MAC.APP.--1075/2013. Case: UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SMT. SUNITA ARORA & ANR.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | MAC.APP.--1075/2013 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | April 28, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 28th April, 201
+ MAC.APP. 1075/2013
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate
versus
SMT. SUNITA ARORA & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for
Respondents no. 1 & 2
+ MAC.APP. 343/2015
SMT SUNITA ARORA & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
versus
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These two appeals arise out of judgment dated 18.09.2013 passed
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereb
compensation of `19,92,368/- was awarded in favour of Smt.
Arora and Shri Harish Arora, parents of deceased Amit Arora,
suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on
18.07.2011.
2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that
accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) bus no.UP-11
4042 driven by Respondent Mehen Pal. The Claims Tribunal further
found that the deceased was getting a gross salary of `19,450/-
month. The Claims Tribunal made an addition of 50% towards
prospects and adopted a multiplier of 13 as per the age of the mother
of the deceased to compute the loss of dependency as `18,92,368/-The Claims Tribunal further added a sum of `1,00,000/- towards nonpecuniary damages to award the overall compensation of `19,92,368/-3. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant in MAC.APP.1075/2013
shall be referred to as the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
(UPSRTC), whereas the Appellants in cross-appeal MAC
No.343/2015 shall be referred to as the Claimants.
4. The following contentions are raised on behalf of UPSRTC:-
(i) The accident was caused on account of rash and negligent
driving of the two wheeler bearing registration no.UP-14BH-8662 driven by deceased Amit Arora himself. Therefore,
Appellant UPSRTC ought not to have been made liable to
the compensation;
(ii) The gross salary of deceased Amit Arora was `1,95,654/-
annum. All the allowances were not part of the salary.
entire income ought not to have been taken into consideration
calculate the loss of dependency;
(iii) Deceased Amit Arora was not in Government service. Addition
of 50% towards future prospects was not permissible; and
(iv) The compensation awarded towards non-pecuniary damages
on the higher side.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Claimants submits
the Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 as per the age of
deceased’s mother. In fact, the multiplier ought to have been 18 on the
basis of the age of the deceased. Reliance is placed on Amrit Bhanu
Shali v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2012) 11 SCC 738.
NEGLIGENCE
6. It is urged by learned counsel for UPSRTC that the Claims Tribunal
erred in relying on the statement of PW-2 Pratesh Kumar
discarding the testimony of RW1 Mehen Pal, driver of the UPSRTC
bus.
7. I have the Trial Court Record before me. PW-2 Pratesh Kumar gave a
vivid account of the accident. He deposed that the motorcyclist
proceeding towards Shahdara in front of Dilshad Garden
Station. UPSRTC bus bearing registration no.UP-11T-4042 driven
a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from behind
and struck against the motorcyclist. Nothing could be elicited in
cross-examination of this witness to discard his presence at the spot at
the time of the accident. On the other hand, the version given by
UPSRTC bus driver is that the driver of the two wheeler came
the right side of the bus and while taking turn, he lost his balance,
slipped and fell down on the road. Thus, he completely denied
involvement of the bus. A perusal of the site plan filed in criminal
case arising out of FIR No.281/2011 discloses that the UPSRTC
with registration no. UP-11T-4042 hit the motorcyclist at Point A
his blood was lying at Point B. The site plan clearly supports PWversion.
8. In my view, the statement made by Mehen Pal, driver of the UPSRTC
bus was only a self-serving statement. If the driver of the UPSRTC
bus bearing registration no. UP-11T-4042 was not at fault, either he
the Appellant could have summoned any passenger from the bus
support the driver’s version. It may be noted that in a Claim Petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the
negligence is required to be proved only on the touchstone
preponderance of probability, which has been sufficiently done in this
case. I do not find any error in the finding of negligence reached
the Claims Tribunal, which I hereby affirm.
COMPENSATION
9. In order to prove deceased Amit Arora’s income, the Claimants
examined PW-3 Bunty Parwani, Manager (HR) of Genpact
Delhi-110053. He proved the appointment letter with salary package
as Ex.PW-3/A, salary certificate for the month of July, 2011
Ex.PW3/B, Attendance record from May, 2011 to 18.07.2011
Ex.PW-3/C, Promotion Record as Ex.PW-3/D, Educational
Certificates as Ex.PW-3/E collectively and Nomination as Ex.PW-3/F.
The witness testified that deceased Amit Arora was entitled to
annual salary of `1,92,400/- and in addition, performance
increment. He also stated that as per the record, performance of
deceased was good and his next increment was due on 11.08.2011.
Deceased Amit Arora had joint Genpact just a little less than one
before the date whereon he suffered fatal injuries. He was
allotted Employment Provident Fund Number. There is nothing
suspicious about the appointment letter proved on record though
deceased’s employer. A perusal of the compensation details part
the appointment letter reveals that the deceased was to get a
salary of `1,92,400/- per annum if he was a low performer,
`2,17,400/- per annum if he was an average performer and `2,47,400/-per annum if he was the best performer. PW-3’s testimony
performance of deceased Amit Arora was good could not
challenged in his cross-examination. Therefore, I tend to take
deceased’s annual salary as `2,17,400/- which corresponds with
monthly salary being paid to him, i.e. `19,450/-. This income included
a component of House Rent Allowance (HRA) to the extent
`2914/- per month and conveyance allowance of `800/- per month.
These allowances were tax free. If the amount of `800/- per month
taken as incidental to the employment, the total gross salary of
deceased will be tax free. Since deceased’s performance was
and he was going to be promoted and his salary was to increase
`2,38,400/- just after one month, the Claims Tribunal rightly made
addition of 50% towards future prospects.
10. Further, relying on Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Company
Limited, (2012) 11 SCC 738, the learned counsel for the Appellant
urges that the multiplier in the case of death of a bachelor has to be as
per the age of the deceased.
11. The question was examined at great length by this Court in Shriram
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maneesha Karnatak and Ors.,
APP 655 of 2014 decided on 20.03.2015 and after analysing General
Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum
Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 176 and three Judge
Bench decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. SRTC v.
Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and host of latest decisions of
Supreme Court including three Judge Bench decisions of the Supreme
Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2009) 13
422 and New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shanti Pathak
(Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1, this Court had taken a view that
case of death of a bachelor, the multiplier will normally be as per
age of the mother of the deceased. Para 10 to 34 of the report
Maneesha Karnatak and Ors. are extracted hereunder:-
“ 10. ……. the question of selection of multiplier was dealt with at great length by me in Vijay Laxmi & Anr. v. Binod Kumar Yadav & Ors., ILR (2012) 6 Del 447. In that case, the learned counsel for the Appellant had relied on the following judgments (i) Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121; (ii) Mohd. Ameeruddin v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (12) SCALE 155; (iii) P.S. Somanathan v. District Insurance Officer, I (2011) ACC 659 (SC); (iv) Bilkish v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2008 (4) SCALE 25; (v) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Azad Singh & Ors., 2010 ACJ 2384 (SC); (vi) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi & Ors., 2009 ACJ 2359 (SC) and (vii) Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. T. Chelladurai & Ors., 2010 ACJ 382 (SC).
11. I had discussed the law laid down in the earlier stated judgments and had further referred to the judgments in General Manager, Kerala...
To continue reading
Request your trial