Allahabad High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation New Delhi vs Bhagwat Singh Bulandshahar on 9 January, 2020
Author: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 33 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 113 of 2004 Appellant :- Delhi Transport Corporation New Delhi Respondent :- Bhagwat Singh Bulandshahar Counsel for Appellant :- Avinash Swaroop,A.Srivastava,Vishesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- V.B. Keserwani,N.Shukla,Nigmendra Shukla Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned Advocate, holding brief for Sri Vishesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The appeal preferred by the Delhi Transport Corporation challenges the judgment and award dated 24.10.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/ Special Judge, E.C. Act, Court No. 14, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 292 of 1996 awarding a sum of Rs.4,19,900/- as compensation in favour of the injured-claimant who was a pillion rider.
3. It is submitted by Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, that for the amputation and under the same head, compensation has been granted again and again which is clear from paragraph Nos. 23 and 26 of the judgment impugned.It is further submitted that the multiplier should have been 16 and not 17. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.1200 per month and has considered his functional disability to be 50%, which according to the counsel for the appellant, is on the higher side.
4. It is further submitted that the interest should have been from the date the claimant entered into the witness box as there is delay of six years and the matter remained pending for six years because of the fault of the claimant and not because of the fault of the appellant.
5. As against this, Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants submits that for amputation the amount has not been granted twice. It is submitted that his income has been considered at Rs.1200/- per month, which is on the lower side in the year of accident and even looking to his profession namely that of agriculturist. He was also involved in the dairy business and hence, his income should have been considered at least twice. It is submitted that submission of the counsel for the appellant that it was a case of contributory negligence, cannot be accepted and even if it is accepted, the injured being a pillion rider be entitled to claim from any of the tort feasors. It is further submitted that medical expenses of Rs.47,800 has been granted and award of interest is also on the lower side.
6. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is evident that the amount of Rs.4,19,900/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. The site plan will not permit this Court to upturn the finding on the basis of negligence. The accident itself was not accepted in the written statement. The driver of the bus opined that the accident happened in the middle of the road, however, the said contention and averment has not been believed by the Tribunal. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 goes to show that on 22.7.1996, the driver of the bus dashed with the scooter causing injuries. The driver of the bus did not even step into the witness box and just filed his reply and, therefore, the finding regarding negligence cannot be upturned.
7. This takes this Court to the question of compensation. The Tribunal has considered the income of the injured to be Rs.1200 per month, which in the year 1996 cannot be said to be on the higher side or on the lower side. However, the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of future loss of income of the deceased which should have been granted in view of the decisions in Syed. Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735.
8. I do not find any reason to interfere in the compensation awarded as it cannot be said that it is on the higher side. It is orally submitted by Sri Nigamendra Shukla relying on the decision in First Appeal From Order No. 75 of 2005 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Gopal Agarwal and another) decided on 5.2.2019 that this Court should award just compensation.
9. The award does not call for any interference save and except rate of interest which would be 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount was deposited. I am even fortified in my view by the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under :
"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court."
10. The appellant was directed to deposit the entire amount. It should work out the difference and deposit the additional amount of interest with the Tribunal within 12 weeks from today.
11. The appeal is dismissed. The cross objection, only for interest, is allowed. The record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.
Order Date :- 9.1.2020 DKS