Dharamvir and Anr v. Subhrati @ Shabu & Ors

V.B.GUPTA, J. rs

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO. No.447 of 2002 % Judgment reserved on:20th August, 2008 Judgment delivered on:29th August,2008 1. Sh. Dharamvir S/o. Sh. Guru Dass Mal 2. Shrimati Taripata Rani W/o. Sh. Dharamvir R/o. B-630, Transit Camp Govind Puri, Klkaji New Delhi. ….Appellants Through: Mr. M.P. Sharma, Adv. 1. Sh. Subhrati @ Shabu S/o. Abdul Hammi R/o. C-242, J.J. Colony Khanpur, New Delhi 2. Sh. Khub Chand S/o. Sh. Kanwar Bhan R/o. R-7, ShriNiwas Puri (Pvt. Colony) New Delhi. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Oriental House A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. …Respondents. Through: Mr. Ram N. Sharma, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as "Act") for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the impugned award dated 29th April, 2002, passed by Sh. S.L. Khanna, Judge MACT, New Delhi. 2. The appellants are parents of the deceased Davinder Kumar, who died in a road accident on 19th May, 1997. It is alleged that deceased along with his brother, Darpan Kumar were going on two wheeler scooter No. DL-8S-B-1837 from their residence to their place of work. At about 10.45 p.m., when their scooter reached L Block, Kalkaji, near Gurdawara, a bus bearing No.DL-1P-3659 being driven by respondent No.1 rammed into their scooter, as a result of which both of them fell down. The scooter was being driven by the deceased who was crushed under the wheel of the bus while his brother Darpan, who was sitting on the pillion seat escaped with minor injuries. It is stated that the said bus was being driven at a very high speed and in a reckless and negligent manner. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the bus and the offending bus was injured with respondent No.3. 3. Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has wrongly granted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased to the appellants who are the parents of the deceased and it has wrongly applied the judgment of Apex Court in Donat Louis Machado v. L. Ravindra and Ors., [1999] ACJ 1400, as in the present case, the deceased was only 20 years and he would not have married until reaching the age of 25/27 years and the Tribunal ought to have awarded 2/3rd of the income of the deceased at least for 7 years, whereas in Donat Louis case (supra), the deceased was 31 years old. 5. The other grounds taken for enhancement is that the multiplier of 17 adopted is on the lower side. It should have not been less than 24 years and further, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of loss of love and affection which is very low. This alone should have been at least Rs.1,00,000/-. 6. During the course of arguments, these two grounds were not urged at all. 7. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd income towards personal expenses of the deceased and moreover the multiplier of 17 adopted in this case by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 8. There is no dispute about the manner in which the accident took place and the income or age of the deceased. 9. The deceased was 20 years of age at the time of occurrence of the accident and was working as Telephone Operator with M/s Fair Deal, drawing a salary of Rs.1700/- per month. 10. Regarding multiplier, the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Krishna Bala & Ors., III (2006) ACC 361 (SC), has highlighted the manner of fixing the appropriate multiplier and computation of compensa