Delhi District Court
Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (Lr Of ... vs . Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 1 Of 35 on 8 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA,
JUDGE, MACT-1, (CENTRAL), DELHI.
SUIT NO.69/14
Unique Case ID No.02401C-0161082014
Ms. Vidya Sinha
D/o Late Shri Nakul Chander,
(LR OF DECEASED AJAY BHUSHAN)
R/o 406, 2nd Floor, Chandiwali Gali,
Paharganj, New Delhi - 110 055
(Unmarried Sister)
.........PETITION
ER
Versus
1.Shri Tinku Singh
S/o Shri Jay Singh,
R/o C/o Rahiyas Singh,
Plot No. 12, Village Hasanpur,
Delhi - 110 092
(Driver)
2.D.T.C. CW 1K Camp BBM,
Delhi.
(Owner)
3.United India Insurance Company Ltd.
8th Floor, Kanchanjanga Building,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110 001
(Insurer)
.......RES
Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 35
PONDENTS
Date of Registration of DAR :
04.04.2014
Arguments heard on : 08.04.2015
Judgment pronounced on :
08.04.2015
JUDGMENT
1. Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as 'DAR') was filed by Police in respect of fatal injuries sustained by deceased Ajay Bhushan in a road traffic accident on 10.05.2013. Thereafter, a claim petition was also preferred by the petitioner as LR of deceased on 07.05.2014 u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- in respect of the accidental death of Aajy Bhushan (deceased) in the motor vehicle accident.
2. Brief facts of the case as averred in the claim petition and FIR registered on statement of Vidya Sinha are that on 10.05.2013 at about Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 35 9:15AM, Ajay Bhushan was going for an interview along with his sister Vidya @ Bidya @ Banti Sinha to Laxmi Nagar, Delhi from DBG Road Dispensary Bus Stand. Vidya boarded the bus operating on route no. 309 bearing registration No. DL-1PC-9516 from the rear door while Ajay Bhushan was in the process of boarding the bus. In the meanwhile, driver started the bus and closed the door of the bus. The left hand of Ajay Bhushan got stuck in the door and as the passengers raised hue and cry, the driver opened the back door of the bus on which Ajay Bhushan fell down and sustained head injuries. In order to save her brother, Vidya got down from the bus but fell and sustained injuries. Both were shifted to Lady Hardinge Medical College Hospital, New Delhi initially. Later on, Ajay Bhushan was shifted to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and expired on 14.05.2013.
3. In common Written Statement filed on behalf of Respondent No.1/driver and Respondent no. 2/DTC, it was submitted that the bus was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. for the relevant period. It was also averred that the police failed to investigate the case in a proper manner and had falsely involved the vehicle.
Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 35In the Written Statement filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 (M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd.), it was admitted that the vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1 PC 9516 was insured with the Insurance Company vide Policy No. 0411003112P300537599 valid from 14.08.2012 to 17.09.2013 which covers the date of accident. It was claimed that as per report of the Licencing Authority, the DL was valid w.e.f. 14.08.2013 to 13.08.2014 while the accident had taken place on 10.05.2013. However, it was clarified during the course of arguments by ld. Counsel for Insurance Company that later on the verification report of the DL was received whereby it came on record that the DL was also valid from 15.08.2010 to 14.08.2013 which covers the date of accident.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether the deceased Shri Ajay Bhushan had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 10.05.2013 at 9:15 AM within the jurisdiction of PS: Nabi Karim, Delhi due to rash and negligent Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 35 driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1-PC 9516 by Respondent No.1?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
5. In support of the claim, petitioner Vidya Sinha was examined as PW1.
PW1 Vidya Sinha led her examination in chief by way of affidavit and testified that as Ajay Bhushan was entering the bus, the driver closed the door and consequently his hands got struck up while the body remained outside. Further, later on the driver opened the door of the bus and deceased fell down and sustained injuries. She further testified that Ajay Bhushan expired on 15.05.2013 due to injuries sustained in the accident. The deceased was further stated to be 54 years old and survived by unmarried sister Vidya Sinha, who was living with him and dependent upon deceased. She further stated that deceased was earning about Rs.12,000/- per month and was doing private job as Store Incharge.
Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 35The B.A. Pass Marksheet of the deceased was further proved as Ex.PW1/1 and the attested copies of the DAR were collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/2.
During cross-examination, she clarified that she was engaged by a NGO Aman Biradari, Adhchini, Near Mehrauli, New Delhi to look after work of some lady for a few days, who was on leave. She further denied that she is still working with NGO and was not dependent on her brother. She also denied the suggestion that the driver of the bus was not at fault, as they tried to board the running bus.
Respondents did not examine any witness despite opportunity.
6. I have heard arguments addressed by counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Counsel for petitioner made submissions on lines of the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that the claimant who is the unmarried sister of the deceased was residing and dependent on her brother Ajay Bhushan. He further contended that petitioner was unemployed and minimum wages of a graduate be considered for purpose of Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 35 assessment. Reliance was also placed upon judgements passed in Mahadevi Vulachand Alagude vs. Anil Ramesh Dhumal decided on 14 June, 2013 by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. decided on 15 April, 2009 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent Insurance Company contended that no document had been filed in support of the medical expenses, if any incurred during the treatment of the petitioner at government hospital. It was also submitted that the deceased was himself to blame as he tried to board the running bus. It was further urged that claimant was not dependent upon the deceased and deduction be made to the extent of 50% for the expenses incurred by the deceased for his maintenance. Reliance was placed upon judgement passed in Nanhi and Others v. Sukhwinder Singh and Others, 2015 ACJ 769.
My Issue-wise findings are as under :-
7. Issue No. (i) Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 35 Whether the deceased Shri Ajay Bhushan had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 10.05.2013 at 9:15 AM within the jurisdiction of PS: Nabi Karim, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1-PC 9516 by Respondent No.1?
In a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 the Claim Tribunal has to decide the negligence on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities.
Reference may also be made to the observations in Ranu Bala Paul & Others vs. Bani Chakraborty 1999 ACJ 634 Gauhati wherein the claim was allowed after consideration of FIR before the Tribunal.
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 35 is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary enquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society. In N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Marumai Ammal, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC), the Supreme Court pointed out that the Accidents Claims Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and persons liable do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. The court is bound to take broad view of the whole matter."
It may be mentioned that PW-1 Vidya Sinha was also examined separately in Suit No.70/14, wherein the claim has been made by Vidya Sinha on account of simple injuries sustained by her in the Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 35 accident.
As per evidence of PW1 Vidya Sinha, it is explicitly clear that the respondent driver moved the bus without ensuring that the passengers had duly boarded the bus. There was clear negligence in abruptly closing the doors of the bus as a result of which the hand of Ajay Bhushan stuck in the door during the process of boarding and the bus was started without caring for the passengers. Thereafter, on the raising hue and cry by passengers, the door of the bus was opened while the bus was moving due to which Ajay Bhushan suffered fatal injuries. Further, Vidya Sinha in a panic to save her brother was constrained to get down from the bus and suffered simple injuries due to fall from the bus. The testimony of PW1 could not be dented during cross-examination and the respondent driver failed to appear in the witness box to contradict the same. The responsibility was on the part of Respondent No.1 to ensure that the door of the bus was only locked after all the passengers had boarded the bus. However, though the passengers were still in the process of boarding, the driver negligently closed the door of the bus and further started the same which resulted in fatal injuries to Ajay Bhushan and simple injuries to Vidya Sinha as detailed above.
In the facts and circumstances, on the basis of evidence led on record, I am of the considered view that the accident was caused due to negligent driving by Respondent No.1. Issue No. 1 is Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 35 accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
8. Issue No. (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(a) In the evidence of PW1 Vidya Sinha, it was claimed that the deceased aged about 54 years was employed as Store Incharge in a private job and was earning about Rs.12,000/- per month. However, admittedly no particulars of the place of employment or any proof of income of deceased have been placed and proved on record. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove that the deceased was employed and earning an income of Rs.12,000/- per month. The income of deceased as such has to be assumed on the basis of minimum wages. Marksheet of B.A. (pass) examination (Ex.PW1/1) of deceased has been proved on record, whereby the deceased appears to have passed B.A. (Pass) examination in 3rd division. The aforesaid certificate has been disputed by counsel for Insurance Company during course of arguments.
Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 35However, the objection appears to be without merit as even no questions were put during cross- examination of PW-1 disputing the aforesaid certificate which has been proved on record as PW1/1. In the facts and circumstances, the minimum wages notified for a graduate as prevalent on the date of accident i.e. 10.05.2013 shall be considered for purpose of assessment of income of deceased at the rate of Rs.10,218/-per month.
(b) If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made The petitioner has claimed that addition towards future prospects to the extent of 50% be made. However, the same is opposed on behalf of respondent Insurance Company and it is submitted that no addition towards future prospects is permissible in absence of any evidence with regard thereto.
As far as the addition towards the future prospects is concerned, the issue has been examined at great length by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in various judgements wherein the law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 35 Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 has been analysed in detail. Reference may be made to MAC APP. 325/2013 decided on 28th January, 2015 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Shahida & Ors. by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal. In the aforesaid case, deceased Shaukat Ali aged about 37 years was alleged to be supplying milk and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and the Tribunal had awarded addition of 30% towards future prospects of the income of the deceased. However, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that no addition of 30% towards future prospects was permissible in the absence of any evidence with regard to future prospects. The observations made by the Hon'ble High Court on the aspect of calculation of future prospects as discussed in para 7 of aforesaid judgement in this regard are quoted for reference:
"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:-Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 35
9. The learned counsel for the Claimants has referred to a three Judge Bench decision 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 Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 was extended in Ra-
jesh & 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 counsel for the Insur- ance Company refers to a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Reshma Ku-
mari & 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, Trivan- drum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 35 176; Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Ya- dav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 and Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director Gen- eral, Geological Survey of India & Anr., 2003 (3) SCC 148, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"38. With regard to the addition to income for fu- ture 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 decisions in Susamma Thomas [Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335], Sarla Dixit [(1996) 3 SCC 179] and Abati Bezbaruah [Abati Bezbaruah v. Geo- logical 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 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , SCC p.
134):
"24. ... In view of the im- ponderables and uncertain-
ties, we are in favour of Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 35 adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actu-
al salary income of the de-
ceased towards future prospects, where the de-
ceased had a permanent job and was below 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 de-
ceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addi-
tion, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evi-
dence may indicate a dif-
ferent percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation be-
ing adopted. Where the de-
ceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A depar-
ture therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 35 special circumstances."
39. The standardization of addition to income for fu-
ture prospects shall help in achieving certainty in ar-
riving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addi-
tion of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the de-
ceased towards future prospects where the de-
ceased 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 ad-
dition 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 provi-
sion for annual incre-
ments, the actual income at the time of death with-
out any addition to in-
come for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 35 principle can only be justi-
fied 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 Dawoodi Bohra Commu- nity & Anr. v. State of Maharash- tra & 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 con- tend that in case of divergence of opinion in judgments of benches of co-equal strength, earlier judg- ment 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 deal-
ing with a reference made by a two Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, J.J.). The two Hon‟ble Judges wanted an au-
thoritative pronouncement 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 approved the two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 35 (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 fu- ture prospects to the extent of 50% of the actual salary shall be made towards future prospects when the deceased had a perma- nent 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 ad- dition towards future prospects shall be made where the de-
ceased was self-employed or was getting a fixed salary without any provision of annual increment.
14. Of course, three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its later judgment in Rajesh relying on Santosh Devi v. National Insur- ance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (6) SCC 421 observed that there would be addition 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 Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 35 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 un- der:-
"14. Certain parallel develop- ments 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 specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Act should be scrupulously applied in all the cases?
(2) Whether for determina-
tion of the multiplicand, the Act provides for any criteri- on, particularly as regards determination of future prospects?"
15. Answering the above ref- erence a three- Judge Bench of this Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 35 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 annual increments or who was self-employed the actual income at the time of death should be taken into account for determining the loss of in-
come unless there are ex-
traordinary and exceptional circumstances. Though the expression "exceptional and extraordinary circumstances"
is not capable of any precise definition, in Shakti 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 certainty of the regular employment of the deceased in a govern-
ment department following the retirement of his father was held to be a valid ground to compute the loss of in-
come by taking into account the possible future earnings. The said loss of income, accordingly, was quantified at Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 35 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. Ra-
jbir 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, decided on 02.07.2014 and in concluding paragraph while making refer- ence to the Larger Bench, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"Be it noted, though the deci- sion in Reshma (supra) was rendered at earlier point of time, as is clear, the same has not been noticed in Rajesh (supra) and that is why diver-
gent opinions have been ex-
pressed. We are of the consid- ered opinion that as regards the manner of addition of income of future prospects there should be an authorita- tive pronouncement. There-
fore, we think it appropri-
ate to refer the matter to a
larger Bench."
17. Now, the question is which of the judgments ought to be fol-
Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 35lowed awaiting answer 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 un- der:-
"12. Having carefully consid-
ered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the abovesaid decisions, we would like to sum up the le- gal 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 coequal strength.
(2) [Ed.: Para 12(2) corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F. 3/Ed.B.J./21/2005 dated 3-
3-2005.] A Bench of lesser quo- rum 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 Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 35 of lesser quorum can do is to in- vite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision 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, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consist- ing of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the deci-
sion laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.
(3) [Ed.: Para 12(3) corrected vide Official 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 discretion 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 it-
self feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quo-
Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 35rum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or reconsidera- tion then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for rea- sons given by it, it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous deci- sion 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. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94 in para 27, the Supreme Court observed as un- der:-
"27. However, even assum-
ing that the decision in WP No. 35561 of 1998 did not operate as res judicata, 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 Bench of equal strength in the earlier WP No. 35561 of 1998 regarding the interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Act and its appli- cation to the petition sched- ule property, judicial disci-Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 35
pline 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 princi- ple that the statement of the law by a Bench is considered 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 practice is that the later Bench would refer 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 :Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 35
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 98] . It is well settled that if a sub-
sequent coordinate 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 coordinate Bench is binding on the sub-
sequent Bench of equal strength. Since, 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 de-
cision is a judgment per in-
curiam. The decision in S.N. Narula case [(2011) 4 SCC 591] was binding on the sub-
sequent Bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judg- ments of this Court."
21. This Court in New India As- surance Co. Ltd. v. Harpal Singh & Ors., MAC APP.138/2011, de- cided 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."
Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 35In the present case, in view of the law as settled by the Hon'ble High Court, in absence of any evidence with regard to future prospects, addition of income towards future prospects cannot be made for the purpose of compensation.
(c) Deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased:
Ld. counsel for Insurance Company
contends that since deceased was unmarried
deduction of 50% be made towards the personal expenses of deceased and loss of dependency be accordingly considered as per the age of deceased.
U/s 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, in case of death, the claim petition can be brought by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The word dependent is not mentioned at the aforesaid provision and the claimant being a sister of the deceased is Legal Heir and therefore, representative of his estate. It is only in the absence of evidence to the contrary that brothers and sisters are normally not considered as dependents since they would be generally independent and earning or Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 35 married or be dependent on the father. So far as the present case is concerned, nothing has been brought on record to prove that Vidya Sinha was gainfully employed and financially independent. Rather the testimony of PW-1 Vidya Sinha is categorical that she was dependent on the deceased which could not be dented during cross-examination. I am of the considered view that since the claimant Vidya Sinha was younger to deceased and living with him, the responsibility of the deceased to lookafter her cannot be denied. As such Vidya Sinha is entitled to compensation for loss of dependency. Referenec be also made to 2015 ACJ 769 Nanhi & ors. V/s Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. wherein it was held that the sisters are legal representative and entitled to compensation on death of unmarried brother. The unmarried sisters therein were further awarded compensation towards loss of dependency and it was observed that the deceased being a bachelor, the dependency of the claimants cannot exceed half of the income.
It may further be observed where the deceased is a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follow a different principle, Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 35 than the situation where the deceased is married and the deduction towards personal and living expenses is normally taken one third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds 6. In case of a bachelor normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that bachelor tend to spend more on himself. Reliance may also be placed upon Muhammad Khan & anr. V/s Bishan Chand & ors. MAC APP. 972/2013 decided on 27th February, 2015 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein in case of death of a bachelor, the unmarried sister and father were allowed compensation towards loss of dependency which was declined by the Ld. Trial Court and it was held that 50% of the income of the deceased ought to have been considered towards loss of dependency of the two appellants in the said case. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the dependency of the claimant cannot exceed half of the income of the deceased in the present cases.
(d) Selection of multiplier:
Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 35In Vijay Laxmi & ors. V/s Binod Kumar Yadav & ors. MAC APP..1147/2011 decided on 03.01.2012 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was held that the multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased or the age of the claimant, whichever is higher.
The deceased in the present case was aged about 53 years 07 months as on the date of accident as per his date of birth on the PAN card which is reflected as 17.09.1959 while the age of petitioner Vidya Sinha was 43 years on date of accident. As per Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 11 is to be adopted as per the age of the deceased.
(e) Considering that 50% of the income of the deceased be taken towards loss of dependency as per minimum wages of a graduate, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 6,74,388/- (Rs.10,218/- X12 X1/2X11).
10 Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:
Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 31 of 35In view of the judgement in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the claimant/petitioner is further entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate.
The expenses towards medical bills or any other head have not been pressed by the counsel for petitioner.
11. The petitioner/claimant is accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 6,74,388/-
Loss of Love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.8,09,388/-
(Rupees Eight Lakh Nine Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Eight only) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 32 of 35 get interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 04.04.2014 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 petitioner.
12. Out of the award amount with interest, 30% shall be released to petitioner/claimant in cash and remaining 70% shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank.
13. It is further held that Respondent No.1 (driver), Respondent No.2 (owner) and Respondent No.3 (Insurer) of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the petitioner/claimant.
14. Relief Since the offending vehicle was duly insured, Respondent No.3/United India Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.8,09,388/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 04.04.2014 till realization with the Nazir of this Court within 30 days Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 33 of 35 under intimation to the petitioner failing which the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
Insurance Company/driver/owner of the offending vehicle are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of this amount with the Tribunal to the claimant and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
A copy of this judgement be sent to respondent No.3/ United India Insurance Company Ltd. 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 (A.K. Mendiratta) Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 34 of 35 on 08th April, 2015 Judge, MACT-1 (Central), Delhi Suit No.69/14 - Vidya Sinha (LR of deceased Ajay Bhushan) vs. Tinku Singh & Ors. Page 35 of 35