U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Shakuntal Gautam & Anr

JUDGMENT R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

¶1■ Dr. Chhaya Gautam, an unmarried person, a qualified dentist holding the degree of bachelor of dental surgery (BDS) working as lecturer in department of Conservative Dentistry, DJ College of Dental Sciences & Research, Modi Nagar, UP, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred at about 4.15 p.m. on 15.3.2010 at Ghugna Mor. A motor MAC'App NOS..1210/2012&I26I/20I2 . ^ ^ ^ - / .•/ y VH cycle bearing No, UP 81? 4999 (motorcycle) on which she was riding was involved'in a collision against a bus bearing registration No. UP MAE 9360 (the offending vehicle) of UP State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) (appellant in MAC Appeal No. 1261/2012) and died as a consequence. Her parents (appellants in MAC Appeal No. 1210/2012) brought a claim, petition under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MY Act) before the motor accident elaims tribunal (the tribunal) on 19.5.2010 whereupon it was ' registered as suit No. 348/2011 (2010). According to the case set up by the claimants, the accident hadsodUurrei^due to; rash/pegligent driving of the ' offending vehicle by^si^^ dijer 4l^inder Kumir (Erst 'rgspondent in MAC Appeal No. 121O/20l^and, therefore he and UPSi^C'were jointly and severally liable. I U:

¶2The tribunal, held inquiry in the course of which the allegations of raslVnegligent driving of the offending vehicle were denie| and it was instead claimed that the accident'had occjafrp due to fault oiT:fhe part of the motorcycle rider.%he tribunal rejectedythi#id:;pl|a l^ found the driver of the offending vehicle responsible, it assessed fhe lbss of dependency in the sum of^ 11,70,000/- anMdedT 5,000/- ^to^rds funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss' of love 8t affection to award T 11,85,000/- as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum, directing the UPSRTC and the driver to pay.

¶3By their appeal, the claimants contend that the capacity of the deceased to earn more in future should have been considered and, thus, the award under the heads of loss of dependency is inadequate. They also submit that non-pecuniary damages awarded by the tribunal are unduly low. MACApp Nos.. I 210/2012 &I26J/2012 i , I . 1. '/ '/

¶4Per contra, the UPSRTC in its appeal,, submits that since the motorcycle rider was also equally responsible, he should have been added as a party and the liability should have been apportioned. It is the submission of the UPSRTC that the salary at ?10,000/- has been wrongly assumed to be the earnings.

¶5The tribunal assessed the loss of dependency thus: "79. As regards the quantum of compensation PWl stated that deceased was Dentist and she was working as a Lecturer in D. J. Dental Collegeand Researehr;:md,wcis getting salaiy of f 10,000/- per month,Pl/esidesgthis' she was. also earning f 20,000/-.from private practice and in dice course of time she would have bedn earned more : than ^ 80,00b/fper month. She also statedLthatjhe decemejftfmsfeontrW^^ her entire income for' household expefsepfShf further stated that the deceased hadpbn^pleted hen0ental'0ourse from D. J. College of Dental Sciences and ResMjlfh-'oM-f 9 Lacs were spent on her tuition fee. Besides thif khflpetitioners ivere paying f 20,000/- per month for boardinganff20,000/- on her tuition jee. She farther stated thdt''d/tpidLsiim of f 12,00,000/- /f Twelve Lacs) were/spent on education. Sf deceased. She proved the educational'q.udiificdtions' vf -deceased i. e.- of EDS exammatidrt lof Dr., Bhirn M University, Agra as Ex. PWl/f iofPWl/9ytkeyprewisional certificate of Kendriya Vidayalayd' fXIlfstandard)):.certifying that she had passed senior secondary certificate examination of XII standard as Ex.PWl/10, the senior school examination certificate EX. PWl/11, secondary school examination certificate Ex.PWl/12, certificate of Delhi Dental Council Ex. PWl/13, All India Secondary School examination certificate Ex. PWl/14 and the receipts of fee. The petitioners also proved the salary certificate of deceased by examining Sr. Assistant G. M. Legal D. J. College of Dental Science and Research who stated that deceased was their permanent employee and proved the salary certificate Ex. PW3/2 and appointment letterEx.PWI/26. PWl further stated that the deceased was earning f 20,000/r from MAC App Nos.-I 210/2012 &1261/2012 i I I ;• . private practice and in due course of time she would have been earned more than ^80,000/- per month. However no proof of earning by private practice has been filed Thus in view of the testimony of PW-1 that deceased was working as a Lecturer in L). J. Dental College and Research and was getting salary of f 10,000/- per month and as no evidence to the contrary was brought on record by respondents to dispute the same. However there is no cogent proof of earning ^20,000/- by private practice. Thus I hold that the deceased was earning T 10,000/- per month.

¶20The Hon' ble Supreme Cou:Hin2he^^^^ ofSarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCCpf1^.sfitedthatfh^p^^ relating to addition to income Ipwcmdsftitttre prospects, 'ft avas hold that wherever the deceased waspelfnf HO years/ had a permanentjob 50% ^hoipfp^fff towards fu/ime prospects. Thus, top addedf^at^^w)e'prospectsHidecease was around 2// years cindppfipfifhanent job. Afterladding 50% the/deemed income'/0dMaied would have been /r 10,000/- i 50%) - ri5,000/-/ fjj ■; ■: ^ ^ ^ 5 "C ^ 6 U ' ' '

¶21As deceased was^ ^000^ be deducted fowords personal and dvmg,efppes:^he ''deceasedfmd the multiplier IS applied with feferende iaffifage of motheruff deceased in view of JudgnienkpSarlaHerma Vs, DTC SCO 121 ■After deduction dfflpp):^^ deceased to his family wvfp hayeHeeni^7;%0 According to the ration card on the date ^dLcident the age of mother of deceased was 50 years, thus, the multiplier applicable is of 13. e loss of dependency is thus comp uted to be as ^7 500/- x 12 X 13 = ri 1,70,000/"-.

¶6In the considered view of this Court, the approach of the tribunal to the issue caimot be faulted. The salary certificate clearly showed the total emoluments to be in the sum of ? 10,000/- per month. The element of conveyance allowance, in the given facts and circumstances, has to be treated MACAppNos..! 210/2012&I261/20I2 "/ . ly as part of the earnings since it correspondingly saves the person in question the expenditure he would otherwise be incurring.

¶7The assessment of loss of dependency has to be made on the basis of proof of his income at the time of the death. Jhe tribunal by adding the future prospects to the extent of 50% has taken pare of the capacity of the deceased to earn more in future.

¶8There is, however, merit in the grievance of the claimant with regard to the non-pecuniary heads of damages. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. V. Rajbir Singh & Ors^, g.O\3) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (20i 5)v>9jSGC 450, compensation in; the sum of ^1 laldi on account of love^andjiffection and ^25,000/- eacikywmds loss of estate and funeral expensefare added. It niay be observed here that there was no occasion for loss of consortium to be considered by the tribunal, as the deceased was a bachelor. In above yiew^ the award would stand increased by ? 1,35,000/-. Needless to add, it/shMfyat^ as levied by the tribunal.

¶9. This Court does nbttfind 'mqri|4nithdple with regard to the negligence of the,mofqfcycle-rider. For p^ the claim of the parents of the deceased, the Jill lon rider yasythhid^ Even if it were to be assumed that the motorcycle rider was negligent to some extent, it would mean a case of composite negligence. It is the choice and prerogative of the claimants to proceed against either of the two drivers and the owner of the respective vehicles.

¶10Thus, the award is modified as above. In the given facts and circumstances, it is directed that the effect of increase shall be payable only to the mother (first appellant in MAC Appeal No. 1210/2012). t^ACApp Nos.J 210/2012&1261/2012 'r

¶11By order dated 14.12.2012 in MAC Appeal No. 1261/2012, the UPSRTC was directed to pay the awarded amount with proportionate interest with the tribunal whereupon the execution was stayed. By order dated

6.5.2013, the direction was modified and instead the UPSRTC was directed to deposit the amount with the Registrar General of this Court and 50% was allowed to be released to the claimants with direction for the balance to be kept in fixed deposit receipt with UCO Banlc, Delhi High Court Branch, initially for a period of six months to be renewed periodically. ^ The Registrar General shall arrange fbr..a^43aimce;talso to. Be-released in terms of the impugned judgment, mhSiffd"as^ si'alfdeposit the amount payable in terms./of,fBe "enhancement with The Uibunal/within 30 days whereupon it shall befeleased in accordance with the abdye directions.

¶12The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded. z 13 ^Both appdals are disposed of in 'ai^oyeTerms.:^— ^ MARCH 17, 2016 nk MACApp Ngs.J 210/2012 & 1261/2012

$-14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 17"* March, 2016 + MAC.APP. 1261/2012 UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. Appellant Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Adv.. versus SHAKUNTLA GAUTAM:& ANR.' - Respondents Through; ; MT Q;P,, Manhie, Adv. CORAM: TA ... HON'BLE MR. JIJSTICE "''V' ' \ judg^^nt'Ttu?' R.K.GAUBA. J (ORAL): ^ ^ ^ | ! For detailed judgment, thb ■decision'datedU^ MAC.APP. 1210/2012 may be refefred to.;; - • " = - ; • ;> LK. GAUBA (JUDGE) MARCH 17, 2016 nk * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decisipe: 17"" March, 2016 + MAC,APP. 1210/2012 SHAKUNTLA GAUTAM Appellant Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv. ^ versus RAVINDER KUMAR &,QRSv^-' Respondents Through; i vMi^/Shadab Khari, Adv. A _.i■^ + MAC.APP.fl202O12 UP STAxI I^D TRANS||^f^fP. VX. %ppellant s Through:; s|&:-Shadab Khan, Adv.. 3; i X.: -ri (Aj ;« , i versus ATAp';. tv I -AA Mvv T j. SHAKUNTLA GAil|A%WllA A:;A<.>,:--Usponderrts AAT/Thrbug Sh. O.R Maip^^ ^^ORAM° ' '' A '''' 7: ■ " • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ^'