Full Text
Date of Decision: 20th September, 2017 MAC APPEAL No. 878/2015 and CM APPL.27262/2015
UPSRTC AND ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate for Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for R-1 to R-4.
JUDGMENT
1. Chetan Prakash died due to injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 20.08.2010 on account of negligence driving of bus bearing registration No. UP-81R-9240 of the appellants. The first to fourth respondents, they being the members of the family dependent on the deceased (collectively, the claimants) instituted accident claim case (Suit No.534/2010) on 12.10.2010 seeking compensation. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 08.09.2015, returned finding that the accident and death had occurred due to negligent driving of bus.
2. The tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.17,11,864/- and directed the appellant to pay with interest @ 9% per annum, calculating it thus:- 2017:DHC:5674
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl.No. Head Amount in (Rs.) │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. Loss of dependency 15,66,864/- │ │ 2. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/- │ │ 3. Funeral Expenses 25,000/- │ │ 4. Loss of consortium to petitioner no.1 10,000/- │ │ 5. Loss of estate 10,000/- │ │ Total 17,11,864/- │ │ 3. While calculating the loss of dependency, the tribunal assumed │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
6. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 (Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd.), this Court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.01.2015, presently taking the decision in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospects for those who are “self-employed” or engaged in gainful employment at a “fixed salary” is clarified by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
7. Indeed, in the absence of formal proof about the actual earnings of the deceased, the element of future prospects has to be kept out.
8. The other contention of the appellants, however, cannot be accepted as the evidence of the first respondent who appeared as PW- 1 at the inquiry about the father also being dependent, since he was not working for gain, has gone unimpeached.
9. Thus, the loss of dependency is re-calculated as (6448/- x 3/4 x 12 x 18) Rs.10,44,576/-, rounded off to Rs.10,45,000/-.
10. It is pointed out by the counsel for the claimants that the nonpecuniary heads of damages are inadequate.
11. Following the view taken in MAC.APP.No.160/2015 Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha decided by this court on 05.05.2016, non-pecuniary damages in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each towards loss of love & affection and towards loss of consortium and Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expense are added. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case comes to (10,45,000/- + 1,50,000/- + 1,50,000/- + 50,000/- + 50,000/- ) Rs.14,45,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Forty Five Thousand Only). Needless to add, the award shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
12. By order dated 18.11.2015, the appellants had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with the Register General of this Court, and out of such deposit, fifty per cent (50%) was allowed to be released and the balance was kept in UCO Bank in interest bearing fixed deposit.
13. The registry shall calculate the award as per modification ordered above, releasing the balance in favour of the claimants in terms of the impugned award, refunding the excess to the appellants.
14. The appeal along with pending application stands disposed of in above terms.
15. The statutory amount shall be refunded. R.K.GAUBA, J. SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 vk