BHAGWATI DEVI Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this appeal are the legal representatives of the deceased Ramesh Kumar, who seek to assail the judgment and award dated 23.08.1991 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, whereby a sum of ' 1,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of the realisation, was awarded to the appellants on account of the unfortunate death of the said Ramesh Kumar in a road accident.

(2.) The concise facts are that on 02.09.1984, the deceased was going on a three-wheeler scooter bearing No.DER-1887 from Vishwas Nagar via Wazirabad bridge, and after coming on Alipur Road had taken a turn for reaching Rajpur Road, when he was hit by a Delhi Transport Corporation bus bearing No. DEP-8356, driven recklessly and negligently by the respondent No.2. A claim Petition under Section 92-A and Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was filed by his legal representatives claiming a sum of ' 10,00,000/- by way of compensation, which culminated in the passing of the aforesaid award. The main ground of challenge to the award is that the award has not been passed in accordance with the well-settled principles of law and resultantly the appellants have been awarded a very meager amount as compensation for the death of the deceased, who was a young man of 26 years and the sole bread-earner of the appellants being his widow, his four minor children and his parents.

(3.) Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellants, has assailed the award principally on four grounds: (i) The learned Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased on the date of his demise to be in the sum of ' 750/- per month whereas, in fact, it stands established on record that the deceased was earning a sum of ' 2,000/- per month on the said date. The assessment of the average annual income of the deceased is also not in accordance with law as the future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased have not been taken into consideration. (ii) The learned Tribunal though has made no deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased, a deduction of one-fifth of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and maintenance would be justified. (iii) The learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 16 instead of the multiplier of 17, which is the appropriate multiplier keeping in view the fact that the deceased was in the age group of victims between 26 to 30 years of age. (iv) No non-pecuniary damages whatsoever and no funeral expenses have been awarded to the appellants by the learned Tribunal.