Back
High Court Of Delhi
PREM DEVI PANDEY - Appellant
Versus
DAYAL SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal Order 94 of 1973
Decided On : 05/28/1976
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 110-B - FATAL ACCIDENT - QUANTUM OF DAMAGES - CALCULATION - DEDUCTIONS - LUMP SUM PAYMENT - PENSION - GRATUITY - PROVIDENT FUND - INSURANCE POLICY - PECUNIARY ADVANTAGES - LOSS OF PECUNIARY BENEFITS - LIFE EXPECTANCY - FUTURE PROSPECTS OF PROMOTION - ACCELERATION OF PECUNIARY GAINS - INTEREST ON AWARD.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a 42-year-old man, was killed in a motor vehicle accident. He was the sole breadwinner of his family, consisting of his wife and five daughters. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 22,717 to the appellants, the legal representatives of the deceased. The appellants challenged the quantum of damages awarded, while the respondents, the Delhi Transport Corporation and others, filed cross-objections.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal erred in making certain deductions from the amount of compensation, including the deduction for lump sum payment, pension, gratuity, provident fund, and insurance policy. The court also held that the Tribunal erred in not taking into account the future prospects of promotion of the deceased and the increase in his salary and allowances that would have occurred had he lived.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in making certain deductions from the amount of compensation, including the deduction for lump sum payment, pension, gratuity, provident fund, and insurance policy? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in not taking into account the future prospects of promotion of the deceased and the increase in his salary and allowances that would have occurred had he lived?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal erred in making certain deductions from the amount of compensation, including the deduction for lump sum payment, pension, gratuity, provident fund, and insurance policy. The court held that these deductions were not justified because they were benefits for which the deceased had paid and that it would be unjust to give the benefit of these payments to the wrongdoer who caused the death of the deceased. 2. The court also held that the Tribunal erred in not taking into account the future prospects of promotion of the deceased and the increase in his salary and allowances that would have occurred had he lived. The court held that it was wrong to take the loss of pecuniary benefit as far the dependants of the deceased are concerned to be equivelent to the amount they were getting on the date of the accident. The correct procedure, in the court's view, is to also take into account the possibility that these benefits would have increased in the process of time, on account of the increase in the salary of the deceased ; the increase in emoluments on account of allowances ; and the distinct possibility of promotion into the higher grade.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and increased the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants to Rs. 95,000, to be divided equally among the five daughters of the deceased. The court also awarded costs to the appellants.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the legal, representatives of the late Shri Ram Partap Pandey, who died as a result of a motor vehicle accident which took place on 10th November, 1967 at 5-15 P. M. on Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. The appellants are the widow, five daughters and the parents of the deceased Shri Ram Partap Pandey. The respondents are Shri Dayal Singh, the driver of the bus belonging to the Delhi Transport Undertaking which was involved in the accident and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which was then running the bus. Cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the Delhi Transport Corporation and others. Apparently, the liability which fell on the Delhi Municipal Corporation at the time of the accident has now fallen on the Delhi Transport Corporation by operation of subsequent legislation changes.
( 2 ) THE only serious question agitated before me on behalf of the petitioners and the cross-objector is in relation to the quantum of damages that has to be awarded. The facts of the case regarding the accident are not in dispute at all. Those facts are, that the deceased was going on a bicycle on Prithvi Raj Road near House No. 37. Bus No. D. L. P. No. 1115 came from behind him and ran him down. It seems the bus went out of control and after hitting the deceased, went on to the footpath and hit some coal tar drums after which it crashed into a tree. The deceased at time of his death was earning about Rs. 490. 00 monthly and was 42 years old, he was the bread earner and supporter of his family consisting of his wife and five daughters. The petitioners claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 as compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
( 3 ) THE quantum actually granted by the Tribunal was only Rs. 22,717. 00 together with costs and future interest at six per cent per annum payable only if the money was not deposited within two months of the award. The only question agitated before me is the quantum of the damages. Although, in the cross objections the decision of the Tribunal was also challenged on the merits, no real attempt has been made to persuade me that the decision is incorrect regarding the factum of negligence.
( 4 ) I first proceed to indicate the. manner in which the amount awarded has been calculated by the Tribunal. It was held that the deceased was 42 years old at the time of accident, it was also held that the deceased could reasonly be expected to live up to his retirement age of 58 years and thus would have been in service for a further period of 16 years. The Tribunal has REFERRED TO to various decided cases, to note that the expectancy of life had been calculated in various ways by the Courts, and in some cases the expectancy had been as much as 33 years. In this case, the Tribunal thought. that the petitioner would normally have lived for a further period of 16 years.
( 5 ) ON the question of quantification, it was held that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 441. 00 , the deceased was taking Rs. 40. 00 or Rs. 45. 00 as pocket expenses and thus made available sum of Rs. 400. 00 for himself and his wife and five dauglers. After some further calculations, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was making available a sum of Rs. 300. 00 to the petitioners Nos. 1 to 6. Thus, if the deceased had lived for. 16 years, he would have contributed Rs. 57,600. 00 to the petitioners No. 1 to 6. The Tribunal then made a series of deductions from this amount for ascertaining how much the petitioners were entitled to get. Firstly, it was noted that the first petitioner was getting a pension of Rs. 120. 00 per month which she was to draw for seven years. This amounted to Rs. 10,000. 00. Thereafter, the pension would be reduced to Rs. 50. 00 per month for a further period of nine years. As the Tribunal was making calculation only for 16 years, it thought that in the next nine years the first petitioner would get another sum of Rs. 6,480. 00. Further, a deduction of Rs. 2,010. 00 was made o
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
