Delhi High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road ... vs Phool Kumari & Ors. on 6 November, 2017
$~R-405
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 6th November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 948/2011
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv.
versus
PHOOL KUMARI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava, Adv.
for R-1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Dharmender, aged 20 years, a bachelor, working for gain as an
electrician, was present in the area of Bus Terminus at Ajmeri Gate,
Delhi on 03.08.2009, when he came to be crushed to death upon being
sandwiched between two buses, both of Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation (UPSRTC), one bearing registration no.UP 32
CN 0906 and the other bearing registration no. UP32 CN 0926. While
the first said bus was stationary, the second said bus was moving, it
being driven by Lal Singh, an employee deployed by UPSRTC. His
mother and minor sisters, they being the respondents (collectively, the
claimants), instituted accident claim case (suit no. 348/2009) on
11.09.2009 seeking compensation on the averments that the driver of
the second above-mentioned bus had been negligent. The tribunal
held inquiry and upon its conclusion, by judgment dated 06.06.2011,
upheld the said case awarding compensation in the total sum of Rs.
5,47,720/-, it inclusive of Rs. 5,22,720/- as loss of financial
dependency, Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss of love & affection and
loss to estate and Rs. 5,000/- on account of funeral expenses. The
liability to pay the said amount was fastened on UPSRTC (the
appellant) with levy of interest @ 7.5% per annum.
2. The present appeal was filed by UPSRTC questioning the
finding on the issue of negligence and also raising grievances about
the computation of compensation under the head of loss of
dependency, primarily on the contention that the minimum wages
prevalent in Delhi could not have been invoked since the claimants
have been residents of District Fatehpur, UP and further that the sisters
were wrongly taken as dependents, this resulting in error on account of
personal expenses to the extent of 1/3rd.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has been heard and the
record perused. This Court finds that the questions raised about the
correctness of the conclusions on the issue of negligence are unjust
and unfair. The evidence of Constable Ravi Kumar (PW-2), who was
a local police official on duty inside the bus terminus has brought out
vividly the circumstances in which the death was caused upon the
victim being crushed between the two buses, one stationary and the
other moving. The claim was filed against the driver of the bus which
was moving. The appellant made no effort to examine the said driver
to bring out his version. It may be that PW-2 was not an eye-witness.
But then, it is not necessary that in order to bring home a claim for
compensation under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
evidence of an eye-witness must always be produced. The tribunal has
gone by the principle of preponderance of probabilities and for sound
reasons. In these circumstances, the plea to above effect must be
rejected.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the
question of computation of compensation, she was asked to re-
consider her submission in the light of the decision of a Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court dated 31.10.2017 in SLP (C)
25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Ors. The counsel, however, would not like to seek fresh instructions
and insisted that the appeal may be considered on the submissions, as
presented.
5. It may be observed that instead of being reduced, the
compensation in the present case requires to be enhanced. It is noted
that the tribunal failed to consider the evidence of the mother based on
her affidavit (Ex.PW-1/A) that the deceased was working as an
electrician in Delhi. In these circumstances, the minimum wages of an
unskilled worker could not have been invoked. While it is true that
there is no proof of any special training undertaken, given the nature
of the job in which he was engaged, minimum wages of semi-skilled
workers should have been adopted as the benchmark, the same being
in the sum of (Rs.4119) per month during the relevant period.
6. Following the ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra) of the Supreme
Court, the element of future prospects of increase in income to the
extent of 40% will have to be added. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the
Constitution bench has upheld the decision of the Supreme Court in
Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,
(2009) 6 SCC 121. In these circumstances, the multiplier will have to
be adopted according to the age of the deceased which, in the present
case, would be 18.
7. Undoubtedly, the claim being on account of death of a bachelor,
the deduction on account of personal & living expenses could not have
been restricted to 1/3rd but should have been to extent of 50%. Thus,
the loss of dependency is recalculated as (4119 x 140 ÷ 100 x (1/2) x
12 x 18) Rs. 6,22,792.80/-, rounded off to Rs. 6,23,000/-.
8. Following the dispensation on the non-pecuniary heads of
damages, as per ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount of Rs.
15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses are added.
Thus, the total compensation in the case comes to (6,23,000 + 15,000
+ 15,000) Rs. 6,53,000/- (Rupees six lakhs fifty three thousand only).
9. In above facts and circumstances, the award stands increased to
Rs. 6,53,000/-. It shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal. It is
directed that the entire enhanced portion of the award with
corresponding interest shall fall to the share of first respondent Phool
Kumari (mother) only.
10. By order dated 24.10.2011, the appellant was directed to deposit
the entire awarded amount with interest. By order dated 30.08.2012,
50% was permitted to be released to the claimants. The balance shall
also now be released to the claimants. The appellant is directed to
deposit the remainder of its liability in terms of the modification
ordered above with the tribunal within 30 days making it available to
be released to the claimants.
11. The statutory amount is forfeited as costs to be made over to the
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
12. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 06, 2017
nk
