REETA KAPOOR Vs. DELHI TRANPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the Award dated 8th April 1991 passed by Shri R.K Sharma. Judge. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Delhi, The appellants filed claim petition for compensation ofRs.7.50.000.00 under Section 110- A of the Motor vehicles Act. The facts as disclosed are that deceased Ashok Kumar Kapoor was employed as Junior Engineer in DDA East Plaza Indoor Stadium. New Delhi and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 1557.47. He was the only earning member of the family and used to spent almost the entire salary for the maintenance of his family which consisted of his wife appellant no 1. two minor children, appellant nos. 2 and 3. The deceased was travelling on his two wheeler Lambretta Scooter no. DHD 8292 neai the ITO Fly Over Budge when the DTC Bus no. DHP 3684, being driven by respondent 2 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manneer hit the scooter from behind as a result of which the deceased sustained fatel injuries, The deceased was removed to LNJP hospital where he was declared dead and the police registered case u/s 279/304A Indian Penal Code at PS Darya Ganj It was pleaded that accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the said respondent. The deceased was a healthy person and he was not addicted to any vices. Respondent no.2 was served through publication but he did not put in appearance and, as such, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 22nd May, 1986. Respondent no.1 in its written statement alleged that the application of compensation had not been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased and as such was liable to be dismissed. The said respondent also denied that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2.It was further alleged that on 1st September. 1984 bus no. DHP 3684 was proceeding on route no. 39 and at about 1.55 p.m., the bus reached the office of AGCR near ITO and the bus driver stopped the bus and some passengers alighted at the said bus stop. Thereafter, the driver respondent moved his bus and had hardly covered 40 to 50 yds and reached the crossing, there was red signal and, as such, the driver stopped the bus behind another DTC bus of route no. 318. When green signal appeared the police constable on duty gave signal to the driver to move towards ITO Fly Over Bridge. The driver was very slowly moving behind the bus of route no. 318 at a very slow speed. In the meantime the deceased who was driving two wheeler scooter rashly, negligently and at a fast speed without noticing the traffic on the road came from left hand side and tried to cross ahead of the bus while the bus was in the process of negotiating turn. The deceased hit against the front le+639*ft corner of the bus and fell down and received some injuries. The accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:-

(2.) The Tribunal assessed the evidence on record. Public Witness-3 Nirmal Singh, Traffic Constable deposed in his statement before the court that on 1st September. 1984 he was on duty from 11.00 AM to 2.00 PM along with one Prem chand at ITO Fly Over Bridge. He further deposed that he was controlling the traffic and a scooterist who was driving scooter no. DHO-8292 came from the side of the I.P. Police Post and a bus was following him. He further stated that the deceased scooterist was driving on the correct side of the road and the DTC driver came at a very fast speed and hit the scooterist from behind, as a result of which the scooterist fell down and sustained injuries and he was bleeding from nose and ears. He along with constable Prem Chand removed the deceased to LNJP Hospital This witness was duly cross- examined but nothing could be elicited which favoured the respondents. Similar narration of the incident was given by another eye witness Public Witness6 Shri B.M. Mehra. The appelants also examined Shri Raghunandan Singh Tyagi.S.I., Public Witness 4, who conducted the investigation. He deposed that respondent no.2 was challaned under Sections 279/304A Indian Penal Code. The site plan Ex Public Witness 4/1 was prepared. Public Witness 1, Dr. Bharat Singh who conducted the post-mortem examination proved the report. Ex. Public Witness 1/1 and stated that the death had occurred on account of coma and shock resulting from injuries. The evidence produced was considered by the learned Judge and it was noticed that respondent no.2 himself had not come to witness box and there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Public Witnesss 3 and 6 who had witnessed the accident which resulted in the death of Shri Ashok Kumar Kapoor. There is, therefore, no illegality and infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of bus No. DHP 3684. This finding is accordingly affirmed. '

(3.) The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced by the appellants accepted the income of the deceased as Rs.1557.47 rounded off to Rs.1500.00 per month. The deceased was 34 years of age at the time of his death. The learned Judge deducted a sum of Rs.300.00 on account of personal expenses of the deceased including the amount he used to spend on the maintenance of the scooter as well as a further sum of Rs.200.00 on account of food and clothing and assessed the dependency of the appellants to Rs. 1000.00 per month. The multiplier of 20 was used as an appropriate multiplier giving an award of Rs.2,40,000.00. It was, however, noticed that the deceased would have remained in service for a period of another 24 years but lower multiplier was used since the lumpsum payment was being paid to the appellants.