 in which this incident took

place had stopped on the 7th floor, its doors did not open

and the lift did not start despite his trying to make it

functional by using the key and making it auto-attendant

the mechanic had later asked him to operate the lift and at

that time the lift was found working satisfactorily. However

no mechanic has been produced by the defendant to prove

that he had set right the defect which was found in lift No. 1

on that day and thereafter the lift was functioning properly.

In fact even the name of the mechanic has not been given by

the witness. It has come in the deposition of this witness

that the mechanic from the service contractor had come to

attend to the problem in lifts No. 2 & 3 and not to attend to

the problem in lift No. 1. As noted earlier, the defendant

itself has stated in the Written Statement that the inquiry

had revealed that this lift was not functioning properly for

the last 10 days. Thus, no complaint seems to have been

lodged by the employees of the defendant for as many as 10

days, for repair of lift No. 1, as is evident from the fact that

the mechanic on that day had come to attend to lifts No. 2 &

3 and not to attend lift No.1.

14. In my view, the deposition of Mr. Om Vir Singh to

the effect that the lift No.1 was checked by a mechanic on

that day and thereafter it was found functioning properly

also needs to be excluded from consideration, being beyond

the pleadings of the defendant. Nowhere has it been alleged

in the Written Statement that lift No.1 was checked by a

mechanic on that day the defect found in the lift was

repaired and thereafter the lift was found functioning

properly. In fact the report of the Inquiry, which the

defendant itself had disclosed in para 04 of the Written

Statement on merits, clearly indicates that the lift was not

functioning properly and that is why the Inquiry Officer had

recommended disciplinary action against the lift operator

Sh. Om Vir Singh and Sh. B.C. Joshi, Mechanic, for

allowing visitors in the lift, which otherwise was not found

functioning satisfactorily. In any case, not much reliance

can be placed on the testimony of Shri Om Vir Singh since

being the liftman on duty he had a vested interest to say

that the lift was checked and was found functioning

properly before it was alleged to be boarded by the visitor.

Admittedly Mr. Om Vir Singh was prosecuted, though he

came to be acquitted since no criminal negligence on his

part could be proved by the prosecution, but, he knew it

very well that if he admits that he had allowed the visitors to

board a lift which was not functioning satisfactorily, he

would be in difficulty and may be held responsible for the

accident in which Mr. Giri Raj Kishore lost his life.

Since the lift was not functioning properly, the lift

operator, who was an employee of DDA should not have

allowed the visitors to board it till the time it was duly

repaired and certified to be functioning properly and

satisfactorily. Being not only the owner of the lift, but also

the employer of the lift operator, the defendant is vicariously

liable for the negligence which resulted in causing of the

accident in which Mr. Giri Raj Kishore lost his life on that

day.

For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs

I have no hesitation in holding that the accident in which

Mr. Giri Raj Kishore lost his life occurred due to improper

maintenance of the lift and the defendant cannot escape its

liability to pay maintenance to the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.(iii)

15. It has come in evidence that a flat was offered by

defendant to plaintiff No.1 at less than the prevailing market

price. According to Ms. Asma Manzar, Director (P) of DDA

the market value of the flat would be Rs.10.75 lakh whereas

the defendant sought to charge only Rs.766700/- from

plaintiff No.1 for the flat offered to her. This is not the case

of the defendant that it had offered the flat to plaintiff No.1

at less than its normal allotment price. There is no

independent evidence to prove that the flat offered by the

defendant to plaintiff No.1 at a market value higher than the

price at which the flat was offered to her by DDA. No

property dealer or values has been produced to show what

precisely was the prevailing market value of the aforesaid

flat at that time it was offered to plaintiff No.1 was. The flat

was not offered free of cost. In such a case, if plaintiff No.1

could not avail the offer made by DDA on account of her

inability to pay the price which DDA was demanding for the

aforesaid flat, that would not absolve the defendant of its

liability nor would it in any manner take away the legal right

of the plaintiff to claim compensation for the accident which

occurred due to negligence of the defendant. The issue is

decided accordingly.

ISSUES No. ii & iv

16. The compensation in such cases needs to be based

on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or benefit

reducible to money value. In order to ascertain the

quantum of damages/compensation in such cases, the

Court needs to a) first estimate what was the deceased

person's expectation of life, if he had not been killed when

he was; and b) what sums during sums during those years

he would have probably applied to the support his

dependents. The actual extent of pecuniary loss to the

aggrieved party is not capable of an accurate ascertainment

but must necessarily by an estimate or even partly a

conjecture. There could be no exact uniform rule for

measuring the value of human life and therefore quantum of

damages cannot be calculated with mathematical precision.

It must necessarily depend upon the particular facts and

circumstances of each case.

17. It was admitted during the course of arguments

that at the time of death, late Shri Giri Raj Kishore was

drawing a gross salary of Rs.4764/- pm. It is also an

admitted case of the parties that at the time of his death

Shri Giri Raj Kishore was about 37 years old and, therefore

had he remained alive, he would have continued in the

service of DDA for about 23 more years. The annual gross

salary of late Shri Giri Raj Kishore at the time of his death

comes to Rs.57168/-; if this figure is multiplied by 23 [the

number of years late Shri Giri Raj Kishore would have

served with DDA had he remained alive], it comes to

Rs.1314864/-. In Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport

Corporation & Anr. 2009(6)SCC 121, Supreme Court was

of the view that as a rule of thumb an addition of 50% of

actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased

towards future prospects should be adopted, where the

deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years.

Since late Shri Giri Raj Kishore admittedly was in a

permanent job in DDA and less than 40 years old at the

time of death, an addition of 50% of his gross salary needs

to be made to the aforesaid sum of Rs.1314864/-. There is

no evidence before the Court that he was paying any income

tax on the salary which he was drawing from DDA. Addition

of 50% of the amount of Rs. 1314864/- comes to

Rs.657432/-. The gross salary of late Shri Giri Raj Kishore

for 23 years along with 50% addition on it for future

prospects comes to Rs.1972296/-. In the case of Sarla

Verma (supra) Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to

standardize the deductions to be made under the head of

personal and living expenses of the deceased and noted that

the practice was to deduct 1/3rd of the income if the

deceased was married and 1/2 of the income if he was a

bachelor. In Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2

SCC 176, Supreme Court held that in the absence of

evidence, it is not unusual to deduct 1/3rd of the gross

income towards the personal living expenses of the deceased

and treat the balance of the amount likely to have been

spent on the members of the family/dependents. After

considering earlier decisions on the subject including its

decision in Susamma Thomas (supra) and UPSRTC v.

Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 Supreme Court in case of

Sarla Verma (supra) was of the view that where the

deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and

living expenses towards the deceased should be 1/3rd where

the number of dependents family is 2-3 and 1/4th where the

dependent family members is 4-6 and 1/5th if the number

of dependent family members exceeds 6. In the case before

this Court the number of dependents of late Shri Giri Raj

Kishore being 3, 1/3rd of the gross salary needs to be

deducted to ascertain the quantum of compensation to be

paid to the plaintiffs.

18. In the cases governed by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

the courts have been adopting various multipliers in view of

the statutory provisions contained in the Act. But, while

quantifying the amount of compensation in a case of death

by negligence, which is not governed by the provisions of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Courts need not necessarily

apply the multiplier which they have been adopting in the

case of vehicular accident, compensation for which is

regulated by the provisions of the aforesaid Act. I, therefore

refrain from adopting the multiplier specified in Motor

Vehicles Act and quantify the amount of compensation on

the basis of number of years for which late Shri Giri Raj

Kishore would have continued in the service in DDA had he

remained alive. In fact, the age of 60 years, which is the

retirement age in DDA, can also be safely taken as the

minimum age, up to which late Shri Giri Raj Kishore was

likely to live had he not prematurely died due to this

accident. After deducting 1/3rd gross amount of

Rs.1972296/- towards personal expenses of late Shri Giri

Raj Kishore, the balance amount comes to Rs.1314864/-.

The plaintiffs therefore, are held entitled to the aforesaid

amount of Rs.1314864/- as compensation from the

defendant. A sum of Rs.5 lakh has already been paid to the

plaintiff as interim compensation in terms of the order

passed by this Court on 1st September, 2000. The balance

amount payable to the plaintiffs thus comes to

Rs.814864/-. The issues are decided accordingly. Since

the order for payment of interim compensation of Rs.5 lakh

came to be passed only on 1st September, 2000, I am of the

view that the defendant should also pay interest on that

amount from the date of filing of the suit till the date on

which order for payment of interim compensation was

passed. I consider that interest @ 9% pa be paid on the

amount of Rs.5 lakh from the date of filing of the suit till 1st

September, 2000.

ORDER

19. In view of my finding on the issues, a decree for

recovery of Rs.814864/-with proportionate costs, interest on

the amount of Rs.814864/- @ 9% p.a. from the date of the

filing of the suit till the date of decree, interest on Rs.5 lakh

from the date of filing of the suit till 1 st September, 2000

and interest @ 6% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.814864/-

from the date of decree till its payment, is hereby passed in

favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. If,

however, the entire amount due in terms of this judgment is

paid within one month, the defendant will not be liable to

pay any interest for the period subsequent to the passing of

decree.

Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE AUGUST 12, 2011 Ag/vn