MAC.APP. No.11/2009 Page 1 of 4 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP.11/2009 % Date of decision: 10th August, 2009 SHRI VINOD KUMAR ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Deepak Thukral, Adv. versus RATANSHANKER SAXENA & OTHERS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv. for R-3. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. Notice could not be issued to respondents No.1 and 2 as the appellant failed to file the process fee. 2. Noting that respondents No.1 and 2 are the claimants who have received the compensation from respondent No.3, notice to respondents No.1 and 2 is dispensed with and the matter is finally heard. 3. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.1,96,000/- has been awarded against the appellant and respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has been given recovery rights to recover the amount from the appellant after making the payment to the claimants. Respondent No.3 has paid the entire award amount along with MAC.APP. No.11/2009 Page 2 of 4 interest to the claimants and has thereafter filed the execution to recover the award amount from the appellant. 4. The appellant is the owner of the offending truck which resulted in the death of Saroj Saxena on 2nd February, 2007. The deceased was survived by his husband and son who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 5. The deceased was aged 60 years at the time of the accident and was working as a tailor earning Rs.5,000/- per month. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the income, the learned Tribunal took the minimum wages of Rs.3,900/- for a skilled worker and deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 5 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.1,56,000/-. Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation expenses of dead body, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The total compensation awarded is Rs.1,96,000/-. 6. Respondent No.3 defended the claim petition before the learned Tribunal on the ground that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake. Respondent No.3 examined R3W1 who deposed that the licence of the driver was investigated through an Investigator. The Investigator approached District Transport Authority, Guwahati who certified that the driving licence in question was not issued by their office. The original certificate issued by District Transport Authority, MAC.APP. No.11/2009 Page 3 of 4 Guwahati to the Investigator is Ex.R3W1/4. The report of the Investigator is Ex.R3W1/3. Respondent No.3 also issued notice to the appellant under Order 12 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is Ex.R3W1/1. The UPC and the postal receipt on the said notice is Ex.R3W1/2 7. The appellant did not reply to the notice – Ex.R3W1/1. The appellant also did not cross-examine R3W1 despite opportunity granted. The appellant also did not lead any evidence to rebut the evidence led by the appellant. No material has been placed even before this Court to contend that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake is upheld. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no evidence to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal has drawn presumption of negligence from the FIR – Ex.P-6, post-mortem report – Ex.PW2/A and endorsement issued by the police regarding the handing over of the dead body of the deceased – Ex.P-4. The FIR in question is recorded on the statement of ASI of the Police. The LCR reveals that the Police furnished the attested copies of the complete set of relevant documents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal including the FIR registered by ASI, Yashpal Singh, identification of the accused by ASI, Yashpal Singh, seizure memo of the truck, Insurance policy, registration cover, superdarinama, driving licence, site plan and post-mortem report. MAC.APP. No.11/2009 Page 4 of 4 The site plan clearly shows that the deceased was crossing the Vikas Marg and was in the middle of the road when the offending truck crushed her. The offending vehicle in question was taken on superdari by the appellant himself. No evidence has been led by the appellant or the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle was prosecuted by the police and the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the criminal case is still pending. Despite that, the false statement on oath was made in the written statement before the learned Tribunal denying the accident and even registration of the FIR. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant and be reduced. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation taking the minimum wages for the skilled worker considering that no documentary evidence of the income was placed on record. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier according to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and the non-pecuniary compensation is also just and fair. The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. J.R. MIDHA, J AUGUST 10, 2009 aj