Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Smt. Sushila And Others v. Delhi Union Territory Through Chief Secretary, Delhi And Another .

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Sep 11, 1986

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion (D.S. Tewatia, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The claimant-appellants, Sushila Devi (widow of Brahma Prakash) and Bablu (minor son of Brahma Prakash), claimed Rs. 2,00,000 by way of damages for the death of Brahma Prakash (aged 26). The death resulted from an accident involving D.T.C. Bus No. DHP-3371 driven by Karam Singh (referred to in the record as R.W.3) on 26 June 1981 at about 9:00 A.M., in front of the Agriculture Office on Rewari–Narnaul Road. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition; the claimants appealed to the Court whose opinion is summarized here.

The claimants examined several witnesses, including two eye-witnesses (Ram Kumar — P.W.6 and Radhey Shyam — P.W.7). Respondents examined the bus conductor (R.W.1 Daya Nand), the driver (R.W.3 Karam Singh) and an alleged passenger Ram Pat (R.W.2). Pleadings resulted in eight issues being framed; the Tribunal gave its finding on issue No. 2 (the primary issue about driver negligence) in favour of the respondents and dismissed the claim without considering quantum.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the automobile accident resulting in the death of Brahma Prakash took place on account of negligence, recklessness or any other fault on the part of the driver of bus No. DHP-3371 (issue No. 2 as framed before the Tribunal).

Arguments of the Parties

Claimant-Appellants' Arguments

The bus was driven at high speed when it struck the deceased's scooter (evidence of P.W.6 Ram Kumar and P.W.7 Radhey Shyam indicating "high" or "great" speed).
The deceased gave a hand signal 5–6 feet before turning; when that signal was given the bus was 40–50 feet away — indicating the turn was not sudden and the bus driver had opportunity to avoid the collision (evidence principally of P.W.6 Ram Kumar).
The bus dragged the deceased for approximately 6–7 feet after impact (evidence of P.W.6), consistent with a higher speed of the bus.
The claimants sought Rs. 2,00,000 as damages; the deceased's monthly salary was undisputed at Rs. 971.70 and his age was 26 (facts relevant to quantum).

Respondents' Arguments (as recorded)

The respondents' pleaded stand was that a truck was proceeding ahead of the scooter and was blocking the view of the bus driver; the deceased (scooterist) took a right turn suddenly from the opposite direction, and the bus, proceeding at slow speed, could not avoid the accident despite braking — thus the accident was caused by the negligence of the deceased.
The respondents relied on testimony from the driver and conductor of the bus (R.W.3 and R.W.1) supporting their version, and also an alleged passenger (R.W.2 Ram Pat) who was said to have been present in the bus at the time.
On the question of quantum, an argument (recorded as made by "Mr. Gandhi") proposed that the deceased might have been spending only Rs. 271–272 on himself and that the net loss to the claimants should be reduced accordingly; this gave rise to a proposed net loss figure used in the Court's calculation of annual loss (see Court's discussion on quantum).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur — 1979 81 PLR 1 (Full Bench)	Fixed the maximum multiplier at 16 (in the context of computing compensation by multiplier method).	The Full Bench decision was noted but the Court observed that it did not provide a scientific formula for the multiplier; the Court treated it as part of prior practice but not determinative for every case.
Asha Rani v. Union of India — 1982 84 PLR 486	Observed (basing on other authority) that the multiplier could go up to 20.	The Court referenced this decision as part of authorities showing a tendency to adopt higher multipliers in appropriate cases.
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhairagarh, Bhopal v. Sudhakar — 1977 A.C.J. 290	Referred to by Asha Rani; part of the basis for the proposition that multiplier could reach 20.	Used as antecedent authority cited in the chain of decisions the Court considered when deciding an appropriate multiplier.
Tehil Singh v. Jaswant Singh — 1985 A.C.J. 94 (R.N. Mittal, J.)	Adopted multiplier of 16 for a deceased aged 26.	Noted by the Court as an example of a decision adopting multiplier 16 for a similarly aged deceased; considered in weighing appropriate multiplier.
Rajinder Singh Jasbir Singh v. Urmil — 1986-1 89 PLR 647 (G.C. Mital, J.)	Adopted multiplier of 20 for a deceased aged 25.	Noted as an authority that applied multiplier 20 for a young deceased; the Court relied on such decisions showing a tendency toward higher multipliers.
Mrs. Pushpa Sharma v. Punjab State through Secretary, Transport Govt. of Punjab — 1986-1 89 PLR 495 (D.V. Sehgal, J.)	Adopted multiplier of 18 for a deceased aged 35.	Referred to as another example of courts selecting different multipliers depending on circumstances; used to illustrate variability and tendency toward liberality.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court undertook a credibility and evidentiary analysis focusing primarily on issue No. 2 (driver negligence). The Tribunal's dismissal had relied on certain cross-examination statements of claimants' witnesses; the Court found that the Tribunal did not properly appreciate the totality of the claimants' evidence and had given undue weight to isolated cross-examination answers.

Key steps in the Court's reasoning:

Assessment of P.W.6 Ram Kumar: In chief he stated the bus was at "high speed," the deceased signalled 5–6 feet before turning, and the bus was then 40–50 feet away; after impact the bus dragged the deceased 6–7 feet. The Tribunal relied on his cross-examination suggestion that the turn was "sudden" and that the bus stopped at "2 or 3 paces." The Court explained that these cross-answers were not inconsistent with the in-chief account (3 paces ≈ 6–7 feet) and that the in-chief statement about signal and distance made the turn unlikely to be sudden; the dragging post-impact was consistent with a high speed bus.
Assessment of P.W.7 Radhey Shyam: He corroborated P.W.6 on material points (bus speed and signalling) except as to the distance the bus stopped (he stated 20 yards). In cross-examination he denied there was a truck ahead and gave a low scooter speed. The Court accepted his presence and corroboration on the key point of bus speed.
Evaluation of respondents' witnesses: The conductor and driver were treated as interested witnesses and thus their accounts were viewed with skepticism. The alleged independent witness R.W.2 Ram Pat admitted he was not examined by police; the driver and conductor did not state that R.W.2 had witnessed the occurrence in their statements, so the Court declined to accept R.W.2 as a genuine independent eyewitness.
Regarding the respondents' "truck ahead" version: The Court observed this was not put to Ram Kumar and was denied by Radhey Shyam; the Court found the respondent witnesses' version unreliable and concluded they were "bound to put up some such version" to absolve the driver.
On the basis of the above credibility findings, the Court concluded that the bus was driven rashly and negligently and that the driver alone was responsible for the accident and death.
Quantum analysis: The Court took the uncontested facts — deceased's salary Rs. 971.70 per month and age 26. The Court recorded the argument (by Mr. Gandhi) suggesting the deceased spent about Rs. 271–272 on himself and that a net loss to claimants of about Rs. 700 per month (or Rs. 8,400 per year) was reasonable. The Court then turned to authorities on the multiplier to determine appropriate compensation.
Multiplier discussion: The Court reviewed prior decisions (including a Full Bench fixing a maximum multiplier of 16 and later cases permitting multipliers up to 20) and observed that no scientific formula had been provided in earlier decisions; multipliers were applied as a rule of thumb with a tendency toward liberality in recent precedents.
Application of multiplier: Considering the deceased's young age and promising government employment, the Court found a multiplier of 20 appropriate in this case and applied it to the annual net loss to arrive at total damages.
Incidental orders: The Court specified payment procedure and protective arrangements for the minor claimant (deposit of the child's share in a fixed deposit until age 18 and payment of interest to the widow for the child's upbringing), applied 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, and allowed the appeal with costs (the appellant had paid court fee before the Tribunal).

Holding and Implications

Core Holding: The appeal was allowed. The Court held that the offending bus was driven rashly and negligently and that the driver alone was responsible for the accident and resulting death of Brahma Prakash.

Relief and Direct Consequences:

The Court awarded damages of Rs. 1,68,000 to the claimants, to be paid by respondents No. 2 to 4 jointly and severally, with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.
The damages were to be shared equally between the two claimants. The child's share was ordered to be deposited in a fixed deposit renewable until the child attains 18 years of age; the interest accruing on that deposit was to be paid to the widow for the child's upbringing.
The appeal was allowed with costs throughout; the Court noted the appellant had paid court fee before the Tribunal.

Broader legal implications: The Court reiterated that prior authorities on the choice of multiplier do not provide a scientific formula and observed a tendency towards liberality; in this case the Court applied a multiplier of 20. The opinion does not purport to lay down a new rigid precedent or a scientific rule for multiplier selection beyond these observations.

R.M.S

Appeal allowed.

Show all summary ...

D.S Tewatia, J.:— Claimant-appellant Sushila Devi widow of Brahma. Parkash and Bablu minor son of Brahma Parkash claimed a sum of rupees two lacs by way of damages caused by the respondents on account of death of Brahma Prakash aged 26 years in an accident with D.T.C Bus No. DHP-3371 driven by Karam Singh (R.W 3) on 26th June, 1981 at 9.00 A.M in front of Agriculture Office on Rewari-Narnaul Road. The claim petition was dismissed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. Hence the present appeal.

2. The claimants examined inter alia P.W 6 Ram Kumar and Radhey Shyam as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence while on behalf of the respondents besides the conductor and driver of the bus, namely, R.W 1 Daya Nand and R.W 3 Karam Singh, Ram Pat an alleged passanger in the bus at the time of accident was also examined as R.W 2.

3. The stand taken by the respondents was that at the time of accident a truck happened to be proceeding ahead of the scooter blocking the view of the bus driver Karam Singh respondent of the scooterist when the latter took a right run. The deceased scooterist, who was coming from the opposite direction towards the offending bus, took a sudden turn to the right towards the Agriculture Office where he was employed as Agriculture Development Officer in the Agricultural Department; that the bus was proceeding at a slow speed and despite all efforts and applying brakes the accident could not be stopped and that the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the deceased.

4. The pleadings of the parties led to framing of as many as 8 issues. The Tribunal after giving its findings on issue No. 2 in favour the respondents dismissed the claim petition and did not examine the other relevant issue regarding the quantum of compensation. Primary issue in the present case no doubt is issue No. 2 which is in the following terms:—

“2. Whether the automobile accident resulting in the death of Brahma Parkash took place on account of negligence, reckless or any other fault on the part of driver of bus No. DHP-3371 as alleged”

5. The Tribunal in my opinion has not appreciated the evidence examined on behalf of the claimant-appellants. Stray sentences made in cross-examination by Ram Kumar were utilised as corroborative of the respondent's version.

6. Ram Kumar in his examination-in-chief has stated that the bus was coming with high speed; that the deceased had started giving signal by hand from a distance of 5 or 6 feet. The bus was then at a distance of 40 or 50 feet when the signal was given. The bus dragged Brahma Parkash upto a distance of 6 or 7 feet before stopping. In cross-examination he said that Brahma Parkash turned towards the right suddenly; that it was wrong to suggest that the bus after accident stopped at a distance of 2 or 3 feet. It stopped at a distance of 2 or 3 paces.

7. Radhey Sham (P.W 7) had stated that the bus was coming with great speed. Brahma Parkash before taking a turn, gave signal. The bus stopped at a distance of 20 yards after hitting the scooter. In cross-examination he stated that the scooter was at the speed of 7 or 8 Kms. per hour at the time of accident. There was no truck ahead of the scooter when the accident had happened. He denied that the bus was coming at a speed of 25 Kms. per hour when the accident took place. He also denied the suggestion that the bus stopped at a distance of 2 or 3 feet from the place of accident.

8. It deserves high-lighting that to Ram Kumar (P.W 6) it was not put as to whether there was a truck ahead of the scooter. Ram Kumar is emphatic about the high speed of the bus at the time of the accident. He is also positive about the distance between the scooter and the bus when the scooterist tried to take the turn, which he stated to be 40 or 50 feet. The Tribunal sought to utilise two circumstances from the statement in cross-examination in favour of respondents' version. One is that the deceased turned towards the gate suddenly and the other that the bus stopped at a distance of 2 or 3 paces. So far the first circumstance is concerned, it may be observed that in examination-in-chief this witness has said that the deceased had given signal from a distance of 5 or 6 feet before he took the turn. In the face of this data it would be just a question of opinion whether this could be considered a sudden turning. This may be his personal opinion but if a person before taking the turn, gives signal 5 or 6 feet before that and the vehicle whose path he is likely to cross at the point is 40 or 50 feet away from him, the turning cannot be said sudden at all by any strech of imagination According to Ram Kumar, bus had stopped at a distance of 2 or 3 paces. This is, of course, consistant with his statement in examination-in-chief also where the distance was mentioned in terms of 6 or 7 feet. Three paces comes to 6 or 7 feet. This circumstance would not show that the bus was not driven at a high speed as stated by this witness. The bus was at a distance of 40 or 50 feet from the place of occurrence with a clear vision of the scooterist and yet it happened to drag the scooterist after hitting him for 6 or 7 feet. This could happen only if the vehicle was driven at a high speed. Otherwise the vehicle would have stopped much before the place of accident if it had been at a speed mentioned by the witnesses of the respondents. Ram Kumar had witnessed the occurrence by standing in front of the office gate which happened to be right in front of the place where the accident took place and, therefore, was in a position to witness the occurrence. He cannot be said to be a chance witness. Radhey Shyam fully corroborated the version given by Ram Kumar. Radhey Shyam, who was a passenger in the bus, had corroborated his statement on all material points except regarding the distance at which the bus had stopped after accident. According to Radhey Sham, the bus stopped at a distance of 20 yards. The Tribunal otherwise accepted their presence.

9. Now coming to the witnesses of the respondents, it may be observed that the conductor and driver of the bus were both interested witnesses and they were, of course, interested to give a version favourable to themselves. The only allegedly independent witness R.W 2 Ram Pat admitted the fact that he was not examined by the police. If he had witnessed the occurrence and if that fact had been known to other respondents then he was bound to be examined by the police. Neither R.W 1 Karan Singh Conductor nor the driver himself in their statements have stated that the occurrence had been witnessed by R.W 2 Ram Pat. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept that this witness had witnessed the occurence and was a passenger in the bus at the time of accident. The version that there was a truck ahead of the scooter was not put to Ram Kumar as already observed. P.W 7 Radhey Sham denied that version when it was put to him. R.W 1 Daya Nand and R.W 3 Karan Singh cannot be believed in this regard. They were bound to put up some such version.

10. For the aforementioned reasons I hold that the offending bus was driven rashly and negligently and the driver of the bus-alone was responsible for the accident that took place in which a well placed young man lost his life.

11. The other issues mere not contested either before the Tribunal or here. The only other material fact that has been contested relates to the quntum of damages. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased was drawing Rs. 971.70 per month as his salary as Assistant Agriculture Development Officer in the department of agriculture, Haryana Government. There is also no dispute about his age which was 26 years.

12. Mr. Gandhi has argued that at the best the deceased might have been spending upon himself about Rs. 271.00 or Rs. 272.00 exclusively having regard to the fact that some of the expences like the expenditure on the living accommodation and on boarding would be common with other members of the family. The net loss to the claimants, therefore, comes to Rs. 700/- per month which would include some saving and the actual amount spent on the claimants which amount has been put at about Rs. 600/- by Sushila Devi appearing as P.W 5. The net loss thus to the claimants comes to Rs. 8400/- yearly. There is controvery in this Court as to the multiplier that should be applied to a case like this. A Full Bench of this court in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur . 1979 81 PLR 1. had fixed the maximum multiplier of 16. This was diluted in a latter judgment Asha Rani v. Union of India . 1982 84 PLR 486. wherein basing on Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhairagarh, Bhopal v. Sudhakar . 1977 A.C.J 290., it was observed that the multiplier could go upto 20. R.N Mittal, J in Tehil Singh v. Jaswant Singh . 1985 A.C.J 94., adopted the multiplier of 16 in the case of the deceased who was 26 years old. G.C Mital, J. in a latter case reported as Rajinder Singh Jasbir Singh v. Urmil . 1986-1 89 PLR 647., adopted the multiplier of 20 in the case of the deceased who was 25 years old. In Mrs. Pushpa Sharma widow of Jagdish Kumar Sharma v. Punjab State through Secretary, Transport Govt. of Punjab . 1986-1 89 PLR 495., D.V Sehgal, J. adopted a multiplier of 18 for a deceased aged 35 years.

13. Neither the Full Bench which for the first time floated in this Court the theory of multiplier has given any scientific basis for arriving at a correct multiplier in a given case nor any concrete formula had been spelt out in any other decision following the Full Bench judgment. The result is that it remained a rule of thumb. Judicial precedents however show a tendency towards liberality in adopting the appropriate multiplier. Therefore, I am of the view that in view of young age of the deceased and the fact that he was employed as an officer with a bright future in the Government service, multiple of 20 would be very appropriate in this case. I therefore, award damages to the tune of Rs. 1,68,000/- to be paid by respondent No. 2 to 4 jontly and severally with 12 per cent insterest from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The amount of damages shall be shared by the two claimants equally. The share of the child shall be deposited in fixed deposit renewable upto the age of 18 years. The interest accruing on that amount shall be paid to the widow in order to spend the same upon his bringing up. Since in this case the appellant had paid court fee before the Tribunal so the appeal is allowed with costs throughout.