Delhi High Court
Uttaranchal State Road Transport ... vs Rama Devi Kaira & Ors. on 28 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~7 & 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:28th May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. No.721/2007
UTTARANCHAL STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Harish Chandra Pant,
Advocate
Versus
RAMA DEVI KAIRA & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
WITH
+ MAC.APP. 374/2011
RAMA DEVI KAIRA & ORS
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
versus
UTTRANCHAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish Chandra Pant,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These two Appeals (MAC. APP. No.721/2007 land MAC. APP.
No.374/2011) arise out of a judgment dated 12.09.2007 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal)
whereby a compensation of Rs.10,32,000/- was awarded for
the death of Rajinder Singh Kaira who died in an accident
which occurred on 19.04.2006.
2. On 20.04.2006, deceased Rajinder Singh Kaira along with other
persons was travelling in Uttaranchal State Road Transport
Corporation(USRTC) bus No.UA-07M-8604 from Delhi to
Almora. At about 3:45 AM, the bus reached Gethia
Sanitorium, Nainital. The bus was being driven in a very rash
and negligent manner. The driver of the bus lost control as a
result the bus fell down the road in a 'khad'. The deceased
suffered injuries which proved to be fatal. On appreciation of
the evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident
occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the
bus owned by the Appellant. It was proved that the deceased
Rajinder Singh Kaira was in Government Service. On the date
of the accident, he was getting a salary of `9991/- per month
including transport allowance of `100/- and washing allowance
of `30/-. The Claims Tribunal apart from these allowances
deducted other allowances payable to the deceased, added 50%
towards future prospects and applied a multiplier of '9' to
compute the loss of dependency as `9,72,000/-. On adding a
sum of `60,000/- towards non-pecuniary heads, the overall
compensation came to be `10,32,000/-
3. The Uttaranchal State Road Transport Corporation(USRTC) has
filed the Appeal impugning the judgment on the ground of
negligence, whereas the Respondents No.1 to 4 (the Claimants)
have filed the Cross-Objections on the ground that the
compensation awarded is on the lower side.
NEGLIGENCE:
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant USRTC that
the accident occurred as the driver of the USRTC bus tried to
save a boy who had suddenly come on the road. On the issue
of negligence, the Claims Tribunal held as under:
"Petitioners in context of this issue have examined
Smt. Vimla Bisht as PW1. This witness has testified
that she was travelling in the ill fated bus at the time
of accident. In para no.1 of Ex.PW1/X she has
testified that the driver of the offending bus was
driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and
lost control over the bus while so driving. She has
further testified that on account of loss of control,
bus fell down 500 feet below. In last lines of para
no.1, she has testified that accident took place on
account of fault of the driver of the bus. She was
cross-examined on 19.03.2007 at length by Ld.
counsel Sh. G.S. Aneja for respondent. Nothing
favourable to respondent could be elicited during
lengthy cross-examination. Her presence in the bus
stands established from a bare perusal of her
testimony. The road was a hilly one admittedly.
This witness has testified that at the place of
accident road was straight. She has also testified
that two vehicles could pass easily to and fro at the
spot of accident. She has denied the suggestion that
driver of the bus was driving the bus at a moderate
speed and accident was not caused due to the
negligence of the bus driver. She has also denied
the suggestion that one unfortunate unknown person
tried to cross the road all of a sudden and driver in
the process lost his control. Respondent has not led
any evidence to prove the defence of sudden closing
of the road which is at variance with pleadings.
Thus from the above discussed version, one leads to
the inference that driver of the bus was not driving
the bus in a proper manner and rashness and
negligence as required in a civil case stands proved
by the petitioners. It is well settled that rashness
and negligence is not required to be proved in a
manner as is required in a civil or criminal case.
'Kaushnuma Begum' and 2001 ACJ 1638, being
handy precedents in this regard."
5. The driver of the bus has not come forward to narrate the
circumstances in which the accident occurred. Although it is
not proved on record that any person had suddenly come on the
road, the manner of the accident clearly depicts that the driver
of USRTC bus was not having sufficient control over the bus
and that was the reason that it went off the road and fell into a
trench. Negligence on the part of the driver of the USRTC is
writ large.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:
6. It was established from PW3's testimony that the deceased
Rajinder Singh Kaira was employed with Indian National
Science Academy as a helper and was getting a salary of
`9,991/- per month. This included a sum of `100/- towards
travel allowance and `30/- towards washing allowance. Only a
sum of `130/- can be treated as allowances which were
incidental to the employment. Rest of the salary was for the
benefit of the deceased and his family members. The deceased
left behind four legal representatives. At least the widow and
the Fourth Respondent who was aged 21 years at the time of
the accident were dependent on the deceased. The deduction
towards the personal and living expenses would be 1/3 rd as
taken by the Claims Tribunal and the appropriate multiplier
would be '13'. (Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121). The loss of
dependency thus comes to `13,33,207/- (`9,861/- x 12 + 30% x
2/3 x 13). On adding a sum of `60,000/- awarded towards the
non-pecuniary damages(as awarded by the Claims Tribunal),
the overall compensation comes to ` 13,93,207/-
7. A cost of `30,000/- was imposed upon the Appellant by an
order dated 23.03.2011. Another cost of `10,000/- was
imposed for restoration of the Appeal by an order dated
09.05.2012.
8. The enhanced compensation of `3,61,207/- shall carry interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till
the date the amount is paid. The Appellant is directed to
deposit the enhanced amount along with interest in the UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch in the name of the
Respondents No.1 to 4 within six weeks.
9. 55% of the enhanced amount shall be payable to the First
Respondent and 15% each shall be payable to the Respondents
No.2 to 4. The enhanced amount of compensation payable to
the Respondents No.2 to 4 shall be released immediately. 25%
of the enhanced amount payable to the First Respondent shall
be released to her immediately, rest of the amount shall be held
in Fixed Deposit for a period of one year, three years and five
years respectively in equal proportion.
10. The compensation deposited in this Court as awarded by the
Claims Tribunal shall be released in favour of the Respondents
No.1 to 4 in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
11. The MAC. APP. No.721/2007 filed by the USRTC is devoid of
merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.
12. The Cross-Objections (MAC APP. No.374/2011) preferred by
the Claimants is allowed in above terms.
13. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant USRTC Company after they pay the costs to the
Claimants and file a proof before the Registrar.
14. Pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 28, 2012
pst
