Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sunita & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4665 Del

$~R-28

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Date of decision: 7th August, 2012
+        MAC. APP. No.379/2004

         DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION             ..... Appellant
                      Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate

                        Versus

         SUNITA & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                             Through:    Nemo


         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                   JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

CM. APPL. No.569/2004(delay) There is a delay of 100 days in filing the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.

The Application stands disposed of.

MAC. APP. No.379/2004

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.11,57,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Jamuna Prasad who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 16.03.2000.

2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of DTC bus No.DL-1PA- 3777 by its driver Mehar Singh. The Claims Tribunal accepted the deceased's income as per the salary certificate Ex.PW3/C to be Rs.6288/- per month. But, while computing the loss of dependency, deducted 1/3 rd towards the personal and living expenses and applied a multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.10,92,000/-. After making addition towards non pecuniary damages, an overall compensation of Rs.11,57,000/- was awarded.

3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:

(i) There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as he was not careful in crossing the road and was not mindful to the approaching traffic.

(ii) The Claims Tribunal erred in making addition of 50% towards future prospects and applying a multiplier of

15. Since the deceased was more than 50 years, addition on account of future prospects should have been 30% and the appropriate multiplier should have been 14 instead of 15.

NEGLIGENCE:

4. The learned counsel for the Appellant has taken me through the testimony of PW2 Prakash. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he noticed the bus for the first time when it was at a distance of about 100 meters. He admitted that before crossing the road, Jamuna Prasad also noticed the bus coming from the Ghaziabad side. The learned counsel for the Appellants argues that once the deceased had noticed the bus, he should have waited for the traffic to clear before venturing to cross the

road. In my view, much value cannot be attached to the extracted lines from the cross-examination of PW2. PW2 was categorical that the bus was being driven at a very high speed. The Appellant put up a case of complete denial and involvement of the bus in the accident. Mehar Singh, driver of the offending bus simply deposed that he did not cause any accident. The involvement of the DTC bus was proved by registration of criminal case in P.S. Ghaziabad vide FIR No.123 dated 16.03.2000. Simply because the driver was on duty from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm and the accident occurred at 6:45 pm, would not negate the presence of the DTC bus at the time of the accident. It has not been explained by the Appellant as to how the number of the DTC bus was noted in Ghaziabad and was mentioned in the FIR. In the absence of any evidence in rebuttal to the PW2's testimony on the driver's negligence, I would accept his testimony to reach the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of DTC bus by its driver. The conclusion reached by the Claims Tribunal on negligence, therefore, cannot be faulted.

5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 discussed the previous report of the Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179; General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720, and laid down the multiplier applicable at various age groups. The same can be extracted in a tabulated form hereunder:-

          "I.      MULTIPLIER

                             Age of the             Multiplier
                            deceased (in
                               years)

6. It may be noticed that the multiplier has been given in the age group of 15-20, 21-25, 26-30 and so on. Thus, there is a technical flaw as to the multiplier between the ages of 20-21, 25-26, 30-31 and so on. To apply the judgment purposefully, the multiplier has to be taken as per the age which is nearer to the birth on the date of the accident.

7. Since the deceased was 40 years and 08 months (as the number of dependents were six), appropriate multiplier was '14' instead of '15'. Similarly, the addition on account of future prospects when a person is aged more than 40 years is 30%. Applying a multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,29,974/- (Rs.6288/- + 30% x 3/4 x 12 x 14) as against the award of Rs.10,92,000/-. Since this is a borderline case and the deceased was elder by a few months, I would not interfere in the award on loss of dependency of Rs.10,92,000/- granted by the Claims Tribunal.

8. The Appeal is consequently dismissed being devoid of any merit.

9. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

10. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE AUGUST 07, 2012 pst