Delhi District Court
On 01/07/2013 The Deceased Arjun Was ... vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 4/25 on 16 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VINAY SINGHAL
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
JUDGE, MACT-2, (CENTRAL), DELHI.
Suit No. 56595/16
Unique Case ID No.02401C-0523322014
Krishna W/o Late Sh. Bandhan @ Narender,
R/o H. No. 382, Gali No. 12, Nathu Colony,
Nathu Pura, Delhi110084.
Also at: H. No. 213, Village Abidpur Manki,
Tehsil & PS: Modi Nagar, Distt. Ghaziabad,
U.P.
PETIONER
Vs
1. Sudesh Pal Singh S/o Sh. Krishan Pal Singh
R/o Village Nanu Fatehpur,
PS: Jani, Distt. Meerut, U.P. (Driver)
2. The Reginal Manager
U.P.S.R.T.C.,
Meerut Depot, Meerut, UP. (Owner)
.......RESPONDENTS
Date of filing of Claim Petition : 20.10.2014
Arguments heard on : 27.05.2016
Judgment pronounced on : 16.07.2016
Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 1/25
JUDGMENT
PART-A BRIEF FACTS OF ACCIDENT
1. On 01/07/2013 the deceased Arjun was travelling in bus no. UP-15AT-8820 being driven by the Respondent No. 1 and belonging to the Respondent No. 2.
2. When the deceased was in the process of deboarding the bus, as per the petition, the Respondent No. 1 without any warning started driving the bus and as a result the deceased fell down on the road and came under the rear wheel of the said bus.
3. The deceased was immediately shifted to Jeevan Hospital Modi Nagar and from there to G.T.B. Hospital where the MLC was prepared and during the course of treatment he expired on the very same day. The postmortem was conducted accordingly.
Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 2/25PART-B DEFENCE OF DRIVER AND OWNER RESPONDENT No. 1 & 2
4. The Respondent No. 1 & 2 filed their WS and denied the version of the accident as given in the petition.
5. As per the respondents, it was the deceased himself who without indication or warning jumped from the moving bus and as a result of which the accident happened and as such it is submitted by the respondents that there was no negligence on their part.
Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 3/25PART-C ISSUES
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration vide order dated 16.05.2015 by ld. Predecessor:-
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Arjun suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 01/07/2013 at about 07.00 hrs involving Bus bearing registration No. UP15AT8820 driven by the Respondent No. 1 and owned by the Respondent No. 2?OPP
(ii) Whether the Petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 4/25
PART-D PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
7. The petitioner who is the mother of the deceased examined herself as PW-1 and deposed along the lines of the petition and also proved the documents i.e the copy of her Adhar Card vide Ex PW1/1, the copy of her ration card vide Ex PW1/2 and the certified copy of criminal record collectively vide Ex PW1/3 respectively.
8. The petitioner also examined one Rajbir who claimed himself to be the eye witness as PW-2.
Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 5/25PART-E RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
9. The Respondent No. 1 did not lead any evidence,but the Respondent No. 2 examined the conductor of the offending vehicle Sh. Manoj as R2W1 who also deposed along the lines of the defence taken in the written statement.
Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 6/25PART-F FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
10. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of the Petitioners, counsel for Respondent Insurance Company and perused the record.
My Issue-wise findings are as under :-
Issue No. (i) Whether the deceased Sh. Arjun suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 01/07/2013 at about 07.00 hrs involving Bus bearing registration No. UP-15AT-8820 driven by the Respondent No. 1 and owned by the Respondent No. 2?OPP
11. As far as the question of negligence on the part of the Respondent No. 1 & 2 is concerned, the same stand not proved. Both the parties have given their own version w.r.t the cause of accident.
12. Though, the FIR has been registered against the Respondent, but the outcome of the FIR has not been proved by placing on record the order of the concerned criminal court.
13. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the registration of the FIR against the Respondent itself is a proof of negligence on their part.
14. The Court do not agree with the said line of arguments.
15. If this line of arguments on the part of the petitioner is to be accepted then that amounts to indirectly deciding the criminal case Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 7/25 against the respondents without giving them the opportunity for a proper trial before the concerned criminal court.
16. However, keeping in view the fact that an accident had occurred and the involvement of the bus owned by the Respondent No. 2 is not in dispute, by virute of the provisions of the MV Act which is a benevolent Act, the Court has come to the conclusion that indeed the petitioner is entitled for compensation for the death of her son. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.
Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 8/2517. Issue No. (ii) Whether the Petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
18. The deceased was stated to be 18 years of age as on the date of death.
19. Originally the petition was filed by the parents of the deceased, but during the pendency of trial the father of the deceased also had expired and as per the application filed u/o 22 Rule 4 CPC filed by Smt. Krishna-mother of the deceased she is the only legal heir left behind.
20. If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made Petitioners have claimed that addition towards future prospects to the extent of 50% be made considering the fact that deceased was aged about 18 years but the same has been vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondents.
It may be observed that in Shashikala & Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma & Anr. 2015 (2) T.A.C. 867 (SC), separate judgments were passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Banumathi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda on the point of assessment of addition to the income of the deceased towards the future prospects in case of salaried persons vis-a-vis where the deceased was self employed or on fixed wages. The case was directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders towards constitution of a suitable larger Bench since the issue already stood referred to a larger Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa S.L.P. (C) No. 16735/2014. Hon'ble Apex Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 9/25 Court in aforesaid case adverted to the judgements passed in Reshma Kumar & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., VII (2013) S.L.T. 489 (rendered on 2nd April, 2013) and Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 S.C.C. 54 (rendered on 12th April, 2013 in which the judgement passed in Reshma Kumari's case was not noticed). Reference was also made to the judgements passed in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 162 (2009) D.L.T. 278, Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2012 6 S.C.C. 421, Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 S.C.C. 210, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa, S.L.P. (C) No. 16735/2014 (whereby the matter in relation to future prospects was referred to larger Bench). It may further be noticed that Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashikala's case did not provide addition towards future prospects pendente lite the aforesaid issue, wherein the deceased was an income tax payee carrying business of newspapers and had relied upon Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
In the aforesaid context, reliance may be further placed upon MAC 79 of 2014 Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Poonam & Ors. decided on 27.05.2015 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal (Delhi High Court) wherein the judgements passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4497 of 2015 decided on 15.05.2015 {II (2015) ACC 806 (SC)} was also duly referred but the addition towards future prospects was denied in the absence of any evidence of bright future prospects. Reliance was therein placed upon Reshma Kumari & Others vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 and HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Lalta Devi & Others MAC APP No.189/2014 decided on Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 10/25 12.01.2015.
The observations made by the Hon'ble High Court on the aspect of addition of future prospects as discussed in para 21 to 23 of MAC No. 79 of 2014 Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Poonam & Ors. decided on 27.05.2015 (supra) may be beneficially quoted:
21. As far as future prospects are concerned, there is no evidence on record that the deceased had bright future prospects. The question of grant of future prospects was dealt with by this Court at great length in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi and Ors., MAC APP No. 189/2014, decided on 12.01.2015. Paras 8 to 21 of the report in Lalta Devi (supra) are extracted hereunder:
8.It is no gainsaying that in appropriate cases some addition towards future prospects must be made in case of death or injury of a person pursuing a professional course. At the same time, it cannot be laid down as a uniform principle that every person pursuing professional course will have a bright future. There may be a student pursuing engineering from the reputed engineering colleges like Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Regional Engineering College or any other reputed college. At the same time, a number of engineering Colleges have mushroomed where an engineering graduate may find it difficult to secure a job of an engineer. In the instant case, deceased Aditya, as stated earlier was a student of an unknown engineering college, i.e. Echelon Institute of Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 11/25 Technology, Faridabad which is claimed to be affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The Claimants have placed on record result-cum-detailed marks card of First and Second Semester. It may be noted that the deceased had secured just ordinary marks in seven subjects and he had to re-
appear in papers 1002 (Mathematical-I), 1006 (Foundation of Computer & Programming) and 1008 (Basics of Mechanical Engineering). Similarly, in the Second Semester the deceased was absent in one of the 12 papers and out of 11 subjects for which he had taken examination, he was to re-appear in four subjects. Thus, it will be difficult to say that the deceased was a brilliant student or that he was pursuing engineering from a well known or even mediocre college.
"7. As far as addition towards future prospects is concerned, the issue has been examined at great length by this Court in HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors. (supra). Paras 9 to 21 of the report in Lalta Devi are extracted hereunder:-
9. The learned counsel for the Claimants has referred to a three Judge Bench de-
cision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 to contend that the future prospects have to be added in all cases where a person is getting fixed wages or is a seasonal employee or is a student.
10. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Claimants that the law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Trans- port Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 12/25 121 was extended in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 to hold that future prospects ought to be extended in all cases.
11. On the other hand, the learned coun- sel for the Insurance Company refers to a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 wherein while approving the ratio with regard to future prospects in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. (supra) and relying on General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 and Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Sur- vey of India & Anr., 2003 (3) SCC 148, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"38. With regard to the addition to income for future prospects, in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], this Court has noted the earlier deci-
sions in Susamma Thomas [Ker-
ala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335], Sarla Dixit [(1996) 3 SCC 179] and Abati Bezbaruah [Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 746] and in para 24 of the Report held as under: (Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 :
Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 13/25(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , SCC p. 134):
"24. ... In view of the imponder- ables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of ac- tual salary to the actual salary in- come of the deceased towards fu- ture prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was be- low 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words „actual salary‟ should be read as „actual salary less tax‟). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the de- ceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of in- crease, it is necessary to standard- ise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or differ- ent methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for an- nual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A de- parture therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
39. The standardization of addi- tion to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensa- tion. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 14/25 salary income of the deceased to- wards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the de-
ceased is more than 50 years.
Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death with-
out any addition to income for future prospects will be appro-
priate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases."
12. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company relies upon a Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Da- woodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 673; Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94; and Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 to contend that in case of divergence of opinion in judgments of benches of co- equal strength, earlier judgment will be taken as a binding precedent.
13. It may be noted that in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65; the three Judge Bench was dealing with a reference made by a two Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 15/25 Cyriac Joseph, J.J.). The two Hon'ble Judges wanted an authoritative pro- nouncement from a Larger Bench on the question of applicability of the multiplier and whether the inflation was built in the multiplier. The three Judge Bench ap- proved the two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 with regard to the selection of multiplier. It further laid down that addition towards future prospects to the extent of 50% of the actual salary shall be made towards future prospects when the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and addition of 30% should be made if the age of the deceased was between 40-50 years. No addition to- wards future prospects shall be made where the deceased was self-employed or was getting a fixed salary without any pro- vision of annual increment.
14. Of course, three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its later judgment in Ra- jesh relying on Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (6) SCC 421 observed that there would be ad- dition of 30% and 50%, depending upon the age of the deceased, towards future prospects even in the case of self-employed persons. It may, however, be noted that in Rajesh, the three Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra) was not brought to the notice of their Lordships.
15. The divergence of opin-
ion was noted by another three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210. In paras 14 and 15, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 16/25"14. Certain parallel developments will now have to be taken note of. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2009) 13 SCC 422 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 143 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1044], a two-Judge Bench of this Court while considering the following questions took the view that the issue(s) needed resolution by a larger Bench: (SCC p. 425, para 10) "(1) Whether the multiplier speci-
fied in the Second Schedule ap-
pended to the Act should be scrupulously applied in all the cases?
(2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of fu-
ture prospects?"
15. Answering the above reference a three- Judge Bench of this Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] (SCC p. 88, para 36) reiterated the view taken in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] to the effect that in respect of a person who was on a fixed salary without provision for an-
nual increments or who was self-em- ployed the actual income at the time of death should be taken into account for determining the loss of income un- less there are extraordinary and ex- ceptional circumstances. Though the expression "exceptional and extraor- dinary circumstances" is not capable of any precise definition, in Shakti Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 17/25 Devi v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 14 SCC 575 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 766 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 848] there is a practical application of the aforesaid principle. The near cer- tainty of the regular employment of the deceased in a government depart- ment following the retirement of his father was held to be a valid ground to compute the loss of income by tak- ing into account the possible future earnings. The said loss of income, ac- cordingly, was quantified at double the amount that the deceased was earning at the time of his death."
16. Further, the divergence of opinion in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 was noticed by the Supreme Court in another latest judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa & Ors., CC No.8058/2014, de- cided on 02.07.2014 and in concluding paragraph while making reference to the Larger Bench, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"Be it noted, though the decision in Reshma (supra) was rendered at ear- lier point of time, as is clear, the same has not been noticed in Rajesh (supra) and that is why divergent opinions have been expressed. We are of the considered opinion that as regards the manner of addition of income of future prospects there should be an authori- tative pronouncement. Therefore, we think it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench."Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 18/25
17. Now, the question is which of the judg- ments ought to be followed awaiting an- swer to the reference made by the Supreme Court in Pushpa & Ors. (supra).
18. In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 673 in para 12, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"12. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Se- nior Counsel for the parties and hav- ing examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the abovesaid decisions, we would like to sum up the legal position in the following terms:
(1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-
equal strength.
(2) [Ed.: Para 12(2) corrected vide Offi-
cial Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./21/2005 dated 3- 3-2005.] A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Jus- tice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose deci- sion has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, where- upon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 19/25 larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correct- ness of which is doubted.
(3) [Ed.: Para 12(3) corrected vide Offi-
cial Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./7/2005 dated 17- 1-2005.] The above rules are subject to two exceptions:
(i) the abovesaid rules do not bind the dis-
cretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength; and (ii) in spite of the rules laid down hereinabove, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or re- consideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons given by it, it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of the Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] and Hansoli Devi [(2002) 7 SCC 273]."
19. Similarly, in Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vaja- hath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94 in para 27, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"27. However, even assuming that the decision in WP No. 35561 of 1998 did not operate as res judi- cata, we are to observe that even if the learned Judges who decided WP No. 304 of 2001 did not agree with the view taken by a coordinate Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 20/25 Bench of equal strength in the ear- lier WP No. 35561 of 1998 regard- ing the interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Act and its application to the Petition schedule property, judicial discipline and practice required them to refer the issue to a larger Bench. The learned Judges were not right in overruling the statement of the law by a coordinate Bench of equal strength. It is an accepted rule or principle that the statement of the law by a Bench is consid- ered binding on a Bench of the same or lesser number of Judges. In case of doubt or disagreement about the decision of the earlier Bench, the well-accepted and desirable prac- tice is that the later Bench would re- fer the case to a larger Bench."
20. In Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 while holding that the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength, held that the Bench of Co-ordinate strength can only make a reference to a larger Bench. In para 9 of the report, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"9. It may be noted that the decision in S.N. Narula case [(2011) 4 SCC 591] was prior to the decision in T.V. Patel case [(2007) 4 SCC 785 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 98] . It is well settled that if a subsequent coordi-
nate Bench of equal strength wants to take a different view, it can only refer the matter to a larger Bench, otherwise the prior decision of a co- ordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength.
Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 21/25Since, the decision in S.N. Narula case [(2011) 4 SCC 591] was not noticed in T.V. Patel case [(2007) 4 SCC 785 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 98] , the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. The decision in S.N. Narula case [(2011) 4 SCC 591] was binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this Court."
21.This Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harpal Singh & Ors., MAC APP.138/2011, decided on 06.09.2013, went into this question and held that in view of the report in S.K. Kapoor (supra), the three Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari & Ors. (supra) shall be taken as a binding precedent."
20. Thus, in absence of any evidence of good future prospects, no addition towards future prospects ought to have been made by the Claims Tribunal."
In view of the legal position as discussed by the Hon'ble High Court and in absence of any evidence with regard to good future prospects of deceased, addition of income towards future prospects cannot be made for the purpose of compensation.
21. The deceased was stated to be working as labourer and earning Rs. 10,000/- but no proof of income stand proved on record.
22. Accordingly, taking into account the minimum wages of an unskilled worker applicable as on the date of accident as of Rs. 7,722/- and applying the multiplier of 18 and deducting one half towards personal living expenses of the deceased, the loss of Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 22/25 financial dependency to the deceased comes to Rs. 8,33,976 ( Rs.7,722X12X18X1/2).
23. Further more towards funeral expenses and loss of Estate a sum of Rs. 25,000/ and towards love & affection a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is also awarded.
Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 23/25PART -G FINAL AWARD AMOUNT
24. Petitioner/Claimant is accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs.8,33,976/- Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of Estate &Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/-
________________
Total Rs.9,58,976/-
________________
(Rupees Nine Lac Fifty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Six Only) The claimant/Petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim Petition w.e.f. 20.10.2014 till realization.
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the Petitioners.
25. It is further held that Respondent No.1 (Driver) & Respondent No.2 (Owner) of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the Petitioners/claimants.
26. On realization, an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) shall be released to Petitioner and remaining amount of her share along with proportionate up-to-date Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 24/25 interest shall be kept in 10 fixed deposits of equal amount in her name for a period of one year, two years, three years, four years, five years, six years, seven years, eight years, nine years and ten years without the facility of advance, loan or premature withdrawal with release of quarterly periodical interest in her account.
27. Relief Accordingly, Respondent No.2/U.P.S.R.T.C is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.9,58,976/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim Petition i.e. 20.10.2014 till realization with Nazir of this Court within 30 days under intimation to the Petitioners, failing which the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
A copy of this judgment be sent to Respondent No.2/ U.P.S.R.T.C for compliance within the time granted.
Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (VINAY SINGHAL) on 16th July, , 2016 Judge MACT-2 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 25/25 Suit No. 56595/16 16/07/2016 Present: None.
Judgment announced vide separate sheets of even date.
This file be consigned to Record Room. A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 16/09/2016.
(VINAY SINGHAL) JUDGE : MACT-02 (CENTRAL):DELHI Suit No. 56595/16 - Krishna Vs Sudesh Pal Singh & Ors Page 26/25