JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 08.10.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACP No. 60/14/12 titled Smt. Archna Deo & Ors. v. Panna Lal & Ors., and the Order Dated 19.11.2015 correcting some typographical errors in the said Award.

2. Before the learned Tribunal, it was the case of the claimants, that is the respondent nos.1 to 5 herein, that on 13/14.10.2012, the deceased was coming back to Delhi from Punjab along with Sh. Harish Kumar, Baljinder Singh, and Tufan Singh in an Innova Car bearing registration no. DL-4CAE-8650, which was being driven by the deceased himself. As the car reached at Jhattipur, Police Station Samalkha (Haryana) near Lepra Harbal Factory, a Canter bearing registration no. HR-58-1237 (hereinafter referred to as the `Offending Vehicle'), being driven by the respondent no.6 herein, Sh.Panna Lal, came from behind at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and overtook the car of the deceased. All of a sudden it stopped in front of the car of the deceased without giving any indication, due to which the car hit the Offending Vehicle from behind and the deceased suffered fatal injuries.

3. The learned Tribunal, in its Impugned Award, has held that the respondent nos.1 to 5 have been able to prove that the accident had occurred due to the Offending Vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner. As per the corrected Award, it has awarded the following compensation in favour of respondent nos.1 to 5:

S.No.HEADAMOUNT1Loss of dependence (Rs.6,86,401x14)Rs.96,09,614/- 2Loss of love and affection to children (1,00,000x3)Rs.3,00,000/- 3Loss of Love and affection towards Parent 50,000x1Rs.50,000/- 4For funeral expensesRs.25,000/- 5Loss of estateRs.1,00,000/- 6Loss of consortiumRs.1,00,000/- TOTALRs.1,01,84,614/-

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

4. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the Impugned Award by contending that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the deceased had also contributed to the accident. He submits that, in fact, it was the deceased who overtook the Offending Vehicle, driving his car in a rash and negligent manner.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, fairly admits that the driver of the Offending Vehicle, that is, the respondent no.6 herein, did not enter the witness box to explain the manner of the accident.

6. On the other hand, the claimants, that is the respondent nos.1 to 5 herein, produced Sh.Krishan Kumar as PW-1, who was also travelling in the car along with the deceased, and who stated that it was the Offending Vehicle that overtook the Innova car at a high speed and immediately thereafter applied sudden brakes resulting in the accident. The said witness was not cross-examined by the driver or the owner of the Offending Vehicle, but was cross-examined only by the learned counsel for the appellant. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased.

7. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident had taken place only due to the Offending Vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent no.6 herein, cannot be faulted. I, therefore, find no merit in the challenge raised by the appellant to the Impugned Award on this account. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

INCOME OF THE DECEASED

8. The next challenge of the appellant to the Impugned Award is on the assessment of the Income of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant, drawing reference of this Court to the Income Tax Return (in short, `ITR') of the deceased for the assessment year 2012-13 (Ex.PW-2/1), submits that the said return shows the gross income of the deceased as Rs.7,04,001/-. On the above income, the deceased was to pay tax

Click Here to Read the rest of this document