Delhi High CourtUttar Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Bimla Devi & Ors. on 26 September, 2017Author:R.K.GaubaBench:R.K.Gauba$~R-271 & 272
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                       Decided on: 26th September, 2017
+      MAC APPEAL No. 819/2010

       UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
       CORPORATION                       ..... Appellant
                   Through: Ms. Garima Prasahad & Mr.
                             Shadab Khan, Advs.

                              versus

       BIMLA DEVI & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                     Through:           Mr. O.P. Mainee, Adv. for R-1
                                        & 2.

+      MAC APPEAL No. 363/2015

       BIMLA DEVI & ORS.                             ..... Appellants
                     Through:           Mr. O.P. Mainee, Adv.
                     versus

       UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
       CORPORATION                  ..... Respondents
                   Through: Ms. Garima Prasahad & Mr.
                             Shadab Khan, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

                       JUDGMENT (ORAL)1.     Manish Verma, aged 19 years, concededly a matriculate and
bachelor, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred
on 02.12.2007 due to negligent driving of bus bearing registration no.MAC Appeal No. 819/2010 & conn.                            Page 1 of 5UP 21N 0629 of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
(UPSRTC) and died in the consequence. His widowed mother and
sibling, they being appellants in MAC Appeal No. 363/2015
(collectively, the claimants) instituted accident claim case (suit no.
235/09/08) on 15.01.2008. The tribunal held inquiry, and by judgment
dated 11.08.2010 awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.
11,49,225/- directing the UPSRTC (appellant in MAC Appeal No.
819/2010) to pay with interest @ 7.5% per annum, calculating it thus:-S.No.          Heads                       Compensation

       1.             Medical Expenses            Rs. 3,12,830/-

       2.             Loss of dependency          Rs. 8,11,395/-

       3.             Loss of estate              Rs.   10,000/-

       4.             Funeral expenses            Rs.    5,000/-

       5.             Loss of love & affection    Rs.   10,000/-

                      Total                       Rs. 11,49,225/-2.     UPSRTC is in appeal to question the calculation of loss of
dependency on the ground that the element of future prospects of
increase in income to the extent of 50% was wrongly added. On the
other hand, the claimants by their appeal contend that the
compensation awarded is deficient because deduction of personal &MAC Appeal No. 819/2010 & conn.                          Page 2 of 5living expenses should have been to the extent of 1/3 rd and that non-
pecuniary damages awarded are deficient.3.     The claimants had submitted before the tribunal that the
deceased had joined the services of Employer Financial Services, the
proprietor whereof had appeared in the evidence as a witness named
Parveen (PW-3) to prove, amongst others, the letter of appointment
(Ex.PW-3/C) and the salary slip (Ex.PW-3/A). It is noted that the
document (Ex.PW-3/C) was only a letter of offer for the deceased to
take over the position of trainee-cum-sales executive at a gross salary
of Rs. 6,750/- per month, his regular employment being contingent
upon completion of training after six months. Clearly, the deceased
served the said firm as trainee sales executive hardly for two months.4.In the case reported asSarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court, inter-alia,
ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will
not be granted in cases where the deceased was "self employed" or
was working on a "fixed salary".Though this view was affirmed by a
bench of three Hon'ble Judges inReshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan
Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, on account of divergence of views,
as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9
SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, inter-alia, by
order dated 02.07.2014 inNational Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.5.     Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016
passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 (Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd.),MAC Appeal No. 819/2010 & conn.                           Page 3 of 5this Court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a
learned single judge in MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on
12.01.2015, presently taking the decision inReshma Kumari(Supra)
as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future
prospects for those who are "self-employed" or engaged in gainful
employment at a "fixed salary" is clarified by a larger bench of the
Supreme Court.6.     In the above facts and circumstances, there being no clear
evidence of regular employment much less of regular rise therein, the
element of future prospects is kept out. Since it is a case of claim on
account of death of a bachelor, deduction on account of personal &
living expenses will have to be to the extent of 50%. Calculated
accordingly, with the multiplier of 13, correctly chosen by the tribunal
on the last wages of Rs.6935/-, the loss of dependency is recomputed
as (6935 ÷ 2 x 12 x 13) Rs. 5,40,930/-.7.     The grievance of the claimants about the inadequacy of the non-
pecuniary damages is correct. Following the view taken in Rajesh &
Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V.
Gangalakshmamma(2015) 9 SCC 150, compensation in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love & affection and Rs.25,000/-
each towards loss of estate and funeral expense are added. Putting
together all the components of the compensation including medical
expenses awarded by the tribunal, the total compensation is
recomputed as (3,12,830 + 5,40,930 + 1,00,000 + 25,000 + 25,000)MAC Appeal No. 819/2010 & conn.                            Page 4 of 5Rs. 10,03,760/-, rounded off to Rs. 10,04,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs
Four Thousand Only). The award is modified accordingly.8.     Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to nine per cent (9%) per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016
in MAC.APP. 165/2011Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi
& Ors.]9.     By order dated 03.12.2010 in MAC Appeal No. 819/2010, the
UPSRTC had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with
upto date interest with the Registrar General of this Court and from
out of such deposit fifty per cent (50%) was allowed to be released to
the claimants. The registry shall now calculate the balance now
payable to the claimants under the modified award refunding the
excess, it any, to the UPSRTC.       In case, there is deficiency, the
UPSRTC will be obliged to pay the same with the tribunal within
thirty days.10.    The statutory amount shall be refunded.11.    Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms.R.K.GAUBA, J.SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
nkMAC Appeal No. 819/2010 & conn.                           Page 5 of 5