Delhi Transport Corporation vs Smt. Seema & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 6728 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 23rd November, 2012
+        MAC.APP. 455/2005

         DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION               ....... Appellant
                      Through: Mr. S.P. Jain, Adv.

                     versus

         SMT. SEEMA & ORS.                                ..... Respondents
                       Through:          Mr. Dhirander Mathur, Adv. for R-1 &
                                         R-2.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                 JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) seeks reduction of compensation of `8,45,600/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Surender Singh, who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 10.12.1997.

2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that on 10.12.1997 at about 6:15 P.M. the deceased Surender Singh was crossing the road near Public Health Centre, Najafgarh, when he was ran over by bus No.DEP-9701 which was being driven by its driver Balwan Singh (not impleaded in this Appeal) in a rash and negligent manner. It was claimed that the deceased was working as a driver on a blue line bus owned by one Neki Ram. The deceased was getting a salary of `7500/- per month in addition to `50/- per day as daily allowance.

3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of bus No.DEP-9701 driven by Balwan Singh and owned by DTC. The Claims Tribunal believed the deceased's income to be `7500/- per month, added 50% towards future prospects and applied the multiplier of 13 (as the deceased was aged between 45-50 years) to compute the loss of dependency as `7,95,600/-.

4. During the course of hearing, a very short submission is raised on behalf of the Appellant DTC. It is urged that the income of `7500/- accepted by the Claims Tribunal was excessive. The Minimum Wages of an unskilled worker in the year 1997 were just `2208/- per month. Any income beyond `40,000/- was subject to payment of income tax. No cogent evidence was produced to prove the deceased's income to be `7500/- per month. The Claims Tribunal erred in believing the deceased's income to be `7500/- per month.

5. It is contended that a sum of `50,000/- awarded towards non pecuniary damages is excessive and exorbitant.

6. I have before me the Trial Court record. In order to prove Surender Singh's income the Claimants examined PW-1 Seema Devi, the deceased's widow. She deposed that her husband was getting a salary of `9,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal further examined Surjit Singh son of the owner of the bus No.DL-1P-7968 on which the deceased Surender Singh was employed as a driver. He corroborated PW-1's testimony that the deceased was being paid a salary of `7500/- per month in addition of daily allowance of `50/-.

7. The witness tried to prove the salary certificate, copy of which is placed on the Trial Court record. However, the same was not exhibited. In cross-examination the witness deposed that no appointment letter was issued to the deceased. He added that an information regarding deceased's employment was given to the registering authority. He stated that they were maintaining a register regarding payment of salary from the beginning. The witness sought adjournment to produce the record. On next date, that is, on 23.02.2004 no record was produced. The witness admitted that TDS was not deducted from the deceased's salary.

8. It is not in dispute that as per the Notification issued under the Income Tax Act in the Assessment year 1988-99 any income beyond `40,000/- was subject to payment of income tax. Thus, PW-2 was expected to deduct the income tax at source if the salary beyond `40,000/- was being paid. At the rate of `9,000/- the deceased's salary would be `1,08,000/-. Even if, the amount of `50/- was paid towards the expenses the annual salary would be ` 90,000/- which was much above the taxable limit.

9. On the basis of the evidence produced by the Claimants it was difficult to believe that deceased Surender Singh was getting a salary of `7,500/- per month as accepted by the Claims Tribunal. It was established that the deceased was employed as a driver on a bus. On fair assessment, when the Minimum Wages of a skilled worker were `2,200/- per month, it would be reasonable to hold the salary of a bus driver to be about ` 3,000/- per month at the time of the accident.

10. There was no evidence with regard to deceased's good future prospects.

Still the Claimants would be entitled to an addition of 30% towards

inflation on the basis of ratio in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.

11. The loss of dependency thus comes to `4,05,600/- (3,000/- + 30% x 2/3 x 12 x 13).

12. Considering that this accident took place in the year 1997, the Claimants would be entitled to a sum of `15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `5,000/- each towards loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses.

13. The overall compensation is reduced from ` 8,45,600/- to ` 4,35,600/-

which shall carry interest @ 7% per annum as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

14. The excess amount of ` 4,10,000/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

15. The compensation awarded to the Claimants shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

16. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant DTC.

17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

18. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 23, 2012 vk