Sheela Devi vs Jeet Singh

Ajay Tewari, J.—The aforesaid appeals have been filed against the award of the Tribunal dated 5.8.1999 passed in two claim petitions, one filed by the widow and children and the other by the mother, in respect of the death of Rakesh Kumar Verma in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal dismissed both the petitions and awarded only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under No Fault Liability. It is for this reason that both the widow and the mother have come up before this Court in appeal. Since common questions of law and fact are involved, both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

At the very outset death certificate of the appellant-mother has been filed which is taken on record.

Brief facts of the case are that deceased was travelling on his scooter bearing No. CH-01-Q-2484 from village Landran to village Raipur Rani on 12.3.1997 at about 7:30 p.m. after closing his clinic. The offending truck was parked on the side of the road due to some mechanical fault without there being any back light signal or other light indicating that the truck was parked there. The driver of the truck had placed half bricks on the metalled portion of the road surrounding the truck and when the deceased tried to cross the truck, another truck suddenly appeared from Raipur Rani side and the scooter of the deceased went on to the half bricks and fell down towards left side on the metalled road whereas the deceased himself fell on the right side and his head was crushed under the truck and he died.

The deceased was a dental surgeon having his own clinic at Landran and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6000/- per month, applied a cut of 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and assessed the monthly loss to the family of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- i.e. Rs. 48,000/- per annum. Multiplier of 12 was applied. On the point of negligence the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased himself and therefore they were not entitled to any compensation whereas an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded under No Fault Liability to the widow and the mother.

Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that on both the counts the findings of the Tribunal are wrong and the appeals deserve to be allowed.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has countered by stating that by putting half bricks and stones around the truck the driver has actually acted negligently and not safely. According to him, if a vehicle develops a mechanical fault and has to be parked on road, a light/reflector has to be placed at an adequate distance so that other traffic may come to know that there is a parked vehicle and take evasive action. But by putting stones around the truck, the drive has only endangered the life of other persons who may cross the road. As per the material on record the entire blame was of respondent No. 2. He has, however, argued that the finding of the Tribunal is correct and should not be interfered with.

In my considered opinion the arguments of both the learned counsel are too extreme. It cannot be disputed as urged by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 2 acted negligently, in firstly not putting any light/reflector at an adequate distance behind the truck so as to warn other road users but also acted negligently in putting half bricks and stones around the truck. On the other hand, as suggested by learned counsel for the insurance company it cannot be held that the deceased was entirely blameless. Resultantly, I apportion the liability for the accident on the two drivers in the ratio of 40: 60 i.e. 40% on the deceased and 60% on the truck driver.

It is claimed that the deceased was dentist, however, the Tribunal found that at the time of his death his licence as a dentist stood expired and consequently held the income of the deceased at Rs. 6000/- per month against the income of Rs. 15,000/- per month as claimed by the claimants. I find no reason to take a different view.

Learned counsel for the appellants have, however, argued that nothing has been awarded for future prospects. Since the age of the deceased was 44 years, I deem it appropriate to award an additional increase of 30% towards future prospects in view of the decision of this Court in FAO No. 929 of 2014, National Insurance Company Limited v. Gurdev Kaur and others, decided on 18.02.2014.

Learned counsel for the appellants have further argued that the Tribunal has erred in granting the multiplier of 12 whereas, as per Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, multiplier of 14 was required to be applied. I agree with the learned counsel and change the multiplier from 12 to 14.

Learned counsel for the appellants have next contended that nothing has been paid under the conventional heads. In this regard reliance has been placed on Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, and Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others,

As regards compensation regarding loss of love and affection, counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has argued that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others'' case (supra) granted a total amount of Rs. 1 lac towards loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 1 lac to three minor children for loss of care and guidance.

Counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, have contended that in Vimal Kanwar and others'' case (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the widow and a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the minor girl on account of loss of love and affection, and another sum of Rs. 1 lac towards loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 1 lac to the mother for loss of love and affection.

Consequently, I award a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the widow No. 1 on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 1 lac for loss of love and affection, Rs. 1 lac to the mother and Rs. 50,000/- each to the sons for loss of love and affection and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

However, learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that as per the award the appellants had received interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but keeping in view the judicial trend today this interest should not be granted on the enhanced amount. I find merit in this argument and consequently direct that on the enhanced amount the appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

Apart from the individual enhancements, the entire enhanced amount would fall to the share of widow, out of which 50% will be given to her in cash and the remaining 50% will be put in a fixed deposit for a period of three years. The share of the other appellants would be given to them in cash.

With the modification in the award, the appeals are allowed to the above extent.