Delhi High Court
Dtc And Anr. vs Samida Begum And Ors. on 9 October, 2014
$~R-14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 9th October, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 515/2006
DTC AND ANR. ..... Appellants
Through Mr.J.N.Aggarwal, Advocate.
Versus
SAMIDA BEGUM AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant seeking to impugn the
Award dated 10.04.2006.
2. The brief facts are that on 18.01.1999 the deceased Mohd. Harun was
waiting for his bus at the bus stand at Andrews Ganj. At about 8.40 P.M. the
bus in question bearing No. DEP 9416 driven by the driver Jai Pal Singh
said to be driving it at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner
coming from Lajpat Nagar and hit the deceased with force. The deceased
fell and received fatal injuries.
3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal held that the accident
took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. DEP 9416
driven by the driver Sh.Jai Pal Singh.
4. On compensation the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.5,85,000/- and Rs.5,000/- on account of treatment.
5. Despite service, none has appeared for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Award is
erroneous. He makes four submissions. He firstly submits that the claimants
have failed to prove the negligence of the offending bus. He also relies upon
the evidence of the conductor of the bus RW-1 Sh.Ravinder Kumar who has
said that he was on duty and the bus was plying from Sarai Kale Khan to
Faridabad and the route adopted was different. He further submits that the
computation of dependency is incorrect.
7. Coming to the first submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant, RW-1 Sh.Ravinder Kumar in his evidence states that he was the
conductor of the bus and the bus had taken the route No. 346 + 53. The route
adopted by the driver was Pragati Maidan, High Court, UPSC, Safdarjung
Airport, Sarojini Nagar Market and then to Sarojini Nagar Depot. In his
cross-examination, he admits that he does not know that a criminal case has
been filed against the driver. He admits that his statement was not recorded
by the police.
8. We may also note that PW-2 Yusuf Khan, the son of the deceased was
standing with his father on the date of the accident. He in his affidavit by
way of evidence said that he was standing along with the deceased when at
8.40 PM the bus in question came driven by the driver in a very rash and
negligent manner. The deceased was hit by the bus. He has also exhibited
the police challan filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. There is nothing in his
cross-examination to shake his evidence. He does mention that he had gone
to the police station after 40 days of the death of the father.
9. The driver of the vehicle Sh.Jai Pal Singh died during pendency of the
proceedings before the Tribunal.
10. The chargesheet was filed in the appropriate criminal case which has
been exhibited as Ex.PW2/1. The trial of the court would have possibly
terminated on account of the demise of the accused.
11. In view of the evidence of PW2, the eye witness to the accident, in
my opinion there is sufficient material on record to show that the accident
took place due to the said vehicle and that the driver of the said offending
vehicle was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. Even
otherwise this court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 has held that the copy of the FIR, the
chargesheet pursuant to investigation of police under section 279/304-A IPC
was sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that the driver of the offending
vehicle was negligent inasmuch proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are
not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are
not required to be followed.
12. Similarly the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Basant Kaur
& Ors. vs. Chattar Pal Singh & Ors. 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB) has also held
as above.
13. In view of the above legal position also, there is no force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant about there not being
sufficient proof to prove the negligence of the offending vehicle.
14. Coming to the computation of income, the Tribunal has noted that the
deceased was 44 years of age at the time of his death. He was said to be a
scooter mechanic earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal took the
wages for a skilled labour for the year 1999 as Rs.2,772/-. The Tribunal has
added 50% wages on account of future prospects. The Tribunal has adopted
the multiplier of 15 and computed loss of dependency at Rs.5,40,000/- and
total compensation at Rs.5,85,000/-.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
minimum wages have wrongly been taken as Rs.2,772/- when actually they
were Rs.2,361/- on the date of the accident i.e. 18.01.1999. He similarly
submits that keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 5, in the case of
self employed or those on fixed wages, the assessed income should be
increased by 30% for future prospects for those between the age bracket of
40-50 for the purpose of computing loss of future earnings. He lastly
submits that keeping in view the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of
Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier to be used should be 14.
16. There is merit in the said submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant. A perusal of the notified minimum wages for a skilled worker as
on 18.01.1999 shows that the prescribed minimum wages were Rs.2,361/-.
Same is the position regarding the future prospects as elaborated by the
Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(supra.) Regarding the multiplier it should be 14 keeping in view the age of
the deceased as elaborated by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla
Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (supra).
17. In view of the above, the loss of dependency would now come to
Rs.3,43,762/- [(Rs.2361+30%) -1/3 x 12 x 14]. The total compensation
would come to as follows:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.3,43,762/-
Loss of Love and affection : Rs.20,000/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.20,000/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.5,000/-
Total : Rs. 3,88,762/-.
18. This court on 02.06.2006 had directed the appellant to deposit the
entire award amount with up to date interest. 50% of the amount was to be
released to the claimant and 50% was to be kept in fixed deposit. This order
was confirmed on 22.05.2007. Let from the fixed deposit, the amount as
payable to the claimants in view of the above order along with proportionate
accumulated interest be released to the claimants. The balance amount of the
fixed deposit with proportionate accumulated interest be refunded to the
appellant.
19. Let a copy of the present order be sent without filing of PF to the
claimants at the address mentioned in the memo of parties.
20. The appeals stands disposed of.
21. The statutory amount if any deposited by the appellant at the time of
filing of the appeal be refunded.
JAYANT NATH, J
OCTOBER 09, 2014/rb
