Channo Devi &Ors v. Ram Kewal & Ors

V.B.GUPTA, J. Bisht

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO No.522 of 2003 % Judgment reserved on: 29th August, 2008 Judgment delivered on:11th September, 2008 1.Smt.Chhanno Devi, Wd./o Sh.Daya Chand 2.Baru 3.Ram Mehar 4.Jaipan 5.Balraj (Minor sons of late Daya Chand Through their mother Smt.Channo Devi) 6.Hassan Pat 7.Chander Pati (minor daughters of late Daya Chand through their mother, next friend and natural guardian Smt.Channo Devi) 8.Satbir(now deceased) Through his LRs i)Smt.Shakuntla Wd/o late Satbir ii)Km.Saroj (minor) iii) Km.Meena (minor) iv)Master Joginder (minor) v)Master Vinod (minor) vi)K.Reena (minor) ii) to vi) all minor sons and daughters of late Satbir through their mother, next friend and natural guardian Smt.Shakuntla 9.Satyawan 10.Satan Kumar (sons of late Sh.Daya Chand) All residents of Village Baklana, Tehsil-Hansi, District-Hisar(Haryana) ….Appellant Through: Mr.Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta, Adv. Versus 1.Ram Kewal, S/o Sh.Ram Lot R/o K-202, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. 2.Reham Illahi, S/o Hussan Bax R/o A-55, J.J.Camp No.2, Nangloi, Delhi-110041. 3.The New India Assurance Company Ltd. New Delhi Chanana Complex, Gurdwara Raod, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. …Respondents. Through: Mr.R.K.Tripathi, Adv. for R-3. 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. The present appeal has been filed by the legal heirs of deceased Daya Chand against the award dated 8th April, 2003 passed by Sh.Sunil Gaur, Judge, MACT, Delhi (for short as "Tribunal") vide which he awarded a compensation of Rs.97,000/- along with the interest @ 6% p.a. on the date of filing of the petition till realization. 2. Aggrieved with the impugned award, the appellants herein, are seeking enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs. 3. Brief facts of this case are that on 20th June, 1990, deceased, aged 43 years along with his son Satbir was going with their sheeps and goats towards Slaughter House in Delhi. When they reached in front of Idgah Raod at about 4.20 a.m, truck No.DLL-1960 driven rashly and negligently by Ram Kewal, respondent No.1 came from behind and struck against Daya Chand, who sustained fatal injuries in this accident and four sheeps and two goats also died in the accident. 4. Respondents 1 & 2 being driver and owner of the truck in question, in the joint written statement filed by them, have stated that accident took place due to contributory negligence of the deceased. 5. Respondent No.3, the Insurance Company in its written statement has admitted that the truck in question was insured with it on the date of accident. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Doctor who has carried out the post mortem of deceased has opined that the age of deceased was 55 years whereas, the Tribunal has held that deceased was more than 55 years on the date of accident without any evidence and contrary to the record and, thus, wrongly applied the multiplier for the age 55 years and above. The multiplier ought to have been adopted for the age of 50-55 years. 7. Other contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that there were ten dependants of the deceased and as such he could not have spent more than 1/12th of his total income but the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd out of income of the deceased towards personal expenses and deduction for personal expenses should not have more than 1/12th in this case. Lastly, the deceased was earning more than Rs.3,000/- p.m. and under these circumstances, the compensation is liable to be enhanced. 8. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insruance Company that there is no documentary proof on record with regard to the age and income of the deceased and the Tribunal has taken rightly the age of the deceased as 55 years and has applied correct multiplier. The Tribunal rightly took n