Delhi High Court
Rama Devi & Anr vs Deepak & Anr. on 3 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd August, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.480/2007
RAMA DEVI & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
Versus
DEEPAK & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Peeush Sharma, Advocate for
the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate
for the Respondent No.3.
Mr. Shafiullah, Advocate for the
Respondent No.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of the compensation of
Rs.9,43,010/- awarded in favour of the Appellants and Sunita, the
deceased's widow (Respondent No.4 in the Claim Petition) for the
death of Suresh Kumar, a Constable working in Delhi Police who
died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 20.04.2005.
2. During the course of inquiry, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) framed the following issues:
i) Whether Suresh died in a motor vehicular accident
dated 20.04.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of
bus no.DL-1PC-6535 driven by respondent no.1
Deepak?
ii) Whether petitioners Sunita and Rama Devi are the
only legal heirs of the deceased?
iii) Whether the respondents are not liable to pay the
compensation in view of the objections taken in the
written statement?
iv) To what amount of compensation, if any, and from
whom are the petitioners entitled to receive?
v) Relief
3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the
deceased was getting down from a bus even though there was no
bus stop at that place. It, therefore, held the deceased to have
contributed to the accident to the extent of 25%.
4. It was established on record that the deceased was getting a salary
of Rs.10,289/- per month. The deceased was aged less than 45
years. The Claims Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects
and applied a multiplier of 10 to compute the loss of dependency.
5. It was proved on record that Sunita, the deceased's widow, was
residing separately from the deceased. A criminal case under
Section 498-A/406 IPC was got registered by her against the
deceased. She was being paid maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month
in a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. The Claims Tribunal,
therefore, distributed the compensation equally amongst the
Appellants; Rama Devi, widowed mother, Gyatri, unmarried sister
and Sunita, the deceased's widow.
6. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:
(i) There was no contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased. The Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the
deceased contributed to the accident.
(ii) The appropriate multiplier at the age of 45 was 14; the
Claims Tribunal erred in adopting a multiplier of 10.
NEGLIGENCE:
7. While dealing with the issue of negligence, the Claims Tribunal
held as under:
"14. The factum of the accident on 28.4.2005 has
clearly emerged through the testimony of the petitioners'
witnesses and is duly corroborated by the record of the
criminal case. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and
succumbed to them on 02.05.2005. The accident is
attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent
no.1 who failed to step into the witness box to repudiate
or challenge the same. Respondent no.2 has stated that
the deceased was guilty of gross negligence himself as he
had alighted from moving bus. It has been pointed out
that PW5 in his cross examination has confirmed, that
the deceased was getting down from the bus even though
there was no bus stop. In view of the same, I hold that
the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in
a roadside accident on account of his own contributory
negligence which is being apportioned at 25%."
8. During inquiry, the Appellants examined one Sita Ram Sharma as
PW5 who deposed on the factum of negligence. He testified that
while he was standing outside his shop, he noticed a passenger was
in the process of getting down from the bus. The driver of the bus
started the bus with a jerk, as a result of which the passenger fell
down and sustained grievous injuries. In the cross-examination,
the witness admitted that the bus stop was at a distance of 60-70
feet from his shop. Even if it is admitted that the deceased was
getting down from the bus while it was stationary, it is established
that it was not a bus stop. There is nothing on record to show that
the bus was stopped by the driver at the deceased's request or that
the deceased was getting down from the bus with the consent or
permission of the driver or the conductor of the bus. Thus, the
only inference which can be drawn is that the deceased was getting
down from the bus while the bus had stopped only because of the
traffic. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that the
deceased was negligent to the extent of 25% as he was getting
down from the bus when it had not stopped at any bus stop. The
finding on negligence is, therefore, upheld.
QUANTUM:
9. The deceased was less than 45 years of age at the time of the
accident. The multiplier would be 14 and there would be addition
of 30% towards future prospects. (Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121). The deceased
was getting a gross salary of Rs.10,289/-, out of this allowance like
washing allowance, transport allowance etc. amounting to Rs.210/-
being personal and incidental to employment were to be deducted
from the deceased's income. The loss of dependency thus comes
to Rs.14,67,502/-(Rs.10289/- - 210/- = 10079 +30% x 12 x 2/3 x
14). The Claimants are further entitled to sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards love and affection and Rs.10,000/- each towards loss to
estate and funeral expenses.
10. It is proved on record that there was civil and criminal litigation
pending between the deceased and his estranged wife Sunita. She
was being paid maintenance allowance @ Rs.500/- per month in a
Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, she was not
divorced. She is, therefore, entitled to compensation along with
the deceased's widowed mother and unmarried sister equally.
11. The compensation is thus enhanced by Rs.5,69,492/- which shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum. The enhanced compensation
shall be equally shared between the two Appellants and Sunita.
60% of the compensation shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a
period of three years. Rest shall be released on deposit.
12. The enhanced compensation of Rs.5,69,492/- along with interest
shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks. An
intimation regarding deposit of the compensation shall be sent by
the Claims Tribunal to the Claimants.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
14. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 03, 2012
pst
