Delhi District Court
Balwinder Kaur vs Kapil Raj Pathak on 28 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAYURI SINGH
P.O : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
In the matter of :
MACP No. 701/2019
CNR No. DLET01-006707/2019
1. Balvinder Kaur
W/o Late Sh. Vijay Singh
2. Davinder Kaur
D/o Late Sh. Vijay Singh
3. Baljeet Kaur @ Balveer Kaur
D/o Late Sh. Vijay Singh
4. Amar Singh
S/o- Late Sh. Vijay Singh
5. Vikram Singh
S/o- Late Sh. Vijay Singh
6. Avtar Singh
S/o- Late Sh. Vijay Singh
7. Jeet Singh
S/o- Late Sh. Guru Dayal Singh
All R/o- H.No.366, I-2/8, Sangam Vihar, Pushpa Bhawan, South
Delhi-110062.
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Kapil Raj Pathak (Driver)
S/o Sh. Hariom,
R/o- H.No.63, Mohalla Sahukaria,
P.S. Kotwali, Pilibhit, U.P.- 262001,
2. General Manager UPSRTC
U/C R M Aligarh,
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Workshop
Kanpur, U.P.
......Respondents
MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 1 of 25
Date of Institution : 03.08.2019
Date of reserve of order : Not reserved
Date of Judgment : 28.02.2025
AWAR D
1. The present claim petition is based on Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed under section 159/166 clause (4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after Act) by the investigating officer of FIR No. 12/2019 Police Station PIA, Delhi.
2. The facts of the case are as under:- Deceased Sh. Vijay Singh, died on account of a motor accident which happened on 28.01.2019 at about 08:00 a.m., near ISBT, Anand Vihar near Parchi Counter Delhi. As per the claim petition, at the relevant time, deceased was going on foot alongwith Ms. Poonam (eye-witness). They were going to Aligarh. When deceased was in the process of boarding the bus bearing Registration No. UP-77AN-2997, in the meantime, driver of the said bus drove the bus in fast speed, rashly and negligently and without caring for the passengers, who were boarding the bus. Due to the accident, left leg of the deceased was crushed in the wheel of the bus and was grievously injured. After the accident, driver and conductor of the said bus ran away from the spot. Many people gathered at the spot and Ms. Poonam made a call to PCR. Deceased was removed to LBS Hospital. Later on, he died during the treatment due to the injuries received in the accident. 3(i). On service of notice of the petition, both of the respondents marked appearance and filed their written statements. Respondent No.1 MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 2 of 25 & Respondent No.2 filed separate written statement. It is specifically mentioned in written statement of R1 that R1 was falsely implicated in the alleged accident. R1 had nothing to do with the said accident and no accident took place due to the negligence or rashly driving of R1. It is further submitted that R1 had been falsely implicated in the present claim petition.
3(ii). R2/UPSRTC has filed its written statement separately and submitted that the said accident was not occurred due to the fault of R1 and its employee. It is further submitted the said alleged bus was scheduled from Delhi to Pilibhit. When the bus was passing from Toll Parchi Gate at Anand Vihar Bus Station, the driver of the bus was moving the bus slowly and haltingly in queue by following traffic rules and regulations and on that day, Sh. Babu Ram was conductor on the bus. All of a sudden, some people started crying and gave signal for stopping the bus. It is further submitted that there was dark at the site and one person/injured when trying to climb negligently in moving bus instead of from scheduled counter, had fallen down on the road and had come into contact of the bus and sustained injury. It is further submitted that injured sustained injury due to his own fault.
4. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed on 02.02.2021 :-
(i) Whether husband of Petitioner No.1, father of Petitioner No.2 to 6 and son of Petitioner No.7, namely Vijay Singh died in a motor vehicular accident, which happened on 28.01.2019 at about 8:00 p.m. at ISBT Anand Vihar, near Slip Counter, Delhi, within the MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 3 of 25 jurisdiction of PS Patparganj Industrial Area, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-77AN-2997 (bus of UPSRTC) by the Respondent No. 1 / Kapil Raj Pathak? (OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for, if so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, at what rate of interest and for which period?
(iv) Relief
5. Petitioner side examined only two witnesses.
5(i). PW1/Smt. Balvinder Kaur, herself stepped into the witness box and relied upon affidavit Ex.PW1/A & Ex.PW1/B and deposed about the manner of accident and relied upon the following documents:
(i) Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No. 1 is Ex.PW1/1
(ii) Copy of Aadhar Card of of deceased husband of Petitioner No.1 namely Sh. Vijay Singh is Ex.PW1/2
(iii) Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No.2 Davinder Kaur is Ex.PW1/3.
(iv) Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No. 3 Baljeet Kaur is Ex.PW1/4
(v) Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No.4 Amar Singh is Ex.PW1/5.
(vi) Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No.5 Vikram Singh is Ex.PW1/6.MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 4 of 25
(vii) Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No.7 Jeet Singh is Ex.PW1/7.
(viii) Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No.6 Avtar Singh is Ex.PW1/8.
(ix) Copy of ration card is Ex.PW1/9 (x) DAR is Ex.PW1/10
(xi) Original treatment papers and medical bills of deceased Sh. Vijay Singh is Ex.PW1/11 5(ii). PW2/Ms. Poonam has been further examined as an eye-
witness to the accident and deposed regarding manner of accident. She relied upon affidavit Ex.PW2/A and her Aadhar Card Ex.PW2/1. She was further cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R2.
Thereafter, PE was closed.
6. Respondent No.1 examined one witness in its defence. R1W1/Sh. Kapil Raj Pathak deposed on the strength of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A . He further deposed that he was the driver of the offending bus and on 28.01.2019, when he was passing from Toll Parchi Gate at Anand Vihar Bus Station, he was moving the bus slowly and halting in queue by following traffic rules and regulations. He further deposed that all of a sudden, some people started crying and gave signal for stopping the bus. There was dark at the site and one injured person while trying to climb negligently in moving bus instead of boarding the bus from scheduled counter, had fallen down on the road and come into contact of MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 5 of 25 the bus and sustained injury. He further denied that he was driving the bus at high speed and rashly and negligently.
Thereafter, RE was closed.
7. I have heard Sh. Palminder Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioners and Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for R2/UPSRTC. Record of the case has also been perused.
ISSUE No. 18. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and in fact, is the preponderance of probabilities which is applied in civil cases. It is also the law that the tribunal is not bound by the technical rules of evidence. Further, in holding any inquiry under section 168, The Claims Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.
9. In order to prove the case, petitioner examined two witnesses i.e. P1/Smt. Balwinder Kaur and P2 as an eye-witness namely Smt. Poonam. PW1 testified that on on 28.01.2019 at about 08:00 a.m., deceased was going on foot alongwith Ms. Poonam to Aligarh. When deceased was in the process of boarding the bus, in the meantime, driver of the bus drove the bus in fast speed, rashly and negligently and without caring the passenger, who were boarding the bus. Due to the accident, left leg of the deceased was crushed under the wheel of the bus and was grievously injured. After the accident, driver and conductor of the bus MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 6 of 25 ran away from the spot. Many people gathered at the spot and Ms. Poonam made a call to PCR. Deceased was removed to LBS Hospital. Later on, he died during the treatment due to the injuries received in the accident. The Petitioner has examined one eye witness i.e. PW-2 Smt. Poonam to prove that accident which resulted in the death of Vijay Singh was due to the rash driving and negligence on the part of the driver and the conductor. According to PW-2, on 28.01.2019, at about 08:00 PM, she alongwith deceased Vijay Singh reached ISBT Anand Vihar, Near Parchi Counter, Delhi and she boarded the bus bearing no. UP-77AN-2997 and deceased Vijay Singh was in the process of boarding the said bus. In the meanwhile, driver of the bus had driven the bus in fast speed, in most rash and negligent manner and without caring the passenger who were boarding the bus and due to which the left leg of the deceased Vijay Singh was crushed in the wheel of the bis and he was grievously injured. After the accident, driver and conductor of said bus ran away from the spot. On the other hand, the version of the respondent no. 1 i.e. driver of the bus was that when the bus was passing Toll Parchi Gate of Anand Vihar Bus Station and he was moving the bus slowly and haltingly in queue by following traffic rules, all of sudden some people started crying and gave signal for stopping the bus. There was darkness at the spot and one person, who was trying to negligently board in moving bus from non-scheduled counter, fell down on the road and came into contact of the bus and sustained injury. He stated that the injured MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 7 of 25 sustained injury due to his own fault as was trying to board in the moving bus from non-designated counter.
10. The question now thereof is that as to which of the version is correct. On a consideration of the evidence, this Tribunal is not inclined to accept the version of respondent no.1. Eye witness Poonam has clearly deposed that when they reached ISBT Anand Vihar near Parchi Counter, she boarded the bus and while deceased Vijay Singh was in the process of boarding the bus, drive drove the bus at fast speed and that too with- out caring the passenger who was boarding the bus. She did not shatter during her cross-examined and held her ground. In her cross-examined, she stated that they were boarding the bus from scheduled bus stand. She admitted the suggestion that other persons were also boarding the bus from the scheduled bus stand. She maintained her version in cross-exam- ination that she boarded the bus and the deceased was in the process of boarding the bus. She denied the suggestion that the deceased came into contact with the bus after falling when he was trying to board in moving bus. Thus, eye witness remained consistent in her testimony and nothing material inconsistence came in her deposition to doubt her version. Fur- ther, the FIR No. 0012/2019 PS Patparganj Industrial Area was regis- tered promptly on the statement of eye witness Poonam on the day of in- cident itself and after investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against respondent no.1 as driver of the bus. The R-1 have not denied the acci- dent or the involvement of the bus. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver of offending vehicle prima facie points to his culpability. (New In-
MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 8 of 25dia Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Washeema Bano (2022) SCC OnLine All 403 and Mangla Ram vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (2018) 5SCC 656).
11. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Pazhaniammal (2011) (2) KLT 648, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held that as a general rule, it can be accepted that production of chargesheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under section 166MV Act. If any party do not accept such chargesheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels that chargesheet is collusive, it can record that chargesheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties at any stage to adduce oral evidence of accident and alleged negligence. In such cases, issue of negligence must be decided on other evidence ignoring the chargesheet.
12. No doubt, in the present case, R-1 examined himself as a wit- ness and denied his fault in the accident claiming that accident caused due to the fault of injured himself as he tried to climb the moving bus from non-designated bus counter. Thus, R-1 has not denied the involve- ment of his bus in the accident. He just tried to shift the responsibility of the accident on the deceased. He admitted in his cross-examination that the FIR was lodged against him and he had not lodged any complaint to the higher authority with respect to his false implication. Strangely, while denying the suggestion that after the accident, he and conductor ran away from the spot, he volunteered that he was not present at the spot after the accident and he was not aware whether the accident took MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 9 of 25 place or not. This voluntary version of R-1 is contrary to his version came in his examination-in-chief. If he was not aware regarding the oc- currence of accident, how could he claim that the accident had taken place due to the fault of deceased. It is a settled principle that it is the duty of the conductor and driver to see that the bus is set in motion only after all alighting passengers have alighted and passengers intending to travel in the bus board the bus. Boarding a bus does not mean merely entering the footboard. Boarding the bus means getting inside the bus and either sitting in a seat or standing in the space reserved for standing passengers. If a passenger is boarding the bus and has not completely boarded the bus and there is no space at all for him to sit or stand inside the bus, he must be asked to get down and the bus can be set in motion only after he alights. When there is sitting or standing space inside the bus, it is the duty of the conductor to see that a passenger who is in the process of boarding the bus gets inside the bus and seats himself or stands in the space reserved for standing passengers before giving signal for the bus to start. This corresponds with the driver's duty to ensure that bus is moved only after ensuring safe travel conditions. In the discharge of his duty, he is largely guided by the instructions of the conductor. If a bus, with no vacant seat and no standing space, is started when a passenger is boarding the bus or on the footboard and he is not asked to alight from the bus and accident takes place and the passenger boarding the bus sustains injury, he cannot be held to be guilty of negligence or contributory negligence. In such circumstances, R-1 could not take the MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 10 of 25 plea that accident was caused due to the fault of deceased as it was his duty to ensure safe boarding of the injured in the bus which he failed to do so. Therefore, this tribunal is of considered view that version of eye witness is correct and accident was caused due to the sole negligence of R-1.
13. Thus, in view of the above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioners have been able to prove that there is sufficient material on record to establish that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and that resulted into fatal injuries to the deceased victim Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh. Therefore, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of petitioners.
ISSUE No. 214. During course of enquiry and at the stage of clarifications / orders, it was observed by the Tribunal that one of the petitioners namely Avtar Singh had stated in his statement to the police during investigation in connected case bearing FIR No.12/19 PS PIA, that deceased was his stepfather. It was also observed that while none of the daughters of the deceased is a party to the claim proceedings, petitioner disclosed in her cross-examination that she has two married daughters. IO has mentioned Petitoner Balwinder Kauar as wife of the deceased and given out names of father of the deceased and sons of the deceased in the list of legal representatives attached to the DAR. It was also observed that in the Adhar card of Avtar Singh, his parentage is not mentioned. According to MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 11 of 25 his statement given to police, name of his father is 'Baldev Singh'. This led to the query whether Avtar Singh is at all a legal representative of the deceased and an enquiry regarding marital status of petitioner Balwinder Kaur. This enquiry was necessitated by the fact that in the entire DAR and testimony of petitioner Balwinder Kaur, there is no reference to her marriage to any Baldev Singh and Avtar Singh is claimed to be son of petitioner Balwinder Kaur but not of the deceased. IO filed a report thereafter, which has sprung up a new surprise for the tribunal. According to the report of IO, Balwinder Kaur was married to Baldev Singh and never divorced and thus not legally married to the deceased. He has a son named Avtar from her marriage with Baldev and a son from deceased Vijay named Vikram Singh. Report of IO is not supported with the written statements of petitioners and others and further, not disputed by petitioners either. Ld. Counsel for petitioners submitted first that the relationship of petitioner with deceased was not legitimate and then, it was also submitted that the deceased and Balwinder were married as per local custom of ' chadar chadhana'. No proof in support of this has been brought before the Tribunal and there is absolutely no documentary proof produced regarding marriage of the deceased with Balwinder about 40 year back, as claimed by her in her cross -examination. Not a single document of Balwinder has been produced to suggest that she was shown as wife of deceased in his lifetime in any of the documents of deceased or Balwinder like ration card, aadhar card, election I.D card, bank passbook, property documents etc. Petitioner Balwinder is also MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 12 of 25 silent on the point of whether any decree of divorce was taken about 40 years back from Mr. Baldev and it appears that he may be alive and still the husband of Mr. Balwinder or if dead, the likelihood of his marriage with Balwinder having been never dissolved by a decree of divorce and Balwinder having joined company of Vijay Singh in lifetime of Baldev can not be ruled out. It is strange that Balwinder herself did not choose to divulge details to IO about her marriage with Baldev during preparation of DAR and recording to evidence and is still maintaining silence and not disclosing complete facts. She has not stated as to when she was married to deceased Vijay and what ceremonies were performed during marriage. No customary marriage or existence of any custom has been proved either.
15. In this backdrop, now it is to be seen whether Ms. Balwinder Kaur and Avtar Singh can be considered as legal representative of the de- ceased. Date of her marriage with Vijay Singh, if any, is not known and from IO report, it appears that her marriage with her husband was not dissolved at that time. It is also seen that none of the married daughters of the deceased came forward to join claim proceedings in the capacity of legal representatives of the deceased despite DAR having been filed on 02.08.2019 only and further, they did not choose or file any separate claim petition either. It is also to be seen that eye witness in this case is sister in law of wife of Avtar (as per testimony of PW1) and residence of all of the petitioners is the same. Further, Amar Singh, the son of Vijay Singh from his wife namely late Reena has not disputed that Petitioner MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 13 of 25 Balwinder was ostensibly living with his father Vijay Singh as his wife for past 40 years. He is silent regarding status of his mother and whether she was also residing together at that time or separated and when did she expire. IO report suggests that wife of Vijay Singh namely Reena is no longer alive. Hence, it can be sent that Mr. Vijay Singh and Petitioner Balwinder were residing together as husband and wife for past many years and she claims him to be her husband and marriage to have taken place about 40 years back. She is living in harmony with son of Vijay Singh from his wife Reena in the same house. Mr. Avtar Singh also seems to be having a close bond with deceased as deceased was travel- ling with relative of Avtar Singh from his wife side. He was aged 29 years at the time of demise of Vijay Singh and hence, it is clear that he was born from the marital union of Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur many years back, whereas, Balwinder claims to be residing with de- ceased since prior to birth of Avtar Singh, as she deposed in her cross-ex- amination dated 10.05.2022 that she got married with deceased about 40 years back. However, Avtar Singh is neither son of Vijay Singh nor his dependent on the date of his death as he already was married and aged 29 years and working.
16. It has to be seen first, what is stipulated under law in Motor Vehicles Act. An application for compensation arising out of an accident resulting in death may be made by all or any of the legal representatives as per Section 166 MV Act. The term legal representative has not been MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 14 of 25 defined under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is provided under Section 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as under:
'Legal Representative means a person who in law represents the estate of a person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of a deceased and where the person sues or is being sued in a repre- sentative character, the person on whom estate devolves on death of a person using or being sued.'
17. Legal representative means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased and the term can not be given a restricted mean- ing. The term 'legal representative' does not confer any right or create any class of legal heirs and only enacts that a person who represents the estate of deceased can be a legal representative and it includes an inter- meddler. The term legal representative has to be seen in the context of spirit and purpose of the legislation. Motor Vehicles Act is social wel- fare legislation and purpose of it is to provide for an expeditious relief in an action for damages arising out of a road accident.
18. Standard of proof in a civil case is that of prepondernsc of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. There has to be facts on record as probabalize existence of a fact. In the case at hand, respondents have not disputed that Petitioner Balwinder was wife of deceased. It is not disputed that she had been residing with deceased as his wife for past several years and also has a child from Mr. Vijay Singh. It is not disputed that first wife of Vijay Singh is not alive and that Ms. Balwinder was a dependent of the deceased. Hence, in my considered view, she can be considered as a legal representative and dependent of the deceased Vijay MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 15 of 25 Singh and hence entitled to Compensation. DAR as claim petition is be- ing pursued by Ms. Balvinder, her son Avtar and sons of deceased namely Vikram Singh and Amar Singh. As discussed, Avtar is not son of the deceased but he considered himself to be stepson of the deceased and had been residing with the deceased in the same household in that capac- ity. In document Ex.PW1/9, Avtar Singh has been shown as a family members with the petitioners and the deceased. Thus, all four petitioner before the Tribunal are considered as legal representatives of the de- ceased. (Reliance is placed on the judgments Gujrat State Road Trans- port Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs Raman Bhai Prabhat Bhai & Anr. 1987 SCR (3)404 and C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1232/1233 of 2017 &C.M.P. (MD)Nos.12009/12010 of 2017 titled as The Branch Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company, Madurai. Vs. P.Anbuchithra and Ors & I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company vs Gunasundhari and Ors, as decided on 4.06.2024, by Madurai Bench of Madras H.C ). Petitioners Vikram, Amar and Avtar are major, married and working. They have claimed to be dependents of the deceased. They were residing in the same house with deceased and hence, it is immaterial whether they are fully dependent or not on the deceased.
19. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. The compensation should not be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.
MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 16 of 2520. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
These issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/ deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 17 of 25 companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:death case Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance expired e which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) death case Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step-3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 18 of 25Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:
21. PW1 is companion /wife of the deceased and one of the claimants. It has come in her evidence that deceased was 'her husband' aged 61 years 27 days at the time of accident. He was doing the work of Raj Mistri (self-employed) and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In proof of the economic status of deceased, PW1 had not filed on record any income and occupation proof of deceased. Petitioners have not filed any documents in support of the educational qualification of the deceased. No bank account statement of the deceased is filed either. It is amusing to note that while P-1 has claimed that deceased was a labour, in part VII of DAR, his occupation is mentioned as private job. There is no proof produced to show that deceased despite being a senior citizen was employed or working and if so, what work he was doing. His MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 19 of 25 Aadhar Card as well as Adhar card of the petitioners show that the petitioners and deceased were residents of Delhi. In the DAR as well, address of the deceased is mentioned as that of Delhi. In the absence of any income proof and education related proof of the deceased victim, his income has to be considered, being a resident of Delhi, as per the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker on the date of accident i.e. 28.01.2019. Hence, his income is considered to be Rs.14,000/- per month.
APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:
22. The age of deceased was 61 years 27 days at the time of accident as per her Aadhar card Ex.PW1/2 shows his year of birth as 1958. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:-
MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF
DECEASED
M-18 Age group between 15 to 20 &
21 to 25 years)
M-17 Age group between 26 to 30
yrs
M-16 Age group between 31 to 35
yrs
M-15 Age group between 36 to 40
yrs
MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 20 of 25
M-14 Age group between 41 to 45
yrs
M-13 Age group between 46 to 50
yrs
M-11 Age group between 51 to 55
yrs
M-9 Age group between 56 to 60
yrs
M-7 Age group between 61 to 65
yrs
M-5 Age group between 66 and
above
Therefore, the multiplier of 7 which is applicable for age group between 61 to 65 years shall be applicable in this case.
FUTURE PROSPECTS:
23. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 21 of 25 addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
24. The deceased can be presumed to be as self-employed. Since the deceased Sh. Vijay Singh was 61 years, no future prospects shall be added to his income.
DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES:
25. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :
MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 22 of 25Deductions out of earning of the Number of deceased dependents Married Persons Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six) Deductions out of earning of the Number of deceased dependents Bachelor In case family is not large Half In case dependents are the widowed 1/3rd mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters and brothers
26. Hence, all four petitioners can be considered as dependent of the deceased being his wife and father. Hence, an amount of 1/4th has to be deducted for personal and living expenses of the deceased.
27. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.8,82,000/- (14000 x 3/4 x 12 x 7).
MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 23 of 25MEDICAL & OTHER MISC EXPENSES
28. PW1 has proved on record original medical bills/receipts/ambulance bills Ex.PW1/11 to the tune of 1,62,105/- and hence this amount is being given to the petitioners towards medical expenses.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
29. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. In this case, there were seven legal heirs of the deceased at the time of accident and filing of the claim petition. Thus, all four claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- (48,000x4+18,000+18,000) under this head.
30. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,72,105/-(Rs.8,82,000+Rs.2,28,000+1,62,105) rounded off to Rs.12,72,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand only).
MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 24 of 25(ISSUE No.3) INTEREST :
31. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Thus, issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
LIABILITY:
32. Since the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of accident and the respondent No.2 is the UPSRTC. Thus, the respondent No.2 / UPSRTC is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
RELIEF:
33. In view of the findings on said issues, this Tribunal awards a total compensation of Rs.12,72,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization in favour of petitioners and against the respondent No2 / UPSRTC. This award is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days. Digitally signed by MAYURI MAYURI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.02.28 17:33:32 +0000 Announced in the open (Mayuri Singh) Court on 28.02.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi MACP No. 701/2019 Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kapil Raj Pathak & Ors. Page 25 of 25