Smt. Usha Rani and ors. Vs. Om Parkash Sharma and ors. - Court Judgment

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 4.12.1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short the Tribunal) vide which compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,19,200/- has been given to the claimants on account of the death of Kishori Lal Verma.

2. Kishori Lal Verma, aged about 51 years and was employed with the Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, was knocked down by truck bearing registration No. HRW-2996, while was walking on foot, near Ajronda Chowk, Faridabad, at about 11.30 p.m. on 28.4.1991. He succumbed to the injuries there and then. He left behind his widow, three major sons and one minor daughter, who filed the present claim petition. The Tribunal held Om Parkash Sharma, respondent No. 1, driver of the truck, responsible for causing the fatal accident and awarded Rs. 6,19,200/- as compensation to the claimants. Now the claimants have filed the present appeal, wherein a prayer for enhancement of the compensation has been made.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence adduced on record.

4. It has been contended by Mr. Anil Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants, that the Tribunal has erred in deducting one-third amount as personal expenses of the deceased. The counsel contends that unit system while calculating the personal expenses of the deceased should have been applied. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased while calculating the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. He argued that Mr. Kishori Lal Verma deceased was working in the Punjab National Bank at the time of his death on 28.4.1991. The normal date of his superannuation was 30.9.1999. At the time of his retirement his notional salary would have been Rs. 18,691.07. He has placed on record the notional salary certificate of the deceased issued by the Punjab National Bank. Thus, he contends that while calculating the compensation all these aspects should have been kept in view. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors., (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 656 (S.C.), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court took into consideration the future prospects of the deceased while calculating the compensation to be paid to the claimants.

5. I find merit in the contentions raised by Mr. Anil Malhotra.

6. In the present case deceased Kishori Lal Verma was fatally injured by the truck bearing registration No. HRW-2996. After knocking down the deceased, the truck had struck against the traffic lights and turned turtle. Though respondent Nos. 1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respectively, denied the occurrence of the accident in question, yet the prosecution has successfully proved that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by its driver. The claimants have examined PW1 Chiranji Lal who deposed that during the month of April in the year 1990-91 he used to sell sugarcane juice at the Ajronda crossing. He stated that during the night intervening 28th and 29th April, 1991 at about 11.30 p.m. truck bearing No. HRW-2996 came from Bata side at a fast speed and it was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The truck struck against a pedestrian (Kishori Lal Verma deceased) at the Ajronda Chowk and thereafter it struck against the traffic lights on the chowk and the truck turned turtle. He next stated that the driver of the track ran away from the spot and the deceased received multiple injuries. PW1 Chiranji Lal reported the matter to the police on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PA) was registered. His statement finds corroboration from the version of PW5 Rajinder constable, who stated that the offending vehicle was available at the spot and its number was HRW-2996 and photographs Exhibits PB to PF depicted the scene of the accident as well as the dead body shown in the photographs. Both these witnesses are independent witnesses. They were not known to the deceased or to the claimants. Further corroboration is provided to their statements by the statement of Smt. Usha Rani widow of the Kishori Lal deceased when she stepped into the witness box as PW2 who stated that she had seen the photographs Exhibits PB to PF, which were of the body of her husband as well as of the offending vehicle. The said photographs show that at that time the dead body of Kishori La! Verma as well as the truck in question were lying at the spot. Consequently, it is held that the accident had occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Om Parkash Sharma, respondent No. 1.

7. Now I deal with the question of compensation which the claimants are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly the deceased was employed with the Punjab National Bank and was drawing a salary of Rs. 7307.57 per month at the time of his death on April 28, 1991. There is also no dispute that the nor mal date of superannuation of the deceased was 30.9.1999. It means that Mr. Kishori Lal Verma had died almost 8 years 5 months prior his normal date of superannuation. The claimants have also adduced on record the notional salary certificate of the de ceased on record, which shows that the deceased would have drawn a sum of Rs. 18,691.07 per month as his salary, had he not been killed prior to his superannuation. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit's case (supra) has held that the future prospects of the deceased should also be taken into consideration while calculating compensation payable to his or her dependents. Keeping in view the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if the mean of the two salaries i.e. the salary which he used to draw at the time of his death and the salary which he would have drawn at the time of his superannuation. In order to get the mean of the two sums, first of all we have to add both of them and then the sum total would be divided by 2. The mean of the two sums is as under;-

Total monthly salary at the time of his death; Rs. 7,307/-The notional monthly salary on superannuation: Rs. 18,691/-Grand Total : Rs. 25,998/-Average of the above: Rs. 12,999/-or say Rs. 13,000/-

Thus, I take Rs. 13,000/- as the monthly salary for calculation of compensation to be paid to the claimants.

8. By now it is settled that while deducting the amount on account of personal expenses of the deceased, the unit method is to be applied i.e., two units for each of the adults and one unit for the minor. In the present case the deceased had left behind his widow and three major sons and minor daughter. In this way the sum total of the units comes to 11 if two units qua the deceased are also added. In this way, one-fifth amount is to be deducted as personal expenses for the deceased. Thus, we have to deduct a sum of Rs. 2600/- out of Rs. 13,000/- for calculating the dependency of the claimants on the deceased. It would show that the monthly dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 10,400/- or Rs. 1,24,800/- per annum. According to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, multiplier of 11 is to be applied in the present case. By multiplying the sum of Rs. 1,24,800/- by 11, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 13,72,800/-. The claimants would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation.

9. Consequently, I allow the appeal and modify the award of the Tribunal to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to the award of Rs. 13,72,800/- as compensation. They shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the enhancement amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

10. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the claimants in equal proportion. The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to make the payment of the claimants.