Delhi District Court
Smt. Suman Devi vs Ajit Pandit & Ors on 19 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJLI GOEL, PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No.153/15
Date of Institution: 30.11.2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Smt. Suman Devi
W/o Late Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Anokhe
2. Shanu
S/o Late Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Anokhe
3. Aditya
S/o Late Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Anokhe
4. Deep Sikha
D/o Late Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Anokhe
5. Dev Kumar
S/o Late Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Anokhe
6. Indu
D/o Late Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Anokhe
(Petitioners No.2 to 6 being minor
represented through their legal guardian/
mother i.e. petitioner No.1)
7. Smt. Launga
All R/o 289/3, Vikram Vihar
Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantt.
Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 1 of 26
Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
New Delhi 110010. ....Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Ajeet Pandit
S/o Shri Johari Pandit
R/o H.No.C26, Nangli Dairy
Najafgarh
New Delhi 110043.
2. Shri Shri Bhagwan
S/o Shri Bhim Singh
R/o Village & P.O. Shahbad Mohammadpur
New Delhi 110061.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
ICICI Lombard House
414, Veer Savarkar Marg
Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple
Prabhadevi
Mumbai 400025. ...Respondents
Final Arguments heard : 21.12.2015 Award reserved for : 19.01.2016 Date of Award : 19.01.2016 AWARD
1. Vide this judgmentcumaward, I proceed to decide the petition filed u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended uptodate (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of compensation in a road accident.
Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 2 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 06/07.04.2015 at about 00:23 hrs, the deceased namely Late Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Anokhe S/o Late Shri Makhan, aged about 32 years was going on his cycle along with some other relatives who were also on their cycles and the cycle was run by the deceased as per manner and in normal speed and on proper way and correct side of the road. The deceased was going from Shankar Vihar Service Road to his residence and when the deceased reached at Service Road NH8, near Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi then all of a sudden one vehicle bearing No.DL1LT3834 (Taxi) came in high speed from the side of Mahipalpur, New Delhi which was driven by the respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and in contravention of rules of traffic and came in fast speed without blowing any horn and without giving any indicator and hit the cycle of the deceased along with other cyclist with very great force. Due to the forceful impact the deceased fell down on the road along with the cycle and received fatal injuries and the deceased was removed to Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi where the doctors declared him brought dead and post mortem was conducted. It is contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident in rash and negligent manner and due to his act two innocent persons became the victims of the same. It is stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.168/15 under sections 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. It is averred that Rs. 50,000/ were spent on last rites and funeral expenses of the deceased.
Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 3 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
3. It is submitted that due to the accident the deceased died a suddenly and untimely death and due to the death of the deceased the petitioners had lost one great source of income. The deceased was the only one person who was earning for the petitioners. The deceased had left behind him the petitioner No.1 who is his widow and three minor sons and two minor daughters and an old aged mother. The petitioners were fully dependent upon the income of the deceased and he was the only one person who looked after all the family but due to the accident there was no person to look after the petitioners. It is averred that all the hopes and expectations of the petitioners were shattered due to the sudden and untimely death of the deceased. At the time of the accident the deceased was aged about 32 years and he was having good health and peace of mind and if he had not died in the accident then he would have lived upto 90 years of age as there was history of longevity of life in the family of the deceased. It is contended that due to the sudden and unnatural death of the deceased the petitioners suffered from mental pain and agony, loss of shelter, loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, loss of present and future prospects, loss of income, loss of works, loss of enjoyment, loss of social activities, loss of general and specific damages etc. It is submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was doing private service and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month which was the complete income to run the family expenses of the petitioners but due to the accident the petitioners had lost the only source of income for always and were facing great financial and other problems etc. It is stated that at the time of the Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 4 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
accident, the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle under whose control and supervision the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and in contravention of rules and regulations and respondent No.3 is the insurance company of the offending vehicle, therefore all the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners jointly and severally as per law. It is prayed that an amount of Rs.80,00,000/ be awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
4. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 taking the preliminary objections that the petitioners had not come before the court with clean hands and they had tried to mislead the court by giving wrong facts about the occurrence of the accident. It is averred that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 and he had been falsely implicated in the criminal case and a false FIR had been registered against the respondent No.1. The averments made were denied. It is contended that a false criminal case had been registered against the respondent No.1 with the connivance of the petitioners and the local police. It is submitted that the allegations made by the petitioners are totally false and without any base. It is averred that the alleged offending vehicle was registered in the name of the respondent No.2 and was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and the respondent No.1 was having a Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 5 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
valid driving license.
5. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 taking the preliminary objections that the claim petition is vague, incomplete and does not disclose any cause of action. It is alleged that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of the deceased. It is submitted that in case it is found that the respondent No.1 was not holding a legal, valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident, the respondent No.3 would not be liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners nor if it was found that the respondent No.2 had not obtained route permit and fitness certificate from the concerned transport authority at the time of the alleged accident. It is contended that no accident took place involving the alleged offending vehicle bearing No.DL1T3834 and the petitioners had falsely implicated the respondents in the case. It is stated that the contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and if the insured wants to take the benefit of the contract of insurance, then he shall have to prove that the alleged offending vehicle was not being driven in contravention of insurance policy, the driver on the wheel of the alleged offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective license at the time of the alleged accident, the vehicle was being driven under valid permit covering the place and date of the alleged accident, use of vehicle under general conditions of permit and if the respondent No.2 failed to prove the same then no liability could be fastened upon the respondent No.3. It is stated that the accident, if any occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased who was riding a Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 6 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
bicycle in a careless manner and violated the traffic rules and regulations in contravention of M.V. Act. The averments made in the claim petition were denied. It is admitted that the vehicle bearing No.DL1T3834 was insured in the name of Shri Bhagwan bearing policy No.3004/A/132429140/00/000 valid from 23.12.2014 to 22.12.2015. It is submitted that the amount that has been claimed by the petitioners has not been justified as per the averments in the petition. It is denied that the accident took place on 06/07.04.2015 at about 00:23 hrs in the manner as alleged and it is averred that the alleged accident took place due to the carelessness and negligence of the deceased. It is denied that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the alleged offending vehicle by the respondent No.1.
6. Initially Detailed Accident Report was filed by the IO on 12.10.2015 and thereafter the claim petition was filed on 30.11.2015. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 30.11.2015:
1. Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 06/07.04.2015 at about 00:23 hrs at Service Road, NH8, Near Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL1T3834 driven by the respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP
2. Whether the LRs of the deceased are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 7 of 26
Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
3.Relief.
7. On behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 Smt. Suman Devi appeared in the witness box as PW1 and led her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. She stated that the father of the deceased had already died before the accident.
She stated that there was no one to look after her minor children and make their future and career. PM report is Ex.PW1/1, the MLC of the deceased is Ex.PW1/2, ID proof of the petitioners are Ex.PW1/3 (colly) and DAR is Ex.PW1/4. PE was closed on 21.12.2015.
8. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 and perused the record. The petitioner No.1 was also examined on 21.12.2015 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on 11.1.2013 in MACA No.792/2006 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranjit Pandey and Ors.
9. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
Issue No. 1
10. As the petition has been filed U/s 166 M.V Act it was incumbent upon the petitioners to prove that the deceased sustained injuries in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 8 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
vehicle. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle it has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pushpa Rana & Another 2009 Accident Claims Journal 287 as follows:
"The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents/claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Meena Variyal (supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of offending vehicle (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver;
(iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of deceased.
These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on part of the driver."
It is established law that in a claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act, the standard of proof to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is not at par with the criminal case where such rashness and negligence is required to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. In Kaushnamma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Company Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 9 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
Limited, it was inter alia held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injury or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
11. The case of the petitioners is that on 06/07.04.2015 at about 00:23 hrs, the deceased namely Late Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Anokhe S/o Late Shri Makhan, aged about 32 years was going on his cycle along with some other relatives who were also on their cycles and the cycle was run by the deceased as per manner and in normal speed and on proper way and correct side of the road. The deceased was going from Shankar Vihar Service Road to his residence and when the deceased reached at Service Road NH8, near Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi then all of a sudden one vehicle bearing No.DL1LT3834 (Taxi) came in high speed from the side of Mahipalpur, New Delhi which was driven by the respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and in contravention of rules of traffic and came in fast speed without blowing any horn and without giving any indicator and hit the cycle of the deceased along with other cyclist with very great force. Due to the forceful impact the deceased fell down on the road along with the cycle and received fatal injuries and the deceased was removed to Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi where the doctors declared him brought dead and Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 10 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
post mortem was conducted. It was contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident in rash and negligent manner and due to his act two innocent persons became the victims of the same. It was stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.168/15 under sections 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. The petitioner No.1 in paras 3 and 4 of her affidavit had reiterated the mode and manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition.
12. The IO had filed Detailed Accident Report containing the criminal record consisting of copy of charge sheet; copy of tehrir, copy of FIR; copy of site plan; copy of DD, copy of arrest memo and personal search memo, copy of seizure memos; copy of MLC and post mortem report, copy of mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, copy of notice under section 133 MV Act, copy of verification report of the RC of the offending vehicle with the copy of the RC, copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle and its verification report and verification report of DL of the respondent No.1 with a copy of the DL, copy of badge of the respondent No.1 with its verification report, copy of certificate of fitness in respect of the offending vehicle, copy of permit in respect of the offending vehicle, copy of identification statement of the dead body, copy of order on application for release of the offending vehicle on superdari along with copy of superdarinama, copies of documents in respect of the petitioners and copies of photographs. As per the FIR No.168/15 Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 11 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
under sections 279/337 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt. the case was registered on the basis of complaint of SI G.R. Meena (on DD). As per the charge sheet the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under sections 279/338/304A IPC.
13. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed the written statement averring that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 and he had been falsely implicated in the criminal case and a false FIR had been registered against the respondent No.1. It was contended that a false criminal case had been registered against the respondent No.1 with the connivance of the petitioners and the local police. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 stated that she was not an eye witness to the accident. She stated that she was informed about the accident by her nephew. She denied the suggestion that the documents filed by her were forged and fabricated. She denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to sole negligence of her deceased husband. Thus PW1 stated that she was not an eye witness to the accident and she was informed about the accident by her nephew.
14. It would be argued on behalf of the respondent No.3 that PW1 was not an eye witness to the accident and the petitioners had not produced any evidence to prove the negligence of the respondent No.1 and as such the petitioners had failed to establish the negligence of the respondent No.1.
Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 12 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
However the respondents No.1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have not adduced any evidence to dispute the version put forth by the petitioners or in the criminal record. The criminal record has been placed on record which shows that the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 279/338/304A. In Basant Kaur and others v. Chattar Pal Singh and others 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB) it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident. The respondents have also not led any evidence to prove any other version of the accident. The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle shows from the left side front the body and roof were damaged and front glass was broken, left side headlight and indicator were broken and front bumper left side and number plate were damaged. Further the offending vehicle was found at the spot of the accident. As such the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident cannot be disputed. There is no evidence from the respondents to disprove the particulars of the accident or the involvement of vehicle No.DL1T3834. In view of the testimony of PW1 and the documents on record which have remained unrebutted, the negligence of the respondent No.1 has been prima facie proved.
15. It was stated that due to the accident the deceased fell down on the road along with the cycle and received fatal injuries and the deceased was Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 13 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
removed to Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi where the doctors declared him brought dead and post mortem was conducted. The post mortem report of the deceased is on record as per which the cause of death was cumulative effect of head injury and blunt injury to abdomen which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature, all injuries were of ante mortem origin caused by blunt force impact and could be possible in the alleged manner i.e. road traffic accident. Thus it stands established that the deceased had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Issue No.2
16. Since issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioners, they would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased being his wife and children and mother. PW1 was crossexamined on the point of dependency and during crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 stated that she was illiterate. She had three daughters namely Shanu aged 13 years, Deepshikha aged about 6 years and Indu aged 5 years and two sons namely Aaditya aged about 10 years and Dev aged about 6 years. All of them were studying in school. She admitted that she had not brought any document to show that her children were studying in school volunteered school Icard of Deepshika and Shanu were on record. She stated Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 14 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
that she was 30 years old. Her marriage was solemnized 15 years prior at her native place. She did not have any document to show that her mother in law was residing with her after the accident. Before the accident she was residing at their native place in Badayu, U.P. She denied the suggestion that her mother in law was not financially dependent upon the deceased. Thus PW1 stated that all her children were studying in school though she she had not brought any document to show that her children were studying in school although the school Icard of Deepshika and Shanu were on record. She did not have any document to show that her mother in law was residing with her after the accident and in fact she stated that before the accident she was residing at their native place in Badayu, U.P. However nothing much would turn on the same.
17. During examination by the Tribunal, the petitioner No.1 Smt. Suman Devi stated that she was 30 years old. She stated that she had five children namely Shanu aged about 13 years, Aditya aged about 10 years, Deep Shikha aged about 6 years, Dev Kumar aged about 4 years and Indu aged about 5 years. She stated that her father in law had already expired. Being the wife, the petitioner No.1 would be regarded as dependent on the deceased as also the petitioners No.2 to 6 being minor children. Being the mother the petitioner No.7 would also be regarded as dependent on the deceased. Accordingly all the petitioners would be regarded as dependent on the deceased.
Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 15 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
18. The petitioners have claimed loss of dependency on the basis that at the time of the accident, the deceased was doing private service and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month which was the complete income to run the family expenses of the petitioners but due to the accident the petitioners had lost the only source of income for always and were facing great financial and other problems etc. It was submitted that due to the accident the deceased died a suddenly and untimely death and due to the death of the deceased the petitioners had lost one great source of income. The deceased was the only one person who was earning for the petitioners. The petitioners were fully dependent upon the income of the deceased and he was the only one person who looked after all the family but due to the accident there was no person to look after the petitioners. It was averred that all the hopes and expectations of the petitioners were shattered due to the sudden and untimely death of the deceased. At the time of the accident the deceased was aged about 32 years and he was having good health and peace of mind and if he had not died in the accident then he would have lived upto 90 years of age as there was history of longevity of life in the family of the deceased. It was contended that due to the sudden and unnatural death of the deceased the petitioners suffered from mental pain and agony, loss of shelter, loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, loss of present and future prospects, loss of income, loss of works, loss of enjoyment, loss of social activities, loss of general and specific damages etc. The petitioner No.1 in paras 5 to 7 of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. However the petitioners have not placed Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 16 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
on record any document to show what the deceased was doing or how much amount he was earning.
19. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 stated that her deceased husband had studied upto class 5th. She stated that her deceased husband used to work in a parlour and was earning Rs.1415,000/ per month. She admitted that she had not filed any document to show the educational qualification, income and occupation of the deceased. She denied the suggestion that the deceased was neither working nor earning Rs.1415,000/ at the time of the accident. Thus PW1 stated that her deceased husband had studied upto class 5th but no document to show the educational qualification has been placed on record. She stated that her deceased husband used to work in a parlour and was earning Rs.1415,000/ per month but again no document has been placed on record to show the same and it is not even stated where the deceased was working and no witness has been produced from the said parlour who could depose about the income of the deceased. PW1 herself admitted that she had not filed any document to show the educational qualification, income and occupation of the deceased. There is also nothing to show that the deceased had acquired any skill. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the income of the deceased would have to be computed on the basis of minimum wages for an unskilled worker prevalent on the date of the accident i.e. 6/7.4.2015 which were Rs.9,048/ per month. Thus the income of the deceased for computation Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 17 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
of loss of dependency is taken as Rs.9,048/ per month.
20. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of the accident and it was so stated in the claim petition and PW1 had also deposed to that effect. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 stated that her deceased husband was 32 years old. She had not brought any document to show the age of her husband at the time of the accident. No document has been placed on record to show the age of the deceased. As per the post mortem report the age of the deceased was 32 years and as such the age of the deceased would be taken as 32 years on the date of the accident. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) the multiplier of 16 applies for calculating the loss of income where the age of the deceased is 31 to 35 years.
21. As observed above the dependents on the deceased are his wife, five children and mother. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case as there were seven dependents there would be 1/5th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. As regards the future prospects a 3judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others Civil Appeal No.4497 of 2015 decided on 15.5.2015 has relied on the judgment in Rajesh and Ors. v Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 18 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
563 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under (in the case decided on 15.5.2015 the question was of grant of future prospects to selfemployed victim below 40 years):
"11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years."
12.In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those selfemployed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter."
As such the petitioners would be entitled to addition of 50% of the actual income towards future prospects as the deceased was less than 40 years old.
Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 19 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
Accordingly the loss of dependency as per the monthly income i.e. Rs.9,048/ is calculated as under :
Rs.9,048/ X 12 (annual) = Rs.1,08,576/ - Rs.21,715/ approximately (i.e. 1/5th towards personal expenses) = Rs.86,861/ + Rs.43,430.5 (50% towards future prospects) = Rs.1,30,291.5 X 16 (multiplier) = Rs.
20,84,664/ rounded off to Rs.20,85,000/.
22. The petitioners are also entitled to compensation for loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. It was stated that Rs.50,000/ were spent on the last rites and funeral expenses of the deceased. However there is nothing to show the same.
The total compensation is determined as under:
Loss of dependency : Rs.20,85,000/
Love and affection : Rs.1,00,000/
Loss of Consortium : Rs.1,00,000/
Loss of Estate : Rs.10,000/
Funeral expenses : Rs.25,000/
Total : Rs.23,20,000/
Thus, the total compensation would amount to Rs.23,20,000/.
Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 20 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors. RELIEF
24. The petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs.23,20,000/ (Rs.Twenty Three Lacs Twenty Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realization including, interim award, if any already passed against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Shanu, Aditya, Deep Shikha, Dev Kumar and Indu would be entitled to 10% share each in the awarded amount. The petitioner No.7 Smt. Launga would also be entitled to 10% share and the petitioner No.1 Smt. Suman Devi would be entitled to 40% share in the awarded amount.
25. For safeguarding the compensation amount from being frittered away by the claimants, directions have been given by Hon'ble Supreme Court for preserving the award amount in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 607. In view of the directions contained in the above judgment the award amount is to be disbursed as follows:
a) The entire share of the petitioner No.7 be released to her by transferring it into her savings account in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court; the entire share of the petitioners No.2 to 6 be kept in FDR in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court till they attain majority and for a period of 2 years thereafter; 20% of the share Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 21 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
of the petitioner No.1 be released to her by transferring it into her savings account and the remaining amount out of her share be kept in FDRs in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the following manner:
1. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of one year.
2. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of two years.
3. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of three years.
4. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of four years.
5. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of five years.
6. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of six years.
7. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of seven years.
8. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of eight years.
b) The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the amount directly by way of crossed cheque in terms of the above order in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the name of UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi A/c Smt. Suman Devi, Shanu, Aditya, Deep Shikha, Dev Kumar, Indu and Smt. Launga within 30 days of the passing of the award.
c) Cheque be deposited within thirty days herefrom under intimation to the petitioners. In case of default, the respondent No.3 shall be liable to pay further interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay.
Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 22 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
d) On the deposit of the award amount, the Branch Manager of UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi is directed to prepare Fixed Deposit Receipts as ordered above and the balance amount be released.
e) The interest on the fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the savings account of the petitioner No.1.
f) The withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the petitioner No.1 after due verification and the bank shall issue photo identity card to the petitioner No.1 to facilitate her identity.
g) No cheque book shall be issued to the petitioner No.1 without the permission of the court.
h) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the petitioner No.1 along with the photocopy of the fixed deposit receipts. Upon the expiry of period of FDR the bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in the saving account of the beneficiary.
i) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to the petitioner No.1 on the expiry of the period of the fixed deposit receipts.
Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 23 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
j) No loan, advance, or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without the permission of the court.
k) On the request of the petitioners, the bank shall transfer the saving account to any other branch/bank, according to the convenience of the petitioners.
l) The petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the saving bank account and Fixed Deposit to Senior Manager of UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
26. The petitioners shall file two sets of photographs along with their specimen signatures, out of which one set to be sent to the Nodal Officer, UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi along with copy of the award by Nazir and the second set be retained to the court for further reference. The photographs be stamped and sent to the bank. The petitioners shall also file the proof of residence and furnish the details of the bank account with the Nazir within a week. The petitioners shall file their complete address as well as address of their counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
27. The respondent No.1 is the driver, the respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Thus all the Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 24 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
respondents are held jointly and severally liable. No evidence has been led on behalf of the insurance company. The respondent No.3 i.e. ICICIC Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. being the insurer in its reply had admitted that the vehicle bearing No.DL1T3834 was insured in the name of Shri Bhagwan bearing policy No.3004/A/132429140/00/000 valid from 23.12.2014 to 22.12.2015. The respondent No.3 has not led any evidence to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of the policy by the respondents No.1 and 2 and in fact the duly verified documents in respect of the offending vehicle were placed on record with the DAR. Accordingly the respondent No.3 being the insurer in respect of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the award amount in the bank account of the claimants in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi within 30 days of the passing of the award with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing the DAR till its realization failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
28. Nazir to report in case the cheque is not deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award/judgment. Nazir is directed to note the particulars of the award amount in the register today itself. The respondent No.3 shall deposit the award amount along with interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimants with a copy to their counsel and the compliance report shall be filed in the court along with proof of deposit of award amount, the notice of deposit and the calculation of interest on 18.4.2016.
Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 25 of 26 Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.
An attested copy of the award be given to the parties (free of cost) and a copy be also sent to the Nodal Officer, UCO Bank, Patiala House and to the concerned court and to Learned Secretary, NDDLSA.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court
on this 19th day of January, 2016 (GEETANJLI GOEL)
PO: MACT2
New Delhi
Suit No. 153/15 Page no. 26 of 26
Suman Devi Vs Ajit Pandit & Ors.