Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
MANVEER & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Aditya Vikram and Mr. Ayushman Sharma, Advs.
Through: Mr. Mohinder Malhotra, Adv. for R-1 to R-4 Ms. Hetu Arora
Sethi, Adv. for R-5/NIC.
1. This present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants, who are the driver and purchaser/owner of the offending vehicle, under Section 1731 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988[2] assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 26.10.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1 173. Appeals. - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court, unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent. of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court: Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2)No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than [one lakh] rupees. MV Act Karkardooma Courts, Delhi[3] in MACT No. 138/2016 titled as “Smt. Anita Sadh and Ors. v. Manveer and Ors.”, whereby the claim petition of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 herein was allowed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4, who are the widow and children of the deceased Sh. Rajpal Sadh, that the deceased aged 52 years, died in a motor vehicle accident on 02.01.2015, Kanti Nagar traffic light, Bihari Colony Chowk, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, when he was traveling on the left rear side in Maruti Ritz bearing registration No. DL-2C-AL-6550, driven by his brother Vinay Singh and was hit by the offending vehicle (motor cab-Tata Sumo) bearing registration No. HR-38S-8827, driven in a rash and negligent manner by the Appellant No. 1 herein, that had collided with the Maruti Ritz on the left rear door side.
3. The claimants initiated an accident claim case under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the M.V. Act, seeking monetary compensation of Rs. 60,00,000/-, in light of the Detailed Accident Report submitted by the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, an FIR bearing No.01/2015 under sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was lodged against the driver, registered owner, insurer and the owner-in possession of the offending vehicle.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT-CUM-AWARD:
4. During the course of proceedings before the learned Tribunal, appellant No. 1/respondent No.1 filed his written statement, denying the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle and claimed false implication. The respondent No.6 herein (registered owner of the offending vehicle), in his written statement, submitted that M/s Magma Finance Corporation had financed the offending vehicle and pleaded that the said finance company repossessed the offending vehicle, as he had committed defaults in paying the loan instalments. The contention of the respondent no. 6 was that the offending vehicle was transferred to someone else and that the said finance company is responsible for the use of the offending vehicle.
5. The appellant no.2/respondent No.4 (buyer-cum-owner), in his written statement, contended that the offending vehicle did not cause the accident and that it was not in a running condition. The appellant No.2 claimed that the offending vehicle was being driven by one Satvir, and when he was waiting for the green light, one person requested Satvir to take the deceased to the hospital and on his expressing some difficulties to do so, those people abused Satvir.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned on 22.12.2015: - “(i) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a road accident on 02.01.2015 involving vehicle bearing registration No. HR-38S 8227 driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash negligent manner?(OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
(iii) Relief.”
7. The appellant No.2 was examined by the learned Tribunal as R-4/W-1 and he deposed that he had purchased the offending vehicle in a public auction on 25.06.2014 vide Agreement exhibited as Ex. R- 4/W-1A.
8. The learned Tribunal decided the issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and against the appellants based on the examination of Vinay Singh (PW-2), FIR and the MLC of the deceased. The relevant portion of the judgment-cum-award is reproduced below:
9. Further, issue No.2 was decided in favour of the claimants and a compensation of Rs. 22,70,000/- was awarded to them with interest. The relevant portion of the judgment-cum-award is reproduced below: “ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED
26. First step towards computation of loss of dependency is the ascertainment of income the deceased.
27. PW-1 Anita Sadh, in her affidavit Ex.PW1/A, deposed that her husband was doing business of 'dying jeans clothes'. She relied on income tax returns of the deceased for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 Ex.PW1/1 (colly). The petitioners examined PW-3 Jogender Singh, Tax Assistant, Income Tax Office, Ward 56(2), New Delhi. He proved income tax returns of the deceased for the assessment year 2012-13 EX.PW3/2 and 2013-14 Ex.PW3/1. R1W[1] Sunder, Office Superintendent, Income Tax Office, Vikas Bhawan also proved income tax returns of the deceased for the assessment years 2013-14 Mark 'A', 2014-15 Mark „B‟ and 2015-16 Mark „C‟.
28. Income tax return for the Assessment year 2014-15 Mark „B‟ and 2015-16 Mark „C‟ were filed on 31.03.2016 and therefore, they cannot be considered as benchmark for assessment of income of the deceased.
29. Income tax return for the assessment year 2013-14 EX.PW3/1 was filed on 15.04.2014. It can be considered as benchmark for assessment of income of the deceased.
30. Accordingly, annual income of the deceased is computed as Rs. 2,70,051/- after deducting income tax liability of Rs. 5,885/from the gross income of Rs. 2,75,936/- as mentioned in income tax return for the assessment year 2013-14 EX.PW3/1.
DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES:
31. The deceased was survived by his wife and three children. It may be noted that the petitioner No. 4/Smt. Rohini was already married at the time of death of the deceased. PW-1 Smt. Anita Sadh stated that her daughter Rohini was married 5- 6 years back. Accordingly, she cannot be considered as dependent upon the deceased. As such, the deceased was survived by three dependents. Therefore, one-third of his income is deducted towards his personal living expenses.
APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:
32. The deceased was 52 years old. His date of birth is mentioned as 01.03.1963 in income tax return Ex.PW3/l. Therefore, multiplier of 11 as applicable to age group between 51 to 55 years would apply
FUTURE PROSPECTS:
33. The deceased was self-employed. He was between 50 to 60 years. Following the ruling of a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court delivered on 31.10.2017 in SLP(C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., there will be addition of income to the extent of 10%.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
34. Applying the multiplier of 11 after making deduction to the extent of one-third from the income of the deceased and addition of 10% of future prospects, the loss of dependency is computed as (2,70,051 x 2 / 3 x 110 / 100 x 11) = Rs. 21,78,411.4/- (rounded of) = Rs. 22,00,000/-. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
35. As per dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs. 40,000/towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- each on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses are added.
36. The compensation awarded to the petitioners is computed, as under:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 22,00,000/- │ │ 2. Non-pecuniary (in view of Pranay Rs. 70,000/- │ │ Sethi(supra) │ │ Total Rs. 22,70,000/- │ │ 10. The learned Tribunal fastened the liability of the compensation │ │ upon the Insurance Company and granted recovery rights against the │ │ appellants. The relevant portion of the judgment-cum-award is │ │ reproduced below: │ │ MAC APP. 1121/2018 Page 6 of 12 │ │ Signature Not Verified │ │ Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned award dated 26.10.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court, insofar as it has affixed the liability of payment of compensation primarily upon the Insurance Company, but granting the respondent No.5/Insurance Company recovery rights against the appellants cannot be sustained in law. In other words, the impugned award dated 26.102.018 is modified to the effect that the appellants shall stand absolve of any liability to reimburse/refund the amount of compensation that would be eventually paid by the respondent No.5/Insurance Company to the claimants.
22. In aforesaid terms, the appeal is disposed of along with the pending application.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J. MARCH 19, 2024