Delhi High Court
Ved Prakash & Anr. vs Darshan Singh & Ors. on 31 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on:1st November, 2011
Pronounced on:31st January, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 226/2009
VED PRAKASH & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Mohit Gupta with
Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Advocates
Versus
DARSHAN SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant who is father of deceased Sanjay Kumar
impugns a judgment dated 05.12.2008 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) by which an
application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act
preferred by the Appellant for award of compensation was
dismissed.
2. It is alleged that on 15.07.2005, the deceased was driving the
tempo bearing registration No.DL-1LD 7050. At about 3:00
AM, when he reached near Hari Petrol Pump, Police Station
Vrindawan, Distt, Mathura the tempo collided with an unknown
stationary truck. Sanjay Kumar died at the spot. The
Appellants who are the deceased's parents sought a
compensation of `5 lakh. The deceased's son Nitin Kumar was
impleaded as Respondent No.3. The Tribunal relied upon
HDFC Chubb General Insurance Company v. Smt Shanti
Devi Rajbal Singh Thakur & Anr, and held that since the
Appellant was not a third party, he was not entitled to any
compensation from the owner and the insurer of his own vehicle
when he himself was at fault.
3. Their cannot any dispute about the proposition of law that the
claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is
not maintainable against his own employer and owner of the
offending vehicle and the insurance company. (Ningamma &
Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13
SCC 710 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Sinitha
& Ors., 011 (13) SCALE 84. Similar view was taken by the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in FAO No.1413/2000 titled
General Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking-I,
Chandigarh & Anr v. Kanwaljit Kaur & Ors., decided on
09.05.2011.
4. The insurance policy Ex.R2W1/1 was proved by the
Respondent insurance company which shows that the
Appellants claimants were covered under the Workmen's
Compensation Act,1923 by paying additional premium of `50/-.
5. The Respondents/Claimants must have prosecuted a Claim
Petition under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 (the Act of 1923) for death of a workman before the
Commissioner, Workman's Compensation.
6. This Court being a Court of Appeal under Section 30 of the Act
of 1923, can itself compute the compensation and award it to
the Respondents Claimants instead of relegating them to
approach the Commissioner appointed under the Act of 1923. I
am supported in this view by Kanwaljit Kaur & Others(supra).
7. As per Section 4 of the Act of 1923, in case of death resulting
from injury arising out of an employment, the compensation
payable is an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the
deceased workman, multiplied by the relevant factor (as
mentioned in Schedule 4 of the Act of 1923).
8. The Appellant as PW1 deposed that the deceased was getting a
salary of `3200/- per month which was not disputed in cross-
examination. The deceased was aged 32 years. Thus, the
compensation payable at the age of 32 years comes to `
3,26,160/-(3200/2 x 203.85).
9. I hereby award a compensation of `3,26,160/- along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the
petition till the date of payment.
10. A sum of ` 50,000/- along with proportionate interest shall be
payable to the first and the second Appellant; rest of the amount
along with interest shall be payable to the Respondent No.3.
11. 50% of the awarded amount to the Appellants shall be held in
fixed deposit for a period of three years. Rest of the amount
shall be released to them forthwith. The amount awarded to
Respondent No.3 shall be held in fixed deposit through the first
Appellant in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch till he attains
the age of 21 years.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 31, 2012
pst
