Back
High Court Of Delhi
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
HARBANS KAUR - Respondent
First Appeal Order 365 of 1980
Decided On : 09/24/1982
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 110A - FATAL ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - DEDUCTION OF GRATUITY, PENSION, PROVIDENT FUND AND INSURANCE BENEFITS - NOT PERMISSIBLE - INTEREST ON COMPENSATION - RATE AND PERIOD - AWARD OF INTEREST @ 9% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF APPLICATION TILL REALISATION - JUST AND PROPER.
Fact of the Case:
Jaswant Singh, a vehicle mechanic, was knocked down by a D.T.C. bus driven by respondent No. 11 and owned by the appellant on 3rd March, 1973 at 9 P.M. He died on 4th March, 1973 at 6.30 A.M. He was aged 44 years at the time of accident, his date of birth being 6th January, 1929. He was Vehicle Mechanic in 505 Army Base Workshop, EME, Delhi Cantt under the Ministry of Defence, Governement of India, New Delhi. The Tribunal held that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Bus DLP 1573 by Kewal Krishan Driver and the deceased was not at fault in any way, that respondents 1 to 10 were the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. The Tribunal held that the age of retirement of the deceased was 60 years and he was drawing Rs. 407. 25 per month as salary etc. at the time of his death: Rs. 150 per month was determined as financial dependency of the heirs for a period of 16 years but 10 per cent was deducted on account of lump sum payment and contingencies of life. No deduction was however made on account of gratuity, family pension or death benefit received by the widow from the employers of the deceased. The dependency of respondents 2 and 3 was treated as nil and the compensation amount was distributed amongst respondents 1, 4 to 10 in the ration of 22: 7:7: 1011 : 15: 10:8 considering their ages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus and the deceased was not at fault. The court also found that the heirs were entitled to compensation for the loss of earnings of the deceased, as well as for the pain and suffering caused by his death.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus? 2. Whether the heirs were entitled to compensation for the loss of earnings of the deceased? 3. Whether the heirs were entitled to compensation for the pain and suffering caused by the deceased's death?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus based on the following factors: - The driver of the bus failed to notice the deceased and his companion crossing the road. - The driver failed to slow down the bus or apply the brakes in time to avoid the accident. - The driver failed to produce any evidence to prove that the accident was inevitable or to disprove rash and negligent driving. 2. The court held that the heirs were entitled to compensation for the loss of earnings of the deceased based on the following factors: - The deceased was a vehicle mechanic with 24 years of experience. - The deceased was earning Rs. 407.25 per month at the time of his death. - The deceased would have continued to earn until the age of 70 years. - The deceased would have earned a total of Rs. 1,93,524 from his employment with the Government of India and his job after retirement as a vehicle mechanic upto the age of 70 years. 3. The court held that the heirs were entitled to compensation for the pain and suffering caused by the deceased's death based on the following factors: - The deceased was a responsible person who was providing bread and butter to his family. - The deceased's death caused great pain and suffering to his family.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal of the Delhi Transport Corporation and accepted the cross-objections filed by the claimants respondents 1 to 10. The amount of compensation payable to respondents Nos. 1 to 10 was enhanced to Rs. 60,000 with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application for compensation under Section 110a of the Act till realisation against the appellant and respondent No. 11.
( 1 ) ON an application filed on 8th June, 1973 under Section 11oa of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (hereinafter called the. Act ) the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi by his judgment dated 8th August, 1980 awarded a sum of Rs. 25,920 with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of filing application till realisation besides costs as compensation, to the heirs i. e. widow, parents, soms and daughters (respondents 1 and 4 to 10) of the deceased Jaswant Singh against the Delhi Transport Corporation ( appellant) and the driver Kewal Krishan (resr pondent No. 11 ). Jaswant Singh was knocked down by a D. T. C. bus driven by respondent No. 11 and owned by the appellant on 3rd March. 1973 at 9 P. M. He died on 4th March. 1973 at 6. 30 A. M. He was aged 44 years at the time of accident, his date of birth being 6th January, 1929. He was Vehicle Mechanic in 505 Army Base Workshop, EME, Delhi Cantt under the Ministry of Defence, Governement of India, New Delhi. The Tribunal held that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Bus DLP 1573 by Kewal Krishan Driver and the deceased was not at fault in any way, that respondents 1 to 10 were the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. The Tribunal held that the age of retirement of the deceased was 60 years and he was drawing Rs. 407. 25 per month as salary etc. at the time of his death: Rs. 150 per month was determined as financial dependency of the heirs for a period of 16 years but 10 per cent was deducted on account of lump sum payment and contingencies of life. No deduction was however made on account of gratuity, family pension or death benefit received by the widow from the employers of the deceased. The dependency of respondents 2 and 3 was treated as nil and the compensation amount was distributed amongst respondents 1, 4 to 10 in the ration of 22: 7:7: 1011 : 15: 10:8 considering their ages.
( 2 ) IN this appeal, the appellant prays for dismissal of the claim application filed by the heirs of the deceased. The heirs on the contrary filed cross-objections (C. H. No. 1592 of 1982) under Order 41 rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 3. 84,880 with costs and interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation.
( 3 ) THE heirs of the deceased have alleged that on 3rd March; 1973 at about 9 P. M. Jaswant Singh deceased was crossing the Patel Road when the offending D. T. C. bus No. DLP 1573 driven rashly, recklessly and negligently by the driver (respondent No. 11) in due course of his employment under the appellant coming from West Patel Nagar side knocked down the deceased and his companion with its front side, without keeping proper look out and without caring for the safety of the road users, that the road around the place of accident was straight and the driver could have easily noticed the deceased and his companion from safe distance, that he ought to have slowed down the bus to avoid the accident, that he was entirely responsible for causing fatal injuries to the deceased, that the deceased had become unconscious at the spot and was removed in the same state to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries later on. It has further been alleged that the deceased possessed good physique and had he not been killed in the accident he would have lived upto the age of 80 years, and continued to earn upto the date of 75 years, that he was the only bread earner and hope for the heirs, that there is a history of longevity of life in his family, that his father is aged 70 years and uncle is aged 78 years, that the deceased was an expert motor mechmic having an experience of 24 years, that after retirement he was to start his own motor workshop and his income from that business would have been Rs. 2000 to Rs. 3000 per month, that the heirs have been deprived of financial support for a period of 35 years, that the children are u
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
