Delhi High Court
Balkishan Sharma & Ors. vs Puran Singh & Ors. on 17 February, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th February, 2012
+ MAC APP. 729/2011
BALKISHAN SHARMA & ORS.
..... Appellants
Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate
Versus
PURAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for
the Respondent No.3 Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellants impugns a judgment dated 13.05.2011 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby a
compensation of `6,05,800/- was awarded for the death of Lalit
Sharma who was aged 23 years at the time of the accident.
2. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants are:
i) That the deceased's mother was aged about 45 years but
her age was taken 54 years by the Claims Tribunal
without any material and a multiplier of 11 was applied
instead of 13.
ii) The deceased was a Graduate from Delhi University. He
had good future prospects. The Tribunal erred in not
granting any future prospects.
iii) The Tribunal erred in fastening the liability of 30% of the
compensation on the driver and owner of the Esteem Car
bearing No.DL-6CE-3505. As per the evidence produced
on record, there was no negligence on the part of the
driver of Esteem Car in which the deceased Lalit Sharma
was travelling. It is submitted that, in any case, it was a
case of composite negligence.
3. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the Respondent
No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. that the future prospects
were rightly declined as there was no evidence with regard to
the future prospects or that the deceased had a long duration of
employment or that the employment was of permanent nature.
MULTIPLIER:
4. There is no documentary evidence on record to show the age of
Smt. Savita Sharma except that in the Petition her age has been
mentioned as 39 years. The Voter Identity Card of the
deceased's father is available on record which shows that
Balkishan Sharma was aged 36 years in the year 1994 when the
Voter Identity Card was issued to him. Thus, it is established
that he was aged 48 years at the time of the accident. In the
circumstances, it can be presumed that the deceased's mother
was also aged between 45 years to 50 years. The Claims
Tribunal erred in selecting the multiplier of 11, whereas it
should have been 13.
FUTURE PROSPECTS:
5. As far as non-grant of future prospects is concerned, apart from
proving the salary certificate Ex.PW4/C, no evidence was
produced by the Respondents No.1 & 2 that the deceased had
any future prospects. Even the duration of the deceased's
employment with M/s. CL Batra and Sons was not established.
In this view of the matter, the Appellants were not entitled to
any addition in the deceased's salary on account of future
prospects.
NEGLIGENCE:
6. The Claims Tribunal found contributory negligence on the part
of the driver of Maruti Esteem Car bearing No.DL-6CE-3505.
The reasoning given by the Claims Tribunal is extracted
hereunder:
"8. The testimony of PW-3, Sh. Arvind Kumar is
relevant on this issue. He deposed that on
27.10.2006, the PW-3, Sh. Arvind Kumar along with
his friend Jai Chand and Sanjay Sharma was going
to Mathura by a Maruti Van bearing No. DL-3cl-
3754 AND AT A SOME DISTANCE Maruti Esteem
Car DL-6CE-3505 was going ahead of their Maruti
Van. At about 1:00 am, when they reached at
Village Vanchari, GT road, they found that vehicle
no. DL-6CE-3505 rammed against the UP roadways
bus No.UP-80AC-9858, which was parked
dangerously on the road without any parking signal
or without putting any parking light or indicator on.
It is stated that accident took place because of
parking of offending bus in negligent manner.
During cross-examination, PW-3 stated that police
recorded his statement on 28.10.06 at 2:30 a.m. It
is also stated that there were no lights on the road.
9. I have gone through the material on record.
The FIR, site-plan, postmortem report, and
testimony of PW-3 taken together fully establish the
death of the deceased, Sh. Rajender and Sh. Lalit
Sharma caused by the injuries sustained by them in
the road accident involving vehicle bearing no. UP-
80AC-9858. There is nothing on record to dispel
the inference that deceased Sh. Rajender and Sh.
Lalit Sharma died on account of injuries sustained
by him in a road accident which occurred on
27.10.2006 because of negligence of driver of
vehicle bearing registration No.UP-80AC-9858.
The bus no. UP-80AC-9858 was parked on the road
without putting on the indicator or the back light in
itself shows the negligence on the part of driver of
said bus. However, it cannot be lost sight that the
Maruti Esteem car hit the stationary bus. It can be
easily inferred from the material on record that
Maruti Esteem car must have been at the high
speed, otherwise the driver of the Maruti Esteem
could have applied the brakes in time and could
have avoided the said accident. Under these facts
and circumstances, in my opinion the driver of the
Maruti Esteem car was also negligent. I apportion
the negligence on the part of driver of bus no.UP-
80AC-9858 and driver of Maruti Esteem Car
bearing no. DL-6CE-3505 to be 70% and 30%
respectively. The issue no.1 and 2 are decided
accordingly."
7. Arvind Kumar appeared for cross-examination as PW3. In
cross-examination on behalf of the driver of the U.P. Roadways
Bus No.UP-80AC-9858, no suggestion was given as to the
manner in which accident took place or that the accident took
place due to rashness or negligence of the driver of the Esteem
Car. In cross-examination on behalf of the Respondent
Insurance Company, the witness deposed that the speed of the
Esteem Car was 50-60 km per hour.
8. It is important to note that the accident took place at 1:00 am.
PW3's testimony that there was no light on the highway was not
discredited. His testimony that UP Roadways bus was parked
dangerously on the road without giving any parking signals or
without putting on any parking light/indicator was also not
challenged in the cross-examination conducted by the First
Respondent i.e. the driver of U.P. Roadways bus. In the
circumstances, there was no material on record to reach the
conclusion that there was any negligence on the part of the
driver of the Esteem Car. Any person driving a motor car in the
dead of the night would collide with a vehicle parked in the
middle of the road without any parking light/Reflectors. In the
circumstances, the finding of any negligence on the part of the
Esteem Car driver is set aside.
9. The compensation is recomputed as under:
Loss of Dependency `9,15,200/-
(8800 X 12 X 2/3 X 13)
Loss of Love and Affection `25,000/-
Loss to Estate `10,000/-
Funeral Expenses `5,000/-
Total `9,55,200/-
10. The overall compensation is enhanced from `6,05,800/- to
`9,55,200/-.
11. The enhanced amount of compensation shall also carry interest
@ 7.5% per annum as granted by the Claims Tribunal from the
date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit. The
Respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is directed
to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest within 30
days with the Registrar General of this Court.
12. 20% of the enhanced amount shall be payable to the First
Appellant. Rest shall go to the Second Appellant. 50% of the
enhanced amount awarded to the Second Appellant shall be
held in a Fixed Deposit for a period of one year. Rest of the
amount shall be released to the Appellants forthwith on its
deposit by the Insurance Company.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 17, 2012/ pst
