Delhi High Court
Desh Raj & Ors vs Jay Pal Singh & Ors. on 29 November, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 24th November, 2011
Pronounced on: 29th November, 2011
+ FAO 244/2000
DESH RAJ & ORS. .... Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate.
versus
JAY PAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jyotindra Kumar Advocate
for R-1 & R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellants impugns the award dated 04.04.2000 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby the
Claim Petition number 226/1995 preferred by the Appellants for
claim of compensation in respect of death of Smt. Mahadevi
who was aged about 45 years was dismissed on the ground that
involvement of bus No.DEP 9759 in the accident was not
established.
2. In the course of inquiry before the Tribunal, the Appellants not
only produced all the documents relating to the criminal case
registered against Jaipal Singh Respondent No.1 but also the
certified copy of the Judgment Ex.PW-1/9 whereby Respondent
No.1 was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section
279/304-A IPC and was released on probation of good conduct
on furnishing a bond for a period of two years.
3. The Appellants examined Danveer as PW-1 to prove rashness
and negligence on the part of the bus driver. He deposed that
on 15.02.1995 he was proceeding to Kalyan Puri on his cycle.
His mother deceased Mahadevi was sitting on the pillion seat.
When they reached near liquor shop Khichripur, one DTC bus
number 9759 came from behind at a fast speed and hit against
his cycle. The driver ran away from the spot. His mother fell
on the right side and died at the spot. In cross-examination, the
witness admitted that he did not see bus before the accident. He
deposed that he saw the bus number and disclosed the same to
the police. The Tribunal unnecessarily made criticism of the
honest statement of the witness that he did not see the bus
before the accident. The Tribunal deemed the witness as a liar
on the ground that if he did not see the bus, how could he give
its number.
4. Of course, the driver and conductor entered the witness box as
RW-1 and RW-2 to deny the accident yet, it cannot be lost sight
that the site plan of the place of occurrence depicting the
manner of accident was prepared by the IO on 15.03.1995
wherein the number of the bus as 9759 and the bus belonging to
the DTC was mentioned. It is not Respondent No.1's case that
there was any other bus bearing some other initials but with the
same number 9759 being plied on that very route. Thus, PW-
1's testimony was sufficient to establish the negligence.
Moreover, the Respondent No.1's conviction for the offence
under Section 279/304-A IPC by Judgment Ex.PW-1/9 clinched
the issue. The standard of proof required in a criminal case is
much higher than in an inquiry in a Claim Petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In my view, the
Respondent No.1's negligence was clearly established. The
Tribunal committed a serious illegality in not taking into
consideration the Judgment Ex.PW-1/9 and disbelieving PW-1
on his mere admission that he did not see bus before the
accident. The finding on the issue of negligence is therefore,
reversed.
5. Coming to the compensation to be awarded to the deceased, the
factum of the deceased selling vegetables was not disputed in
cross-examination. A suggestion, however, was given that the
income was not rightly stated. In the assessment year 1995-
1996 any income beyond 35,000/- was taxable. No income tax
was being paid by the deceased.
6. In the absence of any reliable evidence in respect of the income
of the deceased, I would take the minimum wages i.e. ` 1545/-
of an unskilled worker on the date of the accident to be the
deceased's monthly income. Adding 30% towards the inflation
considering the age of the deceased to be 45 years; deducting
one-fourth towards the personal expenses; and applying the
multiplier of 14 according to the deceased's age (As per Sarla
Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6)
SCC 121), the compensation works out to be ` 2,53,176/-.
(1545/- + 30% - 1/4 x 14 x 12).
7. Considering that the accident took place in the year 1995, the
Appellants would be entitled to a further compensation of `
25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, ` 5,000/- towards
loss of estate and ` 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the
total compensation comes to ` 2,85,176/- (2,53,176 + 32,000).
8. The Appellants would also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the payment.
9. Respondent No.2 DTC being owner of the bus is directed to
deposit the compensation along with interest within six weeks.
10. Appellants No. 3 to 5 were minor at the time of filing of the
petition. They must have attained the age of majority by now.
A sum of ` 10,000/- each shall be immediately disbursed to the
Appellants. Rest of the amount shall be held in the form of
FDR in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch for a period of
three years. The Appellants shall not be entitled to take any
loan against the FDRs without the permission of the Court.
11. The Appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
12. All pending applications stands disposed of.
13. Copy of the order be given to the Appellants and UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch. Copy of the order may be sent to the
Trial Court for information.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
vk
