Kishore Kumar & Anr v. Naresh Kumar & Ors

V.B.GUPTA, J. Bisht

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI MAC App. No.326 of 2004 % Judgment reserved on: 7th July, 2008 Judgment delivered on: 21st July, 2008 1.Shri Kishore Kumar S/o Sh.Hans Raj Aged about 45 years 2.Smt.Warsha W/o Shri Kishore Kumar Aged about 40 years Both resident of: House No.3902/4, Kanhaya Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi. …. Appellants Through: Ms.Aruna Mehta, Adv. Versus 1.Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Suraj Bhan R/o B-39, Nand Ram Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. 2.Ram Phal S/o Shri Babu Ram R/o WZ 126, Basai Dara Pur, New Delhi. 3.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office No.3. 4E, Jhandelwalan Extension, New Delhi-55. …. Respondents Through: Nemo. 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 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the "Act") has been filed against the award dated 29.01.04 passed by Sh. M. L. Mehta, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short as the "Tribunal"), Delhi wherein the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,60,000/- along with the interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition for a period of 3 years. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that deceased Nitin, died in a road accident which took place on 15th October 1997 at about 11 a.m. at Shastri Nagar, E-Block DTC bus stop. On the abovesaid date and time, the deceased along with his friend Sandeep, boarded the bus DL-IP-1177, route no.816, from Shastri Nagar, Shiv Mandir to go to Delhi University, North Campus. The bus was fully packed and they were standing on the foot-board and were waiting to go inside. The bus was being driven by Naresh Kumar i.e. Respondent no. 1. At E-Block, Shastri Nagar bus stop, one bus bearing no. DL-IP-1167 plying on route no. 39 was already standing for taking passengers. Respondent no. 1, in order to take more passengers from the stop suddenly tried to overtake the stationary bus from the narrow space and in the process deceased came in between the two buses and sustained fatal injuries on his head and chest. He became unconscious at the spot and was removed to Hindu Rao hospital, where he was declared brought dead. 3. The claim petition was filed by the Appellants/parents of the deceased, aged 45 and 40 years. 4. The reply to the Appeal has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.1. 5. Respondent no. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company, in its reply has stated that it is clearly established on record that the financial and social status enjoyed by the Appellants was very ordinary standard. In the given situation, the deceased was taken to be non-earning person. The Tribunal has granted adequate and sufficient compensation. 6. On the other hand Respondent no.2 did not appear inspite of service. On 20th March 2008, when the matter was taken up, nobody appeared on behalf of Respondent no.3/Insurance Company and it was adjourned to 7th July 2008 for final disposal. 7. On 7th July 2008 again, none appeared on behalf of the Respondents. 8. Hence, arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant were heard. 9. It has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for Appellant that though the Tribunal appreciated the academic qualifications of the deceased yet it applied the Second Schedule of the Act and in the lump-sum figures, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was added for future prospects which was an erroneous approach on the part of the Tribunal. The deceased was a brilliant boy having secured 76% in senior secondary examinations and at the time of his death was a student of 1st year, B. Com (Pass) in Shivaji College. Besides this, he was also doing a course in M.C.A from Aptech Institute. 10. The Apex Court had awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- where the students are brilliant like the deceased, which the Tribunal failed to consider the case. Further, the deceased would have