Krishan Pal Mourya & Ors. v. Ravinder Kumar & Ors.

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 27.03.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Pilot Court), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in MACT No. 15441/15, titled Krishan Pal Mourya & Ors. v. Ravinder Kumar & Ors.

2. It was the case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that their father, Sh.Balak Ram (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deceased’) along with one Nafees was going towards IT Park from Jamuna Khadar on foot. As they reached IT Park Red Light ISBT to Shastri Park Chowk, GT Road, Delhi, a mini bus bearing registration no.DL-1VA-0384 (hererinafter referred to as the ‘Offending Vehicle’), which was being driven by respondent no.1 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from Kashmiri Gate side and hit the deceased. Resultantly, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. Though he was rushed to Dr. Jag Parvesh Chand Hospital, Shastri Park by the CAT Ambulance, he was declared as brought dead.

3. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence led before it, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the Offending Vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner. However, on the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellants, the learned Tribunal held that as all the claimants were major, they could not be considered as dependent on the deceased and, therefore, awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643.

4. The limited challenge of the appellants to the Impugned Award is on the quantum of compensation awarded in their favour.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant no.4, the daughter of the deceased was aged only 18 years and was unmarried. She was clearly dependent on the income of the father, that is, the deceased. He submits that the appellant no. 1 appeared before the learned Tribunal as PW-1, and deposed that the appellants were dependent on the income of the deceased. He submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appellant no. 4 would be dependent on the deceased and his income, by deducting one half of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, should have been taken into consideration for awarding the compensation to the appellants.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that there was no document filed by the appellants to prove the income of the deceased.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

8. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

9. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raj Rani, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3673, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while dealing with a similar issue, held as under:-

10. As noted hereinabove, PW-1 Sh. Krishan Pal Maurya had stated that appellant no.4 was aged only 18 years and was unmarried as on the date of the accident. In terms of the above judgments, she would clearly be dependent on the deceased. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, erred in not treating the appellant no. 4 as dependent on the deceased and awarding loss of dependency in her favour.

11. As it would be a case of a single dependent, one half of the income of the deceased would be deducted towards his personal expenses.

12. As far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show any document in proof of the claim of the income of the deceased. He prays that the income of the deceased be determined on the basis of the minimum wages notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi for an unskilled person as on the date of the accident. He submits that the same was Rs.9048/- per month.