Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 248/1997
Judgment reserved on: 5.3.2008
% Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009
Sh. Siri Lal And Ors. ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Adv.
versus
Delhi Transport Corpn And Anr ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated
26.3.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby
FAO 248/1997 Page 1 of 10
the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,24,272/- along with
interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. On 23.5.1984 at about 11 a.m., the deceased boarded
bus bearing registration No. DHP 3853 owned by DTC and
driven by Sh. Mahinder Singh, driver from Naroji Nagar to
go to Raja Garden. Another DTC Bus was standing ahead of
this bus. As soon as the deceased got into the bus, the
driver started the bus speedily without getting any signal
from the conductor and dashed the parked bus very closely
in a very rash and negligent manner due to which the left
rear of bus bearing registration No. DHP 3853 got struck
with the right rear portion of the parked DTC bus as a
result of which the deceased got sandwiched between the
two vehicles and fell down. He was removed to AIIMS by
employee of the DTC where he expired later on, on the
same day.
FAO 248/1997 Page 2 of 10
4. A claim petition was filed on 21.11.1984 and an
award was passed on 26.3.1997. Aggrieved with the said
award enhancement is claimed by way of the present
appeal.
5. Sh. Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellants
contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income
of the deceased at Rs. 1700/- per month whereas after
looking at the facts and circumstances of the case the
tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased
at Rs. 1929/- per month. The counsel further maintained
that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune
of Rs.708/- from the income of the deceased towards
personal expenses when the deceased was supporting a
large family at the time of accident and is survived by his
parents and wife. It was urged by the counsel that the
tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while
computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the
FAO 248/1997 Page 3 of 10
deceased would have earned much more in near future as
he was of 25 yrs of age only and would have been earning
much more in the near future. It was also alleged by the
counsel that the tribunal did not consider the fact that due
to high rates of inflation the deceased would have earned
much more in near future and the tribunal also failed in
appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are
revised twice in an year and hence, the deceased would
have earned much more in her life span.
6. The counsel also contended that the tribunal has
erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love &
affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, mental pain and
sufferings and that an amount of only Rs.10,000/- has been
awarded towards loss of expectancy of life of the deceased.
7. Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, counsel for the respondent - DTC
refuted the contentions of counsel for the appellants &
submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is exorbitant and no further enhancement is
FAO 248/1997 Page 4 of 10
required, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the
award.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
9. The appellants claimants had testified Sh. Suresh
Kumar, Clerk in DTC as PW5 and he had brought on record
the salary slip Ex PW5/1 of the deceased. The deceased
was working as a conductor with DTC, according to him
and the salary slip of the deceased, his total salary was
Rs.858.92 in April 1984 out of which his basic pay was
Rs.2841 and his carry home salary was Rs. 760.92. The
said witness also deposed that the scale of the conductors
on the date of his deposition i.e. 28.6.1993 was Rs. 950-
1500 and he also deposed that the total salary of the
conductor was Rs.2300-2400/- pm. he also testified that the
retirement age of conductor in DTC is 58 years & mostly
the persons who join as a conductor retires as a conductor
FAO 248/1997 Page 5 of 10
and rarely retire as an ATI. PW6 Sh. Siri Lal, father of the
deceased deposed that the deceased was only 25 years of
age at the time of accident and had he been alive and had
not met with the accident then he would have been earning
Rs.3,000/- as a conductor in DTC as pay scale in DTC have
th
been revised after 4 Pay Commission. But nothing has
been brought on record to prove the same. After
considering all these factors, I am of the view that the
tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs.760.92/- on the basis of the salary slip Ex.
PW 5/1 duly proved on record.
10. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions
regarding the income and future prospects of the
deceased are of no help to the claimants in the absence of
any reliable and corroborative evidence being brought on
record.
FAO 248/1997 Page 6 of 10
11. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that
there is no sufficient material on record to award future
prospects. Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in
not granting future prospects in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
12. However, the Tribunal considered the rise in price
th
index & the effect of 4 Pay Commission and assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs.1700/- p.m. I do not find any
infirmity in the award in this regard and the same is not
interfered.
13. The other contention of the counsel for the appellant
is that deduction of Rs.708/- made by the tribunal are on
the higher side as the deceased is survived by his parents
and wife. The Tribunal adopted unit method for calculating
compensation as the case pertains to the year 1984 and at
that time IInd Schedule was not brought on the Statute
Book. The Tribunal accordingly assessed Rs. 566.66 as
expenses which the deceased would have spent on himself
and Rs.141.66 as expenses towards out of pocket and
FAO 248/1997 Page 7 of 10
transport expenses. The Tribunal assessed dependency of
Rs. 992/- after deducting Rs.708/- as personal expenses in
the light of the decision of the Apex Court in UPSRTC &
Ors vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors 1996 JT (5) 356.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any
infirmity in the award on this count and, thus, no
interference is made in the award in this regard.
15. On the contention regarding that the tribunal erred in
not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection,
funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium, in
this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection
is awarded at Rs.10,000/-. Compensation towards funeral
expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-. Further, Rs. 50,000/-
is awarded towards loss of consortium. Rs.10,000/- has
already been awarded towards loss of expectation of life,
which shall be treated as compensation under the head of
loss to estate.
16. As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of
amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the
FAO 248/1997 Page 8 of 10
appellants due to the sudden demise the deceased and the
loss of services, which were being rendered by the
deceased to the appellants is concerned, I do not feel
inclined to award any amount as compensation towards the
same as the same are not conventional heads of damages.
17. On the basis of the discussion, the total loss of
dependency comes to Rs. 2,14,272/- as calculated by the
tribunal. After considering Rs. 80,000/-, which is granted
towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation
comes out as Rs. 2,94,272/-.
18. In view of the above discussion, the total
compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,94,272/- from Rs.
2,24,272/-, thus, the differential amount shall be paid with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the
appellants by the respondent insurance company in the
same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal
FAO 248/1997 Page 9 of 10
19. With the above direction, the present appeal is
disposed of.
20.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
‘raj’
FAO 248/1997 Page 10 of 10
+ FAO No. 248/1997
Judgment reserved on: 5.3.2008
% Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009
Sh. Siri Lal And Ors. ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Adv.
versus
Delhi Transport Corpn And Anr ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated
26.3.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby
FAO 248/1997 Page 1 of 10
the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,24,272/- along with
interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. On 23.5.1984 at about 11 a.m., the deceased boarded
bus bearing registration No. DHP 3853 owned by DTC and
driven by Sh. Mahinder Singh, driver from Naroji Nagar to
go to Raja Garden. Another DTC Bus was standing ahead of
this bus. As soon as the deceased got into the bus, the
driver started the bus speedily without getting any signal
from the conductor and dashed the parked bus very closely
in a very rash and negligent manner due to which the left
rear of bus bearing registration No. DHP 3853 got struck
with the right rear portion of the parked DTC bus as a
result of which the deceased got sandwiched between the
two vehicles and fell down. He was removed to AIIMS by
employee of the DTC where he expired later on, on the
same day.
FAO 248/1997 Page 2 of 10
4. A claim petition was filed on 21.11.1984 and an
award was passed on 26.3.1997. Aggrieved with the said
award enhancement is claimed by way of the present
appeal.
5. Sh. Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellants
contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income
of the deceased at Rs. 1700/- per month whereas after
looking at the facts and circumstances of the case the
tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased
at Rs. 1929/- per month. The counsel further maintained
that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune
of Rs.708/- from the income of the deceased towards
personal expenses when the deceased was supporting a
large family at the time of accident and is survived by his
parents and wife. It was urged by the counsel that the
tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while
computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the
FAO 248/1997 Page 3 of 10
deceased would have earned much more in near future as
he was of 25 yrs of age only and would have been earning
much more in the near future. It was also alleged by the
counsel that the tribunal did not consider the fact that due
to high rates of inflation the deceased would have earned
much more in near future and the tribunal also failed in
appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are
revised twice in an year and hence, the deceased would
have earned much more in her life span.
6. The counsel also contended that the tribunal has
erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love &
affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, mental pain and
sufferings and that an amount of only Rs.10,000/- has been
awarded towards loss of expectancy of life of the deceased.
7. Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, counsel for the respondent - DTC
refuted the contentions of counsel for the appellants &
submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is exorbitant and no further enhancement is
FAO 248/1997 Page 4 of 10
required, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the
award.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
9. The appellants claimants had testified Sh. Suresh
Kumar, Clerk in DTC as PW5 and he had brought on record
the salary slip Ex PW5/1 of the deceased. The deceased
was working as a conductor with DTC, according to him
and the salary slip of the deceased, his total salary was
Rs.858.92 in April 1984 out of which his basic pay was
Rs.2841 and his carry home salary was Rs. 760.92. The
said witness also deposed that the scale of the conductors
on the date of his deposition i.e. 28.6.1993 was Rs. 950-
1500 and he also deposed that the total salary of the
conductor was Rs.2300-2400/- pm. he also testified that the
retirement age of conductor in DTC is 58 years & mostly
the persons who join as a conductor retires as a conductor
FAO 248/1997 Page 5 of 10
and rarely retire as an ATI. PW6 Sh. Siri Lal, father of the
deceased deposed that the deceased was only 25 years of
age at the time of accident and had he been alive and had
not met with the accident then he would have been earning
Rs.3,000/- as a conductor in DTC as pay scale in DTC have
th
been revised after 4 Pay Commission. But nothing has
been brought on record to prove the same. After
considering all these factors, I am of the view that the
tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs.760.92/- on the basis of the salary slip Ex.
PW 5/1 duly proved on record.
10. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions
regarding the income and future prospects of the
deceased are of no help to the claimants in the absence of
any reliable and corroborative evidence being brought on
record.
FAO 248/1997 Page 6 of 10
11. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that
there is no sufficient material on record to award future
prospects. Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in
not granting future prospects in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
12. However, the Tribunal considered the rise in price
th
index & the effect of 4 Pay Commission and assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs.1700/- p.m. I do not find any
infirmity in the award in this regard and the same is not
interfered.
13. The other contention of the counsel for the appellant
is that deduction of Rs.708/- made by the tribunal are on
the higher side as the deceased is survived by his parents
and wife. The Tribunal adopted unit method for calculating
compensation as the case pertains to the year 1984 and at
that time IInd Schedule was not brought on the Statute
Book. The Tribunal accordingly assessed Rs. 566.66 as
expenses which the deceased would have spent on himself
and Rs.141.66 as expenses towards out of pocket and
FAO 248/1997 Page 7 of 10
transport expenses. The Tribunal assessed dependency of
Rs. 992/- after deducting Rs.708/- as personal expenses in
the light of the decision of the Apex Court in UPSRTC &
Ors vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors 1996 JT (5) 356.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any
infirmity in the award on this count and, thus, no
interference is made in the award in this regard.
15. On the contention regarding that the tribunal erred in
not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection,
funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium, in
this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection
is awarded at Rs.10,000/-. Compensation towards funeral
expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-. Further, Rs. 50,000/-
is awarded towards loss of consortium. Rs.10,000/- has
already been awarded towards loss of expectation of life,
which shall be treated as compensation under the head of
loss to estate.
16. As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of
amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the
FAO 248/1997 Page 8 of 10
appellants due to the sudden demise the deceased and the
loss of services, which were being rendered by the
deceased to the appellants is concerned, I do not feel
inclined to award any amount as compensation towards the
same as the same are not conventional heads of damages.
17. On the basis of the discussion, the total loss of
dependency comes to Rs. 2,14,272/- as calculated by the
tribunal. After considering Rs. 80,000/-, which is granted
towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation
comes out as Rs. 2,94,272/-.
18. In view of the above discussion, the total
compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,94,272/- from Rs.
2,24,272/-, thus, the differential amount shall be paid with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the
appellants by the respondent insurance company in the
same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal
FAO 248/1997 Page 9 of 10
19. With the above direction, the present appeal is
disposed of.
20.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
‘raj’
FAO 248/1997 Page 10 of 10