Delhi High Court
Dinesh Prasad & Anr. vs Raj Pal & Ors (The New India ... on 2 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 02, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 167/2018
DINESH PRASAD & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Vijay Singh Ahlawat,
Advocate
Versus
RAJ PAL & ORS (THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ) .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Advocate for
respondent No. 2
Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.
3
Mr. Mirza Amir Baig, Advocate for
Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate for respondents
No. 4 and 5
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate for
respondent No. 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 7th October, 2017 grants compensation of
`6,79,388/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to respondents-Claimants on account
of death of a student-Chandan, aged 20 years, in a vehicular accident
which took place on 5th January, 2015.
2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"Brief facts of the case giving rise to the claim Petition
are that on 05.01.2015 the deceased after attending his
coaching classes boarded, alongwith his uncle Sintu, a bus
bearing No. DL-1PD-0292 owned by the Respondent No. 2
and being driven by the Respondent No.1 and insured with
the Respondent No. 3.
The deceased was standing on the rear footboard of
the above mentioned bus even when the same was
moving/plying on the road.
The said bus while trying to overtake another DTC bus
bearing No. DL-1PC-9263 owned by the Respondent No. 5
and being driven by the Respondent No. 4 and insured with
Respondent No. 6, took a sharp turn towards its right side
and the deceased who was standing on the rear footboard
lost balance and it is also claimed that at the very same time
the Respondent No. 4 opened its window which struck
against the deceased as a result of which the deceased fell on
the road and sustained injuries."
3. On the basis of evidence led, impugned Award has been rendered
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as "the
Tribunal") and the breakup of compensation awarded is as under:-
Loss of financial dependency : ₹9,58,776/-
Loss of love and affection to parents
of the deceased (₹1.50 Lac each) : ₹3,00,000/-
Loss of Estate : ₹50,000/-
Funeral Expenses : ₹50,000/-
Total : ₹13,58,776/-
Less:- 50% Contributory Negligence : ₹6,79,388/-
Total compensation awarded : ₹6,79,388/-
4. In this appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought by
appellants-Claimants, who are the parents of deceased. It is submitted by
appellants' counsel that the Tribunal has erred in not making any addition
towards "future prospects". It is submitted that the Tribunal has
erroneously applied multiplier of 14, whereas the applicable multiplier is
of 18. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's Constitution Bench
decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors.
(2017) 16 SCC 680 to submit that age of the deceased has to be
considered while applying the multiplier. It is urged by appellants'
counsel that the finding of contributory negligence returned by the
Tribunal is not justified, as it is duty of the conductor to ensure that all
passengers get inside the bus before the bus starts. So, it is submitted that
the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal needs to be
suitably enhanced.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Insurers support
the impugned Award and submit that the compensation awarded is just
and fair and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that the deceased was certainly
negligent in travelling on the footboard of the bus and so the plea of
contributory negligence returned by the Tribunal is justified.
7. As regards application of multiplier is concerned, I find that in
view of Supreme Court's decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the applicable
multiplier would be of 18 and not 14, as applied by the Tribunal. Since
income of deceased is assessed on minimum wages of a graduate,
therefore, while applying the ratio of Supreme Court's decision in Pranay
Sethi (Supra) to the facts of the instant case, it is deemed appropriate to
make addition of 40% towards "future prospects" as the deceased was
aged 20 years on the day of the accident.
8. The compensation granted under the "non pecuniary heads", needs
to be brought in tune with Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision
in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, compensation granted by the
Tribunal under the head of "loss of love & affection" is disallowed. Even
"funeral expenses" are reduced from `50,000/- to `15,000/-. Similarly,
compensation granted under the head "loss of estate" is also reduced
from `50,000/- to `15,000/-. The compensation granted under the head of
"loss of dependency" is reassessed as under:
₹11,414/- X 12 X 18 X 50/100 X 140/100= ₹17,25,796/-
9. After deducting 50% towards Contributory Negligence of
deceased, the compensation payable to appellants-Claimants is reassessed
as under:-
S.No. Description Amount
1. Loss of Dependency `8,62,898/-
2. Funeral Expenses `15,000/-
3. Loss of Estate `15,000/-
Total `8,92,898/-
10. Consequentially, total compensation payable to appellants-
Claimants is enhanced from `6,79,388/- to `8,92,898/-. Four weeks' time
is granted to Insurers to deposit the enhanced compensation with the
Tribunal concerned. The re-assessed compensation shall carry interest @
9% per annum and it be disbursed to appellants-Claimants in the ratio
and manner, as indicated in the impugned Award.
11. While modifying the impugned order in aforesaid terms, this
appeal is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 02, 2018
v
