Delhi High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road ... vs Parwati & Ors. on 10 February, 2012
Author: J.R. Midha
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : 10th February, 2012
+ MAC.APP.No.504/2004
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Garima Prashad and
Mr. Shadab Khan, Advs.
versus
PARWATI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : None.
+ MAC.APP.No.522/2004
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Garima Prashad and
Mr. Shadab Khan, Advs.
versus
PARWATI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : None.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims
Tribunal whereby compensation of `9,68,704/- has been
awarded to the respondents in MAC.APP.No.504/2004 and
`34,180/- has been awarded in MAC.APP.No.522/2004.
2. The accident dated 21st July, 2002 resulted in the death
of Mahender Pal, injuries to his wife, Parwati and his son,
Jeetender who were travelling in Maruti Car bearing No.DL-6C-
5234 driven by the deceased Mahender Pal. Three separate
claim petitions were filed before the Claims Tribunal, one in
respect of the death of Mahender Pal, second in respect of the
injuries suffered by Parwati and third in respect of the injuries
suffered by Jeetender. By a common award dated 15th July,
2004, the Claims Tribunal awarded `9,68,704/- to the legal
representatives of the deceased Mahender Pal, `34,180/- to
Parwati and `20,674/- to Jeetender.
3. The appellants filed three appeals against the common
award passed by the Claims Tribunal. MAC.APP.No.507/2004
titled Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v.
Jeetender was dismissed by this Court holding that there was
no contributory negligence on the part of the Maruti Van driven
by the deceased, Mahender Pal. The findings of this Court in
the order dated 24th November, 2004 are reproduced
hereunder:-
"MAC.APP.No.507/2004 & C.M.Appl.14802/2004
This appeal is directed against order dated
15.07.2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in
Claim Petition No.81/2003 passing an award in
favour of the respondent herein.
Heard counsel for the appellant. I have got
through the judgment under challenge. From a
perusal of Ex.PW-1/27, prepared by the Investigating
Officer at the scene of the accident, it reflects that
the offending bus was on the right side on the road
and that the Maruti van was on the extreme left of
the road which is the spot of the accident. From this
it can be inferred that the offending bus, in the
process of overtaking a truck, rammed into the
Maruti Van which was travelling in its own lane.
From this it can also be deduced that the overtaking
was being done at a high speed when the driver of
the bus seems to have lost control of the vehicle. In
these facts, there is no question of contributory
negligence. The judgment under challenge is an
elaborate judgment dealing with all points in
question and there is nothing shown to me that
should warrant a different opinion.
In that view of the matter, I find no ground to
interfere. The appeal and the applications are
dismissed."
MAC.APP.No.522/2004
4. On 1st December, 2004, learned counsel for the appellant
made a statement that she does not press the question of
contributory negligence and would restrict the challenge only
to quantum of compensation which is recorded in the order
dated 1st December, 2004. The learned counsel for the
appellant seeks reduction of the amount awarded to the
claimant, Parwati.
5. The claimant suffered head injuries in the accident. She
was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Bulandshahr where she was
discharged on the same day. Thereafter, she took treatment
from GTB Hospital where the CAT Scan of the brain was done.
She continued her treatment at Ram Lal Kundan Lal
Orthopaedic Hospital. She used to visit the hospital four times
in a month for which she claimed `150/- towards conveyance
charges on each visit. She also claimed `60/- to `70/- per day
on special diet. The claimant was running general store from
the residence in the name of Brij General Store earning
`5,800/- per month. The claimant was an Income Tax payee.
The Income Tax Return for the assessment years 2001-02 and
2002-03 were proved as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/2A. The
prescription cards and medical bills were proved as Ex.PW1/3,
Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/21 to Ex.PW1/23. The prescription fee
and the medical bills of Rs.871/- were proved by the claimants.
6. The Claims Tribunal has awarded `10,000/- towards pain
and suffering, `871/- towards medical bills/treatment, `5,000/-
towards special diet and conveyance and `18,309/- towards
loss of income. The amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is
just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any reduction.
The Claims Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation
for loss of amenities of life which is a permissible head in injury
cases. However, since there is no appearance on behalf of the
respondents who have also not filed any cross-objections, the
enhancement is not warranted.
MAC.APP.No.504/2004
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged following
grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-
(i) The deceased was contributory negligent to the extent of
at least 50% and, therefore, the compensation is liable to be
reduced to that extent.
(ii) The deceased is not entitled to future prospects of 50%
awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
8. With respect to the issue of contributory negligence, this
Court has already given a finding in MAC.APP.No.507/2004 that
there was no contributory negligence of the driver of Maruti
Van. Following the order dated 24th November, 2004 passed
by this Court in MAC.APP.No.507/2004, the plea of contributory
negligence raised by the appellant is rejected.
9. With respect to the plea of future prospects, it is noted
that the deceased was running shop of electrical goods earning
`4,837/- per month. The Income Tax Return for the year
2001-02 was proved as Ex.PW1/1. The deceased was 38 years
old and was survived by his widow, three sons and parents
who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. In
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6)
Scale 129, the Supreme Court has held that in exceptional
cases, the future prospects can be taken into consideration
even in respect of self-employed persons. The deceased was
at the threshold of his career and, therefore, there is no
infirmity in treating this case as an exceptional case in terms
of the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is also noted that the
deceased was survived by six legal representatives and,
therefore, the appropriate deduction towards the personal
expenses of the deceased should have been 1/4th whereas the
Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses.
Since there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents and
the respondents have also not filed the cross-objections, the
enhancement on account of the reduction of personal
expenses of the deceased is not warranted.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons, both the appeals are
dismissed. No costs.
J.R. MIDHA, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2012
mk
