Delhi High Court
Upsrtc vs Manju Yadav & Ors. on 24 October, 2017
$~R-350
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 519/2011
UPSRTC ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv.
versus
MANJU YADAV & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 01.11.2008, the motor vehicular accident took place
involving collision between two vehicles one being Maruti Van
bearing registration no. DL-3C-AW-0291 (van) and the other
bus bearing registration no. UP-15-Z-9773 (bus). The collision
resulted in Sanjay Yadav, driving the van, suffering injuries that
proved fatal. The bus admittedly belonged to the appellant and
driven by its driver Imamuddin at the relevant point of time.
The first to fifth respondents (collectively, the claimants)
instituted accident claim case (suit no. 609/2008) on 21.11.2008
seeking compensation on the grounds that the accident had
occurred due to the negligent driving of the bus by the said
Imamuddin. During the inquiry before the tribunal, the
claimants examined, besides other witnesses, Narendra Singh
(PW2) deposing as an eye witness, he being a passenger in the
van at the relevant point of time. The appellants also examined
their driver Imamuddin (R1W1) to state that the accident had
occurred due to negligence on the part of the van driver (i.e the
deceased).
2. The tribunal, by its judgment on 22.01.2011, held that the
accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the bus. It
awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.8,84,150/- it
inclusive of Rs.8,49,150/- towards loss of dependency,
Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection, loss of
consortium and loss to estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral
expenses. The liability to pay the said amount was fastened
upon the appellant.
3. By the appeal at hand, the correctness of the findings on the
issue of negligence is questioned. It is also the contention of the
appellant that the tribunal was in error while calculating the loss
of dependency by adding the element of future prospects of
increase against the income notionally assessed on the basis of
wages of an unskilled worker (Rs.3690/-) per month.
4. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone
through the tribunal's record, this Court is of the view that the
appeal must fail.
5. While arguing, it was initially submitted on behalf of the
appellant that no evidence about the sequence of events leading
to the collision was adduced, reliance being placed only on the
record of the corresponding criminal case. When it was pointed
out to the counsel that the tribunal has referred to the evidence
of PW2, a passenger in the van, she turned her argument around
to state that it was a case where contributory negligence should
have been considered. This plea also is without substance.
Negligence on the part of bus driver as the sole reason for the
collision has been vividly brought out by the testimony of PW2.
It was the bus which was moving at a rash speed of 70 Km per
hour. The evidence of R1W1 about collision having taken place
due to improper attempt of van driver to overtake the bus
having being rejected, the conclusions reached by the tribunal
do not call for any interference.
6. While submissions of the appellant about error in addition of
the element of future prospects in income, may be correct,
against the backdrop of the fact that the income had been
assumed with the help of minimum wages, it is noted that the
tribunal ignored the fact that the evidence had brought out
clearly that the deceased was earning his livelihood as a
machine man. In this view of the matter, the minimum wages
of semi-skilled workers should have been used as the
benchmark.
7. The awards under the pecuniary heads of damages as noted
above are found to be grossly inadequate. Going by the ruling
in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and
Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, awards
under the head of loss of love & affection and loss of
consortium should have been to the extent of 1,00,000/- each
and those on account of funeral expenses and loss to estate to
the extent of 25,000/- each. If this were to be the method of
calculation, the compensation awarded by the tribunal cannot be
said to be excessive. Hence this Court finds no reason for
interference in the award of compensation.
8. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, the appeal is
dismissed.
9. The appellants had been directed by order dated 30.05.2011 to
deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest with
the Registrar General and from out of such deposit 50% was
permitted to be released. The balance in deposit shall be now
released to the claimants.
10.The statutory amount shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 24, 2017
umang
