Up State Road Transport Corp. vs Smt. Reempa Devi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4613 Del

*             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    MAC APPEAL No.502/2009 & CM 7515/2011


                                             Decided on: 19.09.2011

UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.                           ...... Appellant

                         Through:     Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate

                                Versus

SMT. REEMPA DEVI & ORS.                             ...... Respondents

                         Through:     Mr. Dilip Singh, Mr. A.K. Singh,
                                      Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocates for
                                      respondents no.1 to 3.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?                No
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?     No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?                             No

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned

award dated 08.07.2009 by learned MACT. Vide the impugned award, a

sum of ` 6 lac was awarded by learned Tribunal as compensation to

respondents no.1 to 3 on account of death of Mata Prashad @ Jitu who

was husband of respondent no.1, father of respondent No. 3 and son of

respondent no.2. The said compensation was made up of ` 5 lac on

account of loss of earnings of the respondents, ` 10,000/- on account of

loss of consortium, ` 60,000/- on account of loss of love and affection

and ` 20,000/- on account of funeral expenses. The said amount was

allowed to be disbursed to the respondents who are wife, mother and

child of the deceased in the manner as indicated in the award.

2. The challenge to the award is mainly on two counts, firstly, the

appellant has disputed its sole liability on the ground that there was

another truck bearing registration number UP 70AT-2065 which was in

stationary condition and was parked on the roadside without there

being any indication and parking lights. In this regard, it is submitted

that some part of negligence was also of the truck which was parked on

this roadside. In this regard, it is also submitted that the claim petition

filed by the respondents/ claimants was not maintainable on account of

non-joinder of the driver and owner of the said stationary truck.

Secondly, the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is alleged to be

excessive inasmuch as the Tribunal had taken the income of the

deceased to be ` 6,000/- per month without there being sufficient

evidence in this regard.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

4. With regard to the challenge on account of non-joinder of driver

and the owner of the said stationary truck part negligence of this truck

on account of having been parked without parking lights, it may be

noted that though such a plea was taken by the appellant in the written

statement, but no witness was examined in this regard. The appellant

had examined one Sunil Kumar PW3, a co-passenger in the bus in which

the deceased was travelling who had categorically stated that the bus

was being driven by its driver at a very high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner and that at about 4.45 am it suddenly hit the

stationary truck bearing registration number UP 70AT-2065. He further

stated that the driver of the bus did not adhere to the principles of safe

driving and because of driving the vehicle at a very fast speed, it hit the

stationary truck which was parked there. It is seen that testimony of

this witness remained unassailed throughout before the Tribunal. The

fact that the truck was parked on the roadside in the early hours, it was

incumbent upon the driver of the bus to have driven the bus cautiously

while passing through the stationary truck. Notice can be taken of the

fact that in the month of June, there is sufficient amount of visibility in

the morning at about 5 am and the fact that there was no parking light

of the stationary truck would not in any way minimize the responsibility

of the driver of the offending bus. Learned Tribunal, therefore, has

rightly recorded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of driver of the offending bus. I find no infirmity or illegality in

the findings recorded by learned Tribunal in this regard.

5. With regard to the challenge on the amount of compensation, it is

seen that the case of the respondents was that the deceased was a

tailor by profession. One Kunwar Pal was examined who deposed that

the deceased was working with him and was drawing a salary of `

6,000/- per month, in addition to overtime allowances. The statement of

accounts was also filed in this regard. There is also no challenge to the

testimony of this witness. However, since the learned Tribunal did not

find any corroboration to the testimony of this witness, which to my

mind was not required, the Tribunal proceeded to treat the deceased as

unskilled worker and taking the minimum wages as ` 3470/- per month

as prescribed and keeping in view the age of the deceased as 25

applied the multiplier of 15 and made a deduction of 1/3 rd on account of

personal expenses of the deceased in arriving at a figure of ` 5 lac as

loss of dependency of respondents. To my mind, this was quite just and

reasonable approach which has been taken by the learned Tribunal.

Likewise, I find no infirmity or illegality in granting compensation on

account of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and on account

of funeral expenses. There is no perversity or illegality noticed by me in

the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is

without any merit and is hereby dismissed.

6. With regard to the amount of compensation, certain directions

were given by the learned Tribunal which were modified by this Court

vide order dated 01.12.2009. It is informed that in compliance of the

said order, the amount deposited in the names of respondents no.1 to

3, who were wife, mother and child of the deceased respectively, have

already been credited and the respondent no.1 and 2 are regularly

getting monthly interest on the fixed deposits. The amount lying

deposited in the name of respondent no.3 has no facility of withdrawal

of interest and it has been ordered to be deposited till his attaining the

age of majority. The permission is sought in the aforesaid application for

withdrawing a sum of ` 1 lac each by respondents no.1 and 2 so as to

enable them to construct their house in their native village. It is also

noticed that the respondents were permitted to get the fixed deposits

transferred to any branch of State Bank of India according to their

convenience. The respondents are residents of Village Deokher, Tehsil

Hariaya, District Basi, Uttar Pradesh. I consider that it would be

extremely inconvenient for the respondents to keep on maintaining the

bank account in Delhi and to withdraw interest on the deposits. Learned

counsel informs that their account can be transferred to State Bank of

India at Tehsil Hariaya, District Basti, Uttar Pradesh which is their

native place and where they are presently residing. In view of all this, it

is directed that the fixed deposit receipts in the names of respondents

viz. Smt. Reempa Devi, Smt. Ramkeshar @ Dhukhna and Chandan son

of late Mata Prasad @ Jitu and deposited with State Bank of India, Tis

Hazari Branch, Delhi shall be transferred to State Bank of India, Tehsil

Hariaya, District Basti, Uttar Pradesh in their names and after doing so,

the respondents no.1 and 2 would be entitled to withdraw a sum of `1

lac each from their fixed deposits and continue to withdraw monthly

interest on the remaining deposits. It is clarified that the remaining

deposits will be for the period of 7 years in the names of respondents

no.1 and 3. Rest of the terms and conditions imposed vide order dated

1.12.2009 shall remain as unchanged.

7. It is informed by learned counsel for the appellant that a sum of

`25,000/- is lying deposited in this Court which was deposited by the

appellant herein as interim compensation. I find that the said amount

did not form part of the award and the said fact has been conceded by

learned counsel for the respondents. It is, therefore, directed that the

said amount of `25,000/- with accrued interest thereon may be released

in favour of the appellant forthwith on moving an appropriate

application in this regard before the Registrar General of this Court.

8. The appeal and the application stand disposed of. Copy of this

order may be given dasti to the respondents under the signature of the

Court Master.

M.L. MEHTA (JUDGE) September 19, 2011 rd