Delhi High Court
Sukhpali & Anr. vs Delhi Transport Corporation & ... on 8 September, 2017
$~R-177
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 8th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 96/2010
SUKHPALI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Nitinjaya Chaudhary, Advocate
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate for R-1.
Ms. Harsh Lata, Advocate for
Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 21.09.2005, a motor vehicular accident took place due to
negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1PB-
1113 (DTC bus), admittedly insured against third party risk with the
second respondent for the period in question. It resulted in injuries
being suffered by one Mohinder Singh and Narender Singh, the latter
dying in the consequence. Two accident claim cases, including one
(Suit No.417/2006) by the appellants herein, came to be instituted, the
other being for and on behalf of Mohinder Singh (the injured person),
both seeking compensation. The tribunal clubbed the two cases and
after inquiry, by judgment dated 19.09.2009, accepted the claim for
compensation on the principle of fault liability. The finding about
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle has
attained finality as it was not challenged. In the case of death of
Narender Singh, presented by his parents (the appellants), he being a
bachelor, the tribunal awarded total compensation in the sum of
Rs.4,87,721/-, calculating it thus:-
Sl.No. Head Amount in (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 4,22,721/-
2. Love and affection 50,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses 5,000/-
4. Loss of Estate 10,000/-
Total 4,87,721/-
2. It appears the claimants had pleaded that the deceased was an
earning hand as a coach in tennis, his income being proved by income
tax return (ITR) for the assessment year 2005-2006 and proved in the
evidence as Ex.PW-1/51. The tribunal, however, declined to accept
the said evidence for the reason the endorsement of its receipt in the
income tax office was blurred as the year of submission was not
legible. This, in the opinion of this court, was not a correct approach.
Some further probe could have been made. Given the testimony of the
witness who proved this document, this court finds the document to be
actionable evidence which cannot be ignored. The income tax return
reveals total income from business of profession to be in the sum of
Rs.1,02,660/- on which there was no tax liability.
3. The claimants while pressing for re-computation of loss of
dependency also plead for the element of future prospects of increase
to be added.
4. In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court, inter-alia,
ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will
not be granted in cases where the deceased was "self employed" or
was working on a "fixed salary". Though this view was affirmed by a
bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan
Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, on account of divergence of views,
as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9
SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, inter-alia, by
order dated 02.07.2014 in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.
5. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016
passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 (Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd.),
this Court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a
learned single judge in MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on
12.1.2015, presently taking the decision in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as
the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future
prospects for those who are "self-employed" or engaged in gainful
employment at a "fixed salary" is clarified by a larger bench of the
Supreme Court.
6. Since there was no regular employment in which the deceased
was engaged, there being no other clear proof of progressive rise in
income, the ITR referred to above being the solitary document
submitted in this regard, no case is made out for any element of future
prospects to be added.
7. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the tribunal correctly
deducted fifty per cent (50%) towards personal and living expenses
and having regard to the age of the mother, correctly applied the
multiplier of 13.
8. The compensation on account of loss of dependency is, thus, re-
computed as (1,02,660/- ÷ 2 x 13) Rs.6,67,290/- rounded off to
Rs.6,68,000/-.
9. It is noted that the accident had occurred in 2005. Following the
view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54
and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, the award
under the non-pecuniary heads are found to be inadequate. Therefore,
the same are revised. The award of Rs.1 lakh on account of loss of
love and affection and Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of estate and
funeral expense are added. Thus, the total compensation payable in
the case is computed as (6,68,000/- + 1,50,000/-) Rs.8,18,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs & Eighteen Thousand Only).
10. The award is modified accordingly. Needless to add, it shall
carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
11. The second respondent (insurer) is directed to satisfy the
enhanced award by requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty
days, making it available to be released to the claimants in terms of the
impugned award.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
13. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 08, 2017
vk
