Delhi High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road ... vs Sudhakar & Ors on 31 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 31, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 625/2017 & CM 25548/2017
+ MAC.APP. 627/2017 & CM 25561/2017
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate for
Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate
Versus
SUDHAKAR & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kamra, Advocate for
respondents No.1 to 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. In the above-captioned appeals, the challenge is to Award of 18th
April, 2017 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth
referred to as „the Tribunal‟), which grants compensation of `7,36,472/-
with interest @ 10% per annum, to legal heirs of deceased-Rajendra
Kumar, aged 45 years, and compensation of `7,19,672/- with interest @
10% per annum, to legal heirs of deceased-Veerwati, aged 42 years.
2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"The facts common to both the petitions are like this.
On 15.08.2015 at 10.30 p.m. Rajender and Smt. Veerwati
boarded a bus bearing no. UP-14DT-4749 from Etah to
Anand Vihar, Delhi. The driver of the bus was driving the
bus in a high speed and in a zigzag manner. They reached
at 3.15 a.m near Lampur, PS Sikandrabad, GT Road,
Bulandshahar, U.P. The driver hit the bus against a
stationary truck as a result they along with other
passengers sustained injuries. They were removed to Govt.
Hospital, Sikandrabad and thereafter to District Hospital,
Bulandshahar and ultimately referred to JPN Trauma
Center, New Delhi. On 18.08.2015, Rajender has expired
during the course of treatment. The accident has taken
place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent
No.1. FIR no. 754/15, PS, Sikandrabad, U.P was
registered against respondent no.1/driver of the bus.
Respondent no.2 is owner of the bus."
3. To render the impugned Award, the Tribunal has relied upon
evidence of legal heirs of deceased persons and other evidence on record.
The break-up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Claimants
of deceased-Rajendra Kumar is as under:-
1. Loss of estate `6,61,472/-
2. Loss of Love & Affection `50,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses `25,000/-
Total `7,36,472/-
4. The break-up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
Claimants of deceased-Veerwati is as under:-
1. Loss of estate `6,44,672/-
2. Loss of Love & Affection `50,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses `25,000/-
Total `7,19,672/-
5. The above captioned first appeal pertains to legal heirs of
deceased-Rajendra Kumar, whereas above-captioned second appeal
pertains to legal heirs of deceased-Veerwati. Since these two appeals arise
out of aforesaid common impugned Award, therefore, with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, these appeals have been heard together
and are being decided by this common judgment.
6. To assail the impugned Award, learned counsel for owner of
insured vehicle relies upon Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision
in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16
SCC 680 and submits that the quantum of compensation deserves to be
reduced.
7. On the contrary, counsel for respondents-Claimants supports the
impugned Award and submits that the compensation granted by the
Tribunal is just and fair and so, these appeals deserve to be dismissed.
8. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that in view of Supreme Court's
Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), compensation of
`50,000/- each granted by the Tribunal to the legal heirs of deceased-
Rajendra Kumar and deceased-Veerwati under the head of „love and
affection‟ deserves to be disallowed whereas „funeral expenses‟ of
`25,000/- each is reduced to `15,000/-. As regards the compensation of
`6,61,472/- granted to legal heirs of deceased-Rajendra Kumar and
compensation of `6,44,672/- granted to the legal heirs of deceased-
Veerwati under the head of „loss of estate‟, I find that in view of decision
of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar
and Ors., 2011 ACJ 1737 it deserves to be maintained. It is ordered
accordingly.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation payable to legal heirs of
deceased-Rajendra Kumar is reassessed as under:-
1. Loss of estate `6,61,472/-
2. Funeral Expenses `15,000/-
Total `6,76,472/-
10. The compensation payable to legal heirs of deceased-Veerwati is
reassessed as under:-
1. Loss of estate `6,44,672/-
2. Funeral Expenses `15,000/-
Total `6,59,672/-
11. Consequentially, the compensation granted by the Tribunal to legal
heirs of deceased-Rajendra Kumar is reduced from `7,36,472/- to
`6,76,472/- and compensation granted by the Tribunal to legal heirs of
deceased-Veerwati is reduced from `7,19,672/- to `6,59,672/-. In view
of Supreme Court's Three Judge Bench decision in Jagdish v. Mohan and
Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571, the interest of 10% per annum on the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also reduced to 9% per annum.
Accordingly, the modified compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.
The modified compensation be released forthwith to respondent-
Claimants in the ratio and manner as indicated in the impugned Award.
Statutory deposit along with excess deposit, if any, be refunded.
12. With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two appeals and the
pending applications are disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 31, 2018
s
