Brij Mohan v. Rajender Singh

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI,J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants against the award dated 14th October, 2005 passed by the Judge, MACT thereby awarding a total sum of ` 1,29,984/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, in favour of the appellants herein and against the respondent no.2 Khalluddin and respondent no.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The appellants are not satisfied with the aforesaid compensation and are seeking enhancement thereof. Both the 2011:DHC:3977 appellants are the parents of Dalip Singh who died in the road accident. On 25th August, 1986 at about 9.30 a.m. Dalip Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was traveling in bus No. DEP 4981, route No. 364. Deceased was going to his duty at Jangpura Bhogal, New Delhi, when bus and came opposite Inder Dharam Kanta at truck No. URR-113, which was coming from Dharam Kanta close to the road and the said truck which was being driven by the respondent No.3 Rajinder Singh, hit the bus and Dalip Singh received injuries. Later on Dalip Singh succumbed to his injuries.

2. In the petition filed by the appellants under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act for award of compensation, it was alleged that the deceased was aged 22 years and was working as an electric mechanic. He was earning ` 1000/- per month and he was also doing some job work wherefrom he was making an additional earning of ` 2000/- per month or so. The grand-father of the deceased was still alive and was 72 years of age and, therefore, the expected age of the deceased could not be less than 62 years, had he not died in the said accident. On this basis total compensation claimed by the appellants was ` 4,80,000/-.

3. The respondent no.2 did not contest the petition and was proceeded ex parte. Only the Insurance Company put up its defence by filing the Written Statement. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed:-

4. Issue no.1 was decided in favour of the appellants holding that the deceased received fatal injuries in the aforesaid motor accident which was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent no.1 and which vehicle was owned by the respondent no.2. Issue no.2 was also decided in favour of the appellants and against the respondent no.3 holding that respondent no.3 was liable to pay the compensation to the appellants.

5. Coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the appellants, the learned MACT took note of the evidence produced before it in the form of PW-1 (father of the deceased) and PW-2 Amrit Batra who was the employer of the deceased with whom the deceased had been working for the last six years as an auto electrician. He deposed that he was paying a sum of ` 960 per month to the deceased and deceased was also permitted to go outside to repair the autos and vehicles and the deceased used to earn about ` 2000 per month from the said job. Taking into consideration the entire evidence and also the future prospects etc. the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning ` 2000 per month. However, since he was of marriageable age and would have married in near future, the Tribunal took the view that a2/3rd of the aforesaid amount of ` 2000 would have spent by him for himself and for his own family after the marriage and would have given 1/3rd of the aforesaid amount i.e. ` 677/- to the parents namely the appellants. On this, a multiplier of 16 is adopted by the learned MACT and in this manner compensation of ` 1,29,984/- was arrived at.

6. I may also state at this stage that while holding the respondent no.3 (Insurance Company) liable to make the aforesaid payment, the learned MACT has given opportunity to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from respondents no.1 and 2. There is no appeal preferred by any of the respondents including the Insurance Company. As stated above, the appellants are aggrieved by the amount of compensation. According to the appellants, since the deceased was still unmarried, 50% of the aforesaid amount should have been taken into consideration and the multiplier should have been applied on a sum of ` 1,000/- per month. This aspect was not be disputed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Though he stated that the multiplier applied by the learned MACT is on higher side. However, since there is no appeal filed by the Insurance Company, in this appeal filed by the appellants/claimants, I am of the view that the contribution which the deceased was supposed to make to the appellants should have been taken at ` 1000 per month and on this multiplier of 16 would have been applied. In this manner the total amount works to ` 1,92,000/- i.e. 1000 X 12 X 16.

7. The appellants have also challenged the order of the Tribunal in denying the interest for six years. I find from the impugned order of the Tribunal based on cogent evidence that the denial is because of the reason that the delay was attributed to the appellants and, therefore, this finding is not interfered with. I am also of the opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case that the interest @ 8% granted by the Tribunal is quite reasonable. No doubt, the Tribunal has not granted any amount for loss of life and affection, however, since the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side, therefore, I am of the view that no further amount on this account should be awarded.

8. In these circumstances, this appeal is allowed partly. The compensation amount is increased to ` 1,92,000/- and the award is modified to that extent. Other stipulated condition in the award would remain unaltered.

9. The appeal disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

JUDGE AUGUST 5, 2011 skb