Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs Umesh Devi & Ors

The above captioned two appeals are directed against Award of 14th March, 2013 vide which compensation of Rs.12,33,250/- with interest @

7.5% per annum has been awarded to Claimants. Â

In the above-captioned first appeal, appellant- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as the “Ownerâ€) seeks

reduction in the quantum of compensation granted, whereas in the above-captioned second appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought by

Claimants. Since these two appeals arise out of common impugned Award of 14th March, 2013, therefore, both these appeals have been heard

together and are being decided by this common judgment. The facts as noted in impugned Award are as under:-

“The brief facts, as stated by petitioners, are that on 27.03.2009, Sh. Bir Singh, Baby Preeti and Master Rahul with some other persons were

coming by Indica Car no.DL3CU-1569 from Village Hasan Pur to Delhi and when the Indica Car reached near Koral Use Factory, Gajrola, a vehicle

no. UP-53T-7772, driven by respondent no. 1 at a high speed and negligently, hit the Indica car. Sh. Bir Singh, Baby Preeti and Master Rahul

sustained serious injuries and Sh. Bir Singh died due to the injuries suffered in the accident.â€​

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunalâ€) has relied upon the evidence of Umesh Devi wife of Bir Singh,

who had died in a vehicular accident on 27th March, 2009, and the other evidence on record, to award the compensation as noticed hereinabove.

Deceased-Bir Singh was aged 42 years on the day of this vehicular accident and as per the evidence of Umesh Devi(PW-1), deceased was owner

and driver of Auto-rickshaw. The Tribunal has calculated the “loss of dependency†on minimum wages and has deducted 1/4th towards the

“personal expenses†of the deceased. By applying the multiplier of 14, the “loss of dependency†has been assessed at Rs.11,46,600/-.

Compensation of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded under the head of ‘Loss of love and affection†and ‘Funeral Expenses’ of Rs.5,000/- have

been granted by the Tribunal. Under the head ‘Loss of Estate’, compensation of Rs.10,000/- has been granted and Rs.10,000/- has been

granted under the head of “loss of consortium†by the Tribunal. The break-up of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Claimants is as

under:-

1) Loss of Dependency  : Rs.11,46,600/-

2) Funeral Expenses : Rs.5,000/-

3) Loss of Estate : Rs.10,000/-

4) Loss of consortium : Rs.10,000/-

5) Loss of love and affection : Rs.25,000/-

Total : Rs.12,33,250/-

The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for the Owner of the bus in question is on the ground that the deceased had substantially

contributed in causing the accident in question. It is submitted that the Tribunal has arbitrarily assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per

month. It is further submitted that the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in Delhi were Rs.4107/- per month on the day of accident, which

ought to have been adopted for assessing the “loss of incomeâ€. It is next submitted that in view of Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench

decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, addition of 25% towards “future prospects†ought to

have been made by the Tribunal. So, it is submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal needs to be suitably reduced.

On the contrary, learned counsel for Claimants/legal heirs of deceased refutes the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the Owner of the bus in

question and submits that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate. To seek enhancement in quantum of compensation granted by the

Tribunal, Claimants’ counsel submits that the deceased was also owning an Indica car and was earning handsomely by plying it as a Taxi and so,

the income of deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs.15,000/- per month. It is submitted that in view of Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench

decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation granted under the “non-pecuniary headsâ€​ ought to be enhanced.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on record and the decision cited, I find that this accident was witnessed by Ram

Bharose (PW-2),who was travelling alongwith the deceased in the car in question. The evidence of this witness to the effect that the bus in question

was coming from the wrong side at a high speed, remains unchallenged. In the face of afore-referred eye-witness account rendered by the Ram

Bharosey (PW-2), I find that no reliance can be placed upon self-serving evidence of R1W1-driver of the bus in question, who claims that the bus in

question was being driven at a speed of 45 KMs per hour. In the face of evidence of eye-witness (PW-2) and FIR of this case, the plea of

contributory negligence raised on behalf of owner of the bus in question is hereby repelled.

On the aspect of income of deceased, I find that his wife has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month and he

used to pay monthly installment of Rs.11,620/- for the auto and Rs.5,225/- for Indica car respectively. There is no worthwhile crossexamination of this

witness. As per evidence of PW-4- Sh. Rahul Talwar, Manager of M/s.Goodman Auto Deal, deceased was repaying the loan amount in instalments.

In light of the aforesaid, there is no justification to assess the income of deceased on minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. The Tribunal has

assessed the income of deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that auto-drivers generally earn not less than

Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, I find that in the face of evidence of PW-4-Sh. Rahul Talwar, Manager of M/s.Goodman Auto Deal and PW-3-Sh.

Mulakh Raj, Proprietor of M/s.Grover Auto Deal, the income of deceased deserves to be assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month.

In view of Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), addition of 25% towards “future prospects†ought to be

made. The Tribunal has erred in making addition of 30%. However, the Tribunal has correctly deducted 1/4th towards “personal expenses†of

deceased and applied the multiplier of 14. Accordingly, the “loss of dependencyâ€​ is reassessed as under:-

Rs.10,000/- X 12 X 14 X 125/100 X 3/4 = Rs.15,75,000/-

So far as compensation granted by the Tribunal under the “nonpecuniary heads†is concerned, it needs to be brought in tune with Supreme

Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, compensation granted to Claimants/legal heirs of deceasedby the

Tribunal under the head of “Loss of Love and affection†is disallowed. However, the “funeral expenses†are increased from Rs.5,000/- to

Rs.15,000/- and compensation granted under the head “Loss of estate†is also increased from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The compensation

granted under the head of “loss of consortium†is also increased from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation payable to

Claimants/legal heirs of deceased is reassessed as under:-

1) Loss of Dependency  : Rs.15,75,000/-

2) Funeral Expenses  : Rs.15,000/-

3) Loss of Estate : Rs.15,000/-

4) Loss of consortium  : Rs.40,000/-

  Total :  Rs.16,45,000/-Â

In light of the aforesaid, compensation of Rs.12,33,250/- granted by the Tribunal to Claimants/legal heirs of deceased-Bir Singh is enhanced to

Rs.16,45,000/-. A Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in a recent decision of Jagdish v. Mohan and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 has granted interest

@ 9% per annum on the awarded compensation and so, claimants are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. Hence, the reassessed compensation

shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. Owner of the bus in question is granted six weeks’ time to deposit the enhanced compensation alongwith

interest @ 9% per annum with the Registrar General of this Court. Thereafter, the reassessed compensation be disbursed to Claimants/legal heirs of

deceased in the manner and ratio as indicated in the impugned Award. Statutory deposit be refunded to the owner of the bus in question.

While modifying the impugned Award in aforesaid terms, the above-captioned two appeals along with the pending application are accordingly

disposed of.