Delhi High Court
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Aarti on 15 January, 2016
$~6 & 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th January, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 822/2011
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
& ANR
..... Appellants
Through Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
AARTI
..... Respondent
Through Mr. S N Parashar, Adv.
+ MAC.APP. 823/2011
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
& ANR
..... Appellants
Through Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
SATPAL
..... Respondent
Through Mr. S N Parashar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Both these motor accidents claim appeals arise out of judgment
dated 14.02.2011 of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal ("the Tribunal") -
Central District Delhi in two connected claim petitions under Sections
166 read with 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("MV Act"), one
registered as suit No.168/2010 respecting the death of Monika and the
other registered as suit No.169/2010 respecting the death of Nikhil in
motor vehicular accident which statedly took place on 05.03.2010
involving bus of the first appellant bearing registration no.RJ-14-IP-
4740 (hereinafter referred to as "the bus") admittedly driven by the
second appellant in the area of Police Station Sadar Palwal, District
Palwal, Haryana, forming subject matter of FIR No.89/2010 registered
there. The grievance of the appellants is that the bus was not involved
and the driver was not negligent.
2. The respondents herein are the parents of the two deceased
persons. They (hereinafter referred to as "the claimants") had filed the
two claim petitions seeking compensation, inter alia, alleging that the
accident had occurred on account of rash/negligent driving of the bus by
Jasbir Singh (the second appellant), an employee engaged by the first
appellant for driving the bus on the route in question. The appellants,
while contesting the two claim petitions, had taken the defence that
there was no collision between the bus driven by the second appellant
and the motorcycle bearing registration No.8S-AK-8185 (hereinafter
referred to as "the motorcycle") which was driven by Nikhil (the
deceased) and on which Monika (the deceased) was travelling as the
pillion rider. It was claimed that there was no question of any rash or
negligent act on the part of the second appellant for it to have resulted in
the fatal accident giving rise to cause of action for compensation to be
claimed.
3. The Tribunal, by the common judgment dated 14.02.2011,
rejected the defence of the appellants upholding the case about
involvement of the bus in the fatal accident as also the contention of the
claimants about it having occurred on account of rash/negligent driving
of the bus by the second appellant rendering both the appellants liable to
compensate.
4. The compensation in the case of death of Nikhil was assessed in
the sum of Rs.5,42,720/- which was awarded with interest @ 7.5% from
the date of filing of the petition (12.04.2010) till realisation and
apportioned in favour of the claimants.
5. On the other hand, compensation respecting the death of Monika
was assessed in the sum of Rs.6,63,880/- which was awarded with
interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition
(12.04.2010) till realisation.
6. Since the quantum of compensation awarded in the case of
Monika is questioned by way of cross-objections by the claimants, it
may be noted that the financial dependency was worked out as
Rs.6,38,880/- to which non-pecuniary damages under the separate heads
viz. loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate were
added in the sums of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/-
respectively.
7. The cross-objections preferred by the claimants in the afore-said
case are to the effect that the loss of dependency should have been
worked out accepting the claim that the deceased (Monika) was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month as beautician from a beauty parlour located in a
mall on Ring Road, Delhi in which regard salary certificate (Ex.PW-
1/12) along with salary vouchers (Ex.PW-1/13) had been submitted. It
is also submitted in the cross-objections that the non-pecuniary damages
as awarded in the said case are on the lower side.
8. The denial of involvement of bus or negligence is common
feature in both the cases, the defence having been reiterated by the
appellants in the two appeals. Reference is made mainly to the evidence
of the second appellant, who had appeared during the inquiry as RW-1.
It has been argued that the evidence of RW-1 could not have been
brushed aside in that he had explained that the collision had occurred
between the motorbike of the two deceased persons and, not with the
bus driven by him but, a car which they were trying to overtake. In the
said deposition, RW-1 had also claimed that on noticing the car and the
motorcycle colliding against each other and the motorbike falling down
on the road, he had immediately applied brakes turning the bus towards
the central verge and thereafter he with the assistance of passengers of
the bus had helped the motorcyclist being shifted to the hospital. He
claimed that he had been wrongly implicated in the criminal case.
9. On careful consideration of the submissions of the appellants, this
Court finds no reasons as to why the view taken by the Tribunal should
be disturbed. The material on record includes copies of the
corresponding criminal case that had been registered by the police vide
FIR No.89/2010 under Sections 279, 337, 304A of Indian Penal Code in
Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar
(PW-3), a close relative of the two deceased persons, was an eye-
witness to the accident. He testified during the inquiry before the
Tribunal on the strength of his affidavit (Ex.PW-3/A) affirming that he
was also moving on a separate motorcycle with his wife Anita as the
pillion driver, in the direction of Mathura, along side the motorcycle
driven by his brother-in-law Nikhil on the pillion of which his sister-in-
law Monika was riding. His evidence clearly shows that the
motorcycles had reached in the area of village Bamni Khera within the
jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal, Haryana,
when the bus of the first appellant driven by the second appellant had
come from the front side and had hit the motorcycle of Nikhil rendering
him and Monika fall down and sustain injuries. The police investigation
found the second appellant to be responsible for the collision. He was
accordingly arrested and on completion of investigation sent up for
prosecution.
10. The theory of a car being the other vehicle involved in the
collision is a defence taken by the second appellant. But in such regard
it is solely his word that is relied upon. There is no reason why his
version be preferred or the evidence of PW-3 corroborated by the
corresponding record of the criminal case investigated into by the police
should be disbelieved. It has to be borne in mind that in the inquiries
into such claim petitions, based on liability in tort, the standard of proof
is preponderance of probabilities. This Court does not find any
substance in the defence to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the
claimants and, thus, confirms the findings recorded by the Tribunal
holding the appellants liable to pay compensation.
11. Coming to the cross-objections, the claim based on the salary
certificate (Ex.PW-1/12) and salary vouchers (Ex.PW-1/13) adduced by
the claimants to show that Monika was earning Rs.15,000/- per month is
found to have been rightly rejected by the tribunal. These certificates
were not strictly proved. The employer who issued the said documents
was not examined. In the facts and circumstances, the learned tribunal
was left with no option but to calculate the loss of dependency on the
basis of minimum wages payable to a matriculate, which criterion was
correctly adopted.
12. There is, however, scope for enhancement on account of non-
pecuniary damages. It is found that the award on the said score is on the
lower side.
13. The accident in the case of Rajesh V. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC
54 had occurred on 05.10.2007. In the said case, also a case of fatality,
non-pecuniary damages in the sum of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.25,000/- were
awarded under the heads of loss of consortium (since there the widow
was the claimant) and funeral expenses respectively. As the deceased in
the present case was a daughter of marriageable age, there is no
justification for increasing the amount on account of loss to estate.
However, the award on account of loss of love & affection and funeral
expenses is increased to Rs.1 lakh and Rs.25,000/- respectively.
14. In the result, the compensation stands increased by an amount of
Rs.1,10,000/- raising it to Rs.7,73,880/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Seventy
Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty). Ordered accordingly.
15. The appellants had deposited the amount awarded by the tribunal
with the Registrar General of this Court in terms of the interim orders.
Out of the said deposited amount, 50% is stated to have already been
released to the claimants, the balance lying in FDR. The said balance
amount shall also be now released to the claimants with up-to-date
accrued interest in terms of the impugned awards.
16. The appellants are directed to deposit the enhanced portion of the
award with the tribunal within 45 days of this order, along with interest
@ 7.5% p.a. calculated w.e.f. 23.03.2013, the date on which cross-
objections were submitted, till realisation. Upon such deposit being
made, the entire amount shall be paid to the mother (Aarti wife of Satpal
Singh).
17. The appeals with cross objections stand disposed of with above
directions/observations.
18. Statutory deposits, if made, shall be refunded after discharge of
liability by the appellants.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 15, 2016
VLD
