Delhi High Court
Urmila & Anr. vs Sajjan Singh & Ors on 18 August, 2017
$~R-118
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 18th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 518/2009 and CM APPL.14921/2009, 16534/2010
URMILA & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Advocate
versus
SAJJAN SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv. for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Naveen Goyal, aged about 19 years and six months, a bachelor
son of the first appellant, died in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 04.10.2005, involving collision of two motor vehicles at
Rithala Road, Delhi they being motorcycle bearing registration
No.DL-4S-AG-5358 (motorcycle) and truck bearing registration
No.HR-55A-0552 (the truck). She filed accident claim case (Petition
No.619/2008) on 08.03.2006 under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. The driver, owner and insurer of the truck, they
being the first, second and third respondent herein, were impleaded as
respondents in the said proceedings. The tribunal held inquiry but, by
its judgment dated 01.07.2009, dismissed the petition because the
claimant had not been able to prove negligence on the part of truck
driver.
2. Noticeably, in the pleadings collision between the two vehicles
had been admitted. The facts that the truck was driven by the first
respondent, owned by the second respondent and was insured against
third party risk with the third respondent had also been admitted.
3. The appeal at hand was filed questioning the above mentioned
judgment, appellant having added her husband as second appellant in
these proceedings.
4. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that given the fact that the use and involvement of the truck in
collision leading to death is not disputed, the claim of the appellants
may be treated as one pressed under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 on the basis of no fault liability under the
structured formula.
5. The learned counsel for the third respondent, on being called
upon to respond submitted that he leaves the matter to the discretion of
the court.
6. In the facts and circumstances, the request seems to be just and
proper. The claim case of the first appellant is treated as one under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Given the above
facts, compensation in terms of second Schedule appended to the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with reference to Section 163-A of the Act
deserves to be computed.
7. It is noted that the first appellant, in the course of inquiry before
the tribunal, had examined herself as PW-1 on the strength of her
affidavit (Ex.PW-1/A), this in addition to Pramod Sharma (PW-2),
Assistant Ahlmad of the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Gulbir
Singh (PW-3) record clerk from Brahm Shakti Hospital to prove the
expenditure incurred in the treatment and K.D. Sharma (PW-4), record
clerk from Maharaja Agrasain Hospital to prove similar expenditure
incurred in that hospital.
8. In the course of her testimony as PW-1, the claimant had stated
that the deceased was 20 years old and earning his livelihood by
running a provisional store, from which his income was about
Rs.8,000/- per month, this in addition to private service from where he
would earn Rs.4950/-. Other than the oral word, however, nothing in
corroboration was brought in. Mere production of salary certificates
(Ex.PW-1/71 and Ex.PW-1/72) cannot be treated as good proof. In
these circumstances, the income will have to be assessed only on the
basis of minimum wages.
9. There is no proof of educational qualification of the deceased.
In these circumstances, the income is notionally assessed at
Rs.3165.90 rounded off to Rs.3166/- per month, it being the minimum
wages of an unskilled worker on the relevant date.
10. It is noted that as per the driving licence (copy at page 317 of
the tribunal's record), his date of birth was 04.04.1986. This would
mean he was 19½ years old. In terms of dispensation in second
Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, one-third is deducted
towards personal and living expenses, and on the multiplier of 16, the
loss of dependency is computed as (3166/- x 2/3 x 12 x 16)
Rs.4,05,248 rounded off to Rs.4,06,000/-.
11. The second Schedule restricts that medical expenses in case of
death to Rs.15,000/-. Adding the general damages, in terms of the
second schedule, and the medical expenditure, the total compensation
in the case comes to (4,06,000/- + 2,000/- + 2,500/- + 15,000/-)
Rs.4,25,500/-, rounded off to Rs.4,26,000/-.
12. An award of Rs.4,26,000/- is granted in favour of the first
appellant. It shall carry interest @ nine per cent (9%) per annum from
the date of filing of the petition till realization.
13. The third respondent is directed to satisfy the award by requisite
deposit with the tribunal within thirty days from today. Upon such
deposit being made, the amount shall be released to the first appellant
in the form of interest bearing fixed deposit receipt to be taken out
from a nationalized bank in her name for a period of five years with
liberty to draw periodic interest.
14. The appeal along with accompanying applications stands
disposed of in above terms.
15. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 18, 2017
vk
