* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Pronounced on: 20^th January, 2025 + MAC.APP. 83/2015 & CM APPL. 1380/2015 (stay), CM APPL.12689/2015 (under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate through VC.

versus

1. KUSUM DEVI W/o Dinesh Kumar .....Respondent No.1

2. DINESH KUMAR S/o Ram ....Respondent No. 2

3. SHAHID ALI S/o I. Ali ....Respondent No. 3

4. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ...Respondent No. 4 Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for R-1 & 2.

+ MAC.APP. 232/2016

1. KUSUM DEVI W/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar .....Appellant No.1

2. DINESH KUMAR S/o Sh. Ram ....Appellant No. 2

3. SHAHID ALI S/o Sh. I Ali ....Appellant No. 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 83/2015 & MAC.APP. 232/2016 Page 1 of 9

4. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Appellant No.4 Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate.

versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate for R-1 through VC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

MAC.APP. 83/2015 & MAC.APP. 232/2016

1. By this Order, the aforesaid two Cross-Appeals bearing MAC. APP. 83/2015 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act’) and MAC. APP. 232/2016 under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) preferred by the Insurance Company and the Claimants respectively, have challenged the Award dated 28.10.2014 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.32,53,500/- along with the interest @9% p.a., has been granted to the Claimants, on account of demise of Mr. Ashish Kumar Garg, aged about 23 years in a road accident on 28.05.2013.

MAC. APP. No. 83/2015 By the Insurance Company:

2. The Insurance Company in its Appeal bearing MAC. APP. No.

83/2015, has challenged the impugned Award on the following grounds:-

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 83/2015 & MAC.APP. 232/2016 Page 2 of 9 (i) that the deceased himself was negligent in boarding the bus from the front side from where the passengers were getting down;

(ii) that the deceased was not working and his potential income has been wrongly assessed to grant future loss of income;

(iii) that the deceased was a unmarried son and the multiplier should have been taken as per the age of the mother and not the deceased; and (iv) that Future Prospects are payable in the cases of potential income as provided in the case of HDFC vs. Lalita Devi in MACA No. 189/2014.

MAC. APP. 232/2016: By the Claimants:

3. The parents of the deceased, who in their Cross-Appeal, have challenged the Award on the following grounds:-

(i) that potential monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.20,000/- per month, while he could have earned at least Rs.50,000/- per month, after completing his studies and becoming Chartered Accountant for calculating the Future Loss of Income;

(ii) that the deceased was also taking the tuitions along with his studies and was helping the family financially and the potential income should have been assessed accordingly; and (iii) that the compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads, needs to be enhanced.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 83/2015 & MAC.APP. 232/2016 Page 3 of 9

4. Submissions heard and the record perused.

Negligence of the Deceased:

5. The first ground of challenge is that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and thereby no compensation could have been granted.

6. The Claimants in support of their case had examined PW-3, Head Constable Mr. Rajbeer Singh, the eye witness, who deposed that on 28.05.2013, he was on duty at Police Station Nand Nagri from 5:00 p.m to 11:00 p.m. At around 9/9:30 P.M., he was standing near the gate of Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, E-Block, Nand Nagri, when he saw some passengers boarding and others de-boarding from DTC Bus bearing No. DL- IPC-7170 Route No. 33. All of a sudden, the driver started moving the Bus carelessly and one person fell and came u