Kailash Wati and Another vs Gurmail Singh and Others

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—By this appeal'', the claimants,/ appellants has sought enhancement of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that Subhash Chand Gulati aged around 32 years, working as a Staff Officer in Bank of India, drawing a salary of Rs. 1,473 per month, died in an accident on 13th December, 1979 on Delhi-Gurgaon Road near Palani Airport. The deceased was driving his own Premier Padmini Fiat Car and there was head-on collision between his car and Bus No. DEP-2144, coming from the opposite side. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence, came to conclusion that the accident took place largely due to negligence of the deceased himself. However, the bus driver was also held to be negligent and the Tribunal concluded that it was a case of contributory negligence and the responsibility was apportioned as 50:50.

The deceased was married at the time of accident. He had been married only few months before the accident. However, the wife of deceased did not prefer a claim petition since she got re-married after two months of the accident. It is only the parents of the victim who filed the claim petition and made wife of the deceased as one of the Respondents.

The learned Tribunal took into account the salary of the deceased as Rs. 1,475 per month plus his future prospects and considered Rs. 2,000 per month as his income for computation of compensation. The learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the deceased could have spared only Rs. 1,000 per month for the maintenance of his parents being a married person. Looking at the age of deceased, the learned Tribunal, applied a multiplier of 18 and calculated total compensation are Rs. 2,16,000. Since the responsibility was apportioned as 50:50 the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,08,000 as compensation to the claimants/appellants.

It is submitted by Counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal wrongly held it to be the case of contributory negligence. It is further argued that the Tribunal did not take into account the future prospects properly. There was lot of potential for the progress of deceased and he would have been earning a salary of Rs. 8,000 per month at the time of superannuation and, therefore, the average salary of deceased taken as Rs. 2,000 per month for the purpose of computation of compensation was too meagre.

I consider that the appeal cannot succeed on either of the counts. The learned Tribunal had held an inquiry as to how the accident took place and the evidence produced before the Tribunal showed that the bus was coming in its own lane from Gurgaon side. It was the car of the deceased that moved nine paces from the middle line of the road towards right side and collided with the but head on. Looking at the site plan, prepared soon after the accident and the other aspects of the accident, the Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that it was a case of contributory negligence. I find no infirmity in appreciation of evidence done by the Tribunal or the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence. In every case of accident, it is not always the bigger vehicle at fault. Even the smaller vehicle can be equally negligent and there is no presumption that smaller vehicle should not be held negligent.

So far as computation of compensation is concerned, I find that the Tribunal has been quite generous in calculating the compensation. Since the deceased was aged about 32 years, as per Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the future prospects could have been taken at 50%. The salary of the deceased, at the time of his death, was Rs. 1,475 per month and if 50% of this salary is added to it, the salary for the purpose of computation of compensation would be Rs. 2,212,50. Since the deceased was married at the time of accident and only three dependents were there, he would have spent l/3rd of the amount upon himself, if it is presumed that he would have contributed l/3rd of his salary towards the maintenance of his wife, then only l/3rd of the amount would have been spared by him for the maintenance of his parents, that would be around Rs. 750 per month. The Tribunal has taken dependency of parents @ Rs. 1,000 per month. I consider that it was not unjust in any manner. The multiplier is taken either looking at the age of deceased or looking at the age of dependents, whichever age is higher. In this case the wife had re-married soon after the accident. The claimants were only the parents of the deceased and for the multipliers, their ages was to be looked at. The father was aged 55 years and mother was aged 51 years. As per testimony of mother, her eldest son was having business. Her second son was working in UNESCO and residing separately, her third son owned a factory and her fourth son was also doing the business of export. Thus, the dependency on the deceased was nominal. I, therefore, consider that the Tribunal shown generousness by using multiplier of 18. Normally, a multiplier of 10 is taken in such a case.

In view of my above discussion, I find no force in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.