MAC.APP.No.675/2007 Page 1 of 5 26 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP.No.675/2007 Date of Decision: 11th December, 2009 % UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIOIN ..... Appellant Through : Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv. versus DR.INDU BALA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Milind P. Singh, Adv. for R-1 to 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. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.14,24,760/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 3. 2. The accident dated 27th November, 1998 resulted in the death of Kamal Kishore Remi. The deceased was survived by his widow, one minor son, one minor daughter and mother who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 3. The deceased was aged 41 years at the time of the accident and was a qualified doctor working with Indian Counsel for Medical Research earning Rs.21,153/- per month. MAC.APP.No.675/2007 Page 2 of 5 The learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.17,753/- after permissible deductions, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 13 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.27,69,520/-. The learned Tribunal held the appellant’s liability to be 50% and, therefore, reduced the aforesaid amount to 50% i.e. Rs.13,84,760/-. Rs.40,000/- has been awarded towards loss of estate, funeral expenses, transportation of body and loss of consortium. The total compensation awarded is Rs.14,24,760/-. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the following two grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:- (i) The driver of the appellant’s bus was not at all negligent and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. (ii) The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal be reduced. 5. With respect to the first ground of challenge, it is noted that the deceased was travelling in appellant’s bus No.UP-81- F-2745 while going from Dadri to Delhi. There was a head-on collision of the said bus with truck No.H-29-C-785. The police registered the case of rash and negligent driving against the bus driver. The site plan prepared by the police shows that the head-on collision between both the vehicles took place in the middle of the road. The learned Tribunal has given a finding of contributory negligence of both the vehicles. The MAC.APP.No.675/2007 Page 3 of 5 finding of the learned Tribunal with respect to the 50% contributory negligence of both the vehicles is upheld. 6. With respect to the second ground of challenge, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the GPF of Rs.2,200/- should be deducted from the salary of Rs.17,753/- of the deceased. There is no merit in this submission. The GPF forms part of the income of the deceased for computation of compensation. It is noted that the learned Tribunal has awarded lower amount of compensation. According to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129, the appropriate multiplier at the age of 41 is 14 and the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is 1/4th as the deceased has left behind four legal representatives whereas the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13 and has taken the personal expenses of the deceased as 1/3rd instead of 1/4th. However, since there are no cross-objections by the claimants, no further order is required to be passed in this regard. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. 8. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount along with interest with the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad on 15th December, 2007 by virtue of the orders passed in the execution proceedings but the said amount was not released to the claimants in view of the ex-parte stay order obtained MAC.APP.No.675/2007 Page 4 of 5 by the appellant from this Court on 7th December, 2007. The stay order was finally vacated by this Court on 31st August, 2009 and the amount was deposited by the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad with UCO Bank on 16th November, 2009. The amount deposited by the appellant with the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad included interest up to 7th December, 2007. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for claimants/respondents NO.1 to 3 submit that the claimants are entitled to interest for the period 7th December, 2007 up to 16th November, 2009 as there was a stay order which was ultimately vacated by this Court. The learned counsel refers to and relies upon the judgments in the cases of Haryana Engineering & Foundry Water vs. UOI, 1998(47) DRJ 172; MANU/DE/1171/1998, Delhi Development Authority vs. Bhai Sardar Singh & Sons, 158(2009) DLT; 2009(109) DRJ 384 and M/s Engineering Projects India Ltd. vs. Arvind Construction Co. Ltd., MANU/DE/0744/2009. 10. Following the aforesaid judgments, it is held that claimants/respondents N o.1 to 3 are entitled to interest on the principal award amount from 7th December, 2007 to 16th November, 2009. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest @10% per annum. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that the appellant shall be liable to pay interest @5.5% per annum on the principal award amount from 7th December, 2007 up to 16th November, 2009 if the same is deposited within 30 days failing which the appellant MAC.APP.No.675/2007 Page 5 of 5 shall be liable to pay the interest @10% per annum as per the original award. The interest amount be deposited by the appellant with UCO Bank A/c Dr. Indu Bala within 30 days. 11. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, UCO Bank is directed to release the same to respondent No.1 by transferring the said amount to the Saving Bank Account of respondent No.1. 12. UCO Bank is also directed to release the three FDRs issued in terms of the order dated 19th November, 2009 with the endorsement that claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 shall not be entitled to raise any loan or withdraw the amount before the expiry of the period of FDR without the permission of this Court. 13. Copy of this order be given ‘Dasti’ to learned counsel for the parties under the signature of Court Master. J.R. MIDHA, J DECEMBER 11, 2009 aj