Delhi High Court
Upsrtc And Anr. vs Kavita & Ors. on 20 September, 2017
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 20th September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 878/2015 and CM APPL.27262/2015
UPSRTC AND ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate for
Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate
versus
KAVITA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for
R-1 to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Chetan Prakash died due to injuries suffered in a motor
vehicular accident that took place on 20.08.2010 on account of
negligence driving of bus bearing registration No. UP-81R-9240 of the
appellants. The first to fourth respondents, they being the members of
the family dependent on the deceased (collectively, the claimants)
instituted accident claim case (Suit No.534/2010) on 12.10.2010
seeking compensation. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment
dated 08.09.2015, returned finding that the accident and death had
occurred due to negligent driving of bus.
2. The tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.17,11,864/- and directed the appellant to pay with interest @ 9%
per annum, calculating it thus:-
Sl.No. Head Amount in (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 15,66,864/-
2. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses 25,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to petitioner no.1 10,000/-
5. Loss of estate 10,000/-
Total 17,11,864/-
3. While calculating the loss of dependency, the tribunal assumed
the income notionally with the help of minimum wages (Rs.6448/- per
month) and added 50% towards future prospects of increase and made
deduction of one-fourth towards personal and living expenses,
applying the multiplier of 18, noting that the deceased was 23 years
old and had four persons claiming to be his dependents.
4. The appellants question the above computation on the ground
that the fourth respondent, the father, could not have been treated as
dependent and further that the element of future prospects was
wrongly added.
5. 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.
6. 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
12.01.2015, 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.
7. Indeed, in the absence of formal proof about the actual earnings
of the deceased, the element of future prospects has to be kept out.
8. The other contention of the appellants, however, cannot be
accepted as the evidence of the first respondent who appeared as PW-
1 at the inquiry about the father also being dependent, since he was not
working for gain, has gone unimpeached.
9. Thus, the loss of dependency is re-calculated as (6448/- x 3/4 x
12 x 18) Rs.10,44,576/-, rounded off to Rs.10,45,000/-.
10. It is pointed out by the counsel for the claimants that the non-
pecuniary heads of damages are inadequate.
11. Following the view taken in MAC.APP.No.160/2015 Shriram
General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha decided by this court on
05.05.2016, non-pecuniary damages in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each
towards loss of love & affection and towards loss of consortium and
Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expense are added.
Thus, the total compensation payable in the case comes to
(10,45,000/- + 1,50,000/- + 1,50,000/- + 50,000/- + 50,000/- )
Rs.14,45,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Forty Five Thousand Only).
Needless to add, the award shall carry interest as levied by the
tribunal.
12. By order dated 18.11.2015, the appellants had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with the Register General of this
Court, and out of such deposit, fifty per cent (50%) was allowed to be
released and the balance was kept in UCO Bank in interest bearing
fixed deposit.
13. The registry shall calculate the award as per modification
ordered above, releasing the balance in favour of the claimants in
terms of the impugned award, refunding the excess to the appellants.
14. The appeal along with pending application stands disposed of in
above terms.
15. The statutory amount shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
vk
