Delhi High Court
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Sh.Joginder Singh & Ors. on 22 May, 2015
Author: Jayant Nath
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Pronounced on : 22.05.2015
+ MAC APPL.707/2014 and CM No.12415/2014 (stay)
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through Mr.S.K.Bhattacharya, Advocate.
versus
SH.JOGINDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the Award dated
30.04.2014.
2. The brief facts are that on 01.02.2013 Sh.Ravinder Singh, the
deceased was coming from Gurgaon on his motorcycle. At about 1.10 a.m
when he reached on Mahipalpur Flyover, he was hit by a bus belonging to
the appellant driven by respondent No.5. The bus was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner and came from behind and hit the motorcycle.
Sh.Ravinder Singh fell down and sustained fatal injuries.
3. The Tribunal based on his evidence on record concluded that the
accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent
No.5.
4. On compensation, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.12,25,224/-
Funeral Expenses : Rs.25,000/-
Loss of Estate : Rs.10,000/-
Loss of love and affection : Rs.25,000/-
Total : Rs.12,85,224/-
5. The Tribunal noted that the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of
the accident. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased based on
minimum wages of a non-matriculate which was Rs. 8,008/- per month at
the relevant time though it was claimed that the deceased was a disc Jockey
earning Rs.36,500/- per month. The Tribunal enhanced the assessed income
by 50% for future prospects, 50% was deducted for personal and living
expenses and applied a multiplier of 17 and the total loss of dependency was
assessed at Rs. 12,25,224/-.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made two
submissions to impugn the award. He firstly submits that the onus to prove
that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the appellant was on
the claimants which onus they have not discharged. It is averred that no eye
witness has been produced and none of the documents placed on record
show the negligence of the appellant's vehicle which was being driven by its
driver i.e. respondent No. 5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Surender Kr. Arora & Anr. vs. Dr.Manoj
Bisla & Ors., MACD 2012 (SC) 126 and Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs.
Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65.
7. The matter has been heard and is being disposed of at the initial stage
itself.
8. I first deal with the first contention of the appellant about the
negligence. A perusal of the Award shows that the claimants had tendered
the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the father of the deceased, PW-2, the mother of
deceased, PW-3, the employer and PW-4, Sh. Lalit Gupta. The appellant
have adduced the evidence of the driver R1W1 and the conductor of the bus
R1W2.
9. The Tribunal noted that a charge-sheet has been filed against
respondent No.5 for offences under Section 279/340A IPC. The Tribunal
also noted that as per the mechanical inspection report, the bus of the
appellant had fresh damages. Based on these documents, the Tribunal held
that the negligence of respondent No. 5 stands prima facie proved and held
in favour of the claimants.
10. A perusal of the Award shows that the charge-sheet has been filed
against the driver of appellant's bus. The mechanical inspection report
shows that the bus had damages on the front side of the bus, namely, front
bumper dented/scratched, right side lower body dented/pressed/scratched,
left side lower body dented/pressed/scratched. This court in the case of
National Insurance Company vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 has already
held that the Tribunal can in given circumstances based on the outcome of
the criminal investigations and the other connected documents conclude
about the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. To the same
effect there is a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh in
the case of Basant Kaur and Ors. vs. Chatarpal Singh & Ors., 2003 ACJ
369.
11. In the light of the above judgments and the evidence on record, in my
view, there are no reasons to interfere with the findings recorded by the
Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle
owned by the appellant.
12. Coming to the issue of future prospects. I can take judicial note of the
fact that minimum wages for a non-matriculate in 2002 were Rs.2827.7/-
P.M. and in 2012 were Rs.7748/- P.M. It is obvious that the prescribed
minimum wages have more than doubled in ten years.
13. In case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54
the Supreme Court held that in the case of self employed or those on fixed
wages, when the victim is below 40 years an addition of 50% should be
made in the wages for the purpose of computing loss of future earnings.
14. In the case of Smt.Savita vs. Bindar Singh & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC
505, the Supreme Court was of the view that in the case of self employed or
those engaged on fixed wages, 30% increase in income over period of time
would be appropriate. In the case of V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr., 2014
ACJ 1441, the Supreme Court in the case of injury to a student who was
studying in Class XI aged 16 years had awarded 50% increase for future
prospects.
15. Further, this court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. in MAC APP. 846/2011 in judgment
dated 30.09.2013 had gone into this issue and had noted the judgments of
the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009 ACJ 1298, Reshma Kumari & Ors.
vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.(supra), Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 and other judgments and concluded that future prospects
should be given to persons who are self-employed or on fixed wages.
16. I may further note that this court in MAC APP.761/2012 Rakesh and
Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vide judgment dated
02.04.2014 had in a case where the deceased was 24 years old added 50% to
the income towards future prospects for computing loss of dependency
based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors.
vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(supra). Against the said judgment the appellant had
filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. The said SLP No.5612/2014 was
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.10.2014.
17. In view of the above, the increase of 50% for future prospects is in
order.
18. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is
dismissed.
19. Statutory amount, if any, be refunded to the appellant.
(JAYANT NATH)
JUDGE
MAY 22, 2015
rb
