Delhi District Court
Smt. Savita Devi W/O Sh. Hari Kishan @ ... vs Smt. Nirmal Kumar W/O Sh. Lalit on 28 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARVIND KUMAR: PRESIDING OFFICER MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0036232010
1. Smt. Savita Devi W/o Sh. Hari Kishan @ Hari Ram Sharma aged 46 years
2. Sh. Hari Kishan @ Hari Ram Sharma
S/o Lt. Sh. Prahlad Datt aged 53 years
Both R/o H. No. C-33A, Gali No. 7, Brahampuri, Delhi-110053
... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Smt. Nirmal Kumar W/o Sh. Lalit
R/o H. No. 12K, Durga Gali No. 2, Maujpur, Delhi-53
Also at : Throguh S.H.O. (P.S. Jyoti Nagar), Delhi Owner
2. The Oriental General Insurance Company Ltd.
At Off. A-25/27, Oriental Bhawan,
Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-2 Insurance Company
... Respondents
Presented on : 06.02.2012
Reserved for judgment : 28.02.2012
Judgment delivered on : 28.02.2012
M.A.C. Petition No: 623/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0038082010
1. Smt. Niru Aggarwal
W/o Lt. Sh. Deepak Aggarwal @ Deepak Garg aged 21 years
2. Smt. Mithlesh Aggarwal W/o Sh. Rajender Aggarwal, aged 50 years
3. Sh. Rajender Aggarwal S/o Lt. Sh. Raghubar Aggarwal, aged 54 years
4. Baby Jhalak Aggarwal D/o Lt. Sh. Deepak Aggarwal @ Deepak Garg aged 3 years
5. Master Vivek Aggarwal S/o Lt. Sh. Deepak Aggarwal @ Deepak Garg aged 2 years All R/o H. No. C-39, Gali No. 7, Brahampuri, Delhi-110053 (Petitioner no. 4 and 5 being minor so filing their petition through their natural guardian / next friend / mother Smt. Niru Aggarwal) .... Petitioners VERSUS
1. Smt. Nirmal Kumar W/o Sh. Lalit R/o H. No. 12K, Durga Gali No. 2, Maujpur, Delhi-53 Also at : Throguh S.H.O. (P.S. Jyoti Nagar), Delhi Owner M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 1/38
2. The Oriental General Insurance Company Ltd.
At Off. A-25/27, Oriental Bhawan,
Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-2 Insurance Company
... Respondents
Presented on : 09.02.2012
Reserved for judgment : 28.02.2012
Judgment delivered on : 28.02.2012
M.A.C. Petition No: 624/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0036252010
1. Smt. Kushum Devi W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar, aged 36 years, Mother
2. Sh. Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Dhori Mal, aged 38 years, Father
3. Master Nishu, S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar, aged 16 years, Brother
4. Ms. Pinki D/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar, aged 20 years, sister All R/o H. No. C-29, Gali No. 7, Brahampuri, Delhi-110053 (Petitioner no. 3 being minor so filing his petition through his natural guardian / next friend/ mother Smt. Kushum Devi) ... Petitioners VERSUS
1. Smt. Nirmal Kumar W/o Sh. Lalit R/o H. No. 12K, Durga Gali No. 2, Maujpur, Delhi-53 Also at : Throguh S.H.O. (P.S. Jyoti Nagar), Delhi Owner
2. The Oriental General Insurance Company Ltd.
At Off. A-25/27, Oriental Bhawan,
Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-2 Insurance Company
... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 625/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0037212010
Sh. Parvesh Jain S/o Sh. Surender Kumar Jain aged 24 years R/o H. No. 338, Gali No. 1, Nand Ram Mohalla, Brahampuri, Delhi-110053 ... Petitioner VERSUS
1. Smt. Nirmal Kumar W/o Sh. Lalit R/o H. No. 12K, Durga Gali No. 2, Maujpur, Delhi-53 Also at : Throguh S.H.O. (P.S. Jyoti Nagar), Delhi Owner
2. The Oriental General Insurance Company Ltd.
At Off. A-25/27, Oriental Bhawan,
Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-2 Insurance Company
... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 626/10
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 2/38
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0036242010
Sh. Ganesh Sharma S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sharma, aged 20 years R/o H. No. C-37, Gali No. 7, Brahampuri, Delhi-110053 ... Petitioner VERSUS
1. Smt. Nirmal Kumar W/o Sh. Lalit R/o H. No. 12K, Durga Gali No. 2, Maujpur, Delhi-53 Also at : Throguh S.H.O. (P.S. Jyoti Nagar), Delhi Owner
2. The Oriental General Insurance Company Ltd.
At Off. A-25/27, Oriental Bhawan,
Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-2 Insurance Company
... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 627/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0036272010
1. Smt. Bhramwati W/o Sh. Om Narain Bhati, aged 46 years, mother
2. Sh. Om Narain Bhati S/o Lt. Sh. Prithvi Singh, aged 49 years, Father Both R/o H. No. C-372, Nand Ram Mohalla, Gali No. 1, Brahampuri, Delhi-110053 ... Petitioners VERSUS
1. Smt. Nirmal Kumar W/o Sh. Lalit R/o H. No. 12K, Durga Gali No. 2, Maujpur, Delhi-53 Also at : Throguh S.H.O. (P.S. Jyoti Nagar), Delhi Owner
2. The Oriental General Insurance Company Ltd.
At Off. A-25/27, Oriental Bhawan,
Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-2 Insurance Company
... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 628/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0036262010
1. Smt. Parvin W/o Lt. Sh. Narender Kumar, aged 48 years, Mother
2. Sh. Anil, S/o Lt. Sh. Narender Kumar, aged 25 years, Brother R/o H. No. C-35, Gali No. 7, Brahampuri, Delhi-110053 ... Petitioners VERSUS
1. Smt. Nirmal Kumar W/o Sh. Lalit R/o H. No. 12K, Durga Gali No. 2, Maujpur, Delhi-53 Also at : Throguh S.H.O. (P.S. Jyoti Nagar), Delhi Owner
2. The Oriental General Insurance Company Ltd.
At Off. A-25/27, Oriental Bhawan,
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 3/38
Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-2 Insurance Company
... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 629/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0036282010
Sh. Govind Sharma S/o Lt. Sh. Prahlad Datt, aged 53 years, Father Both R/o C-33A, Gali No. 7, Brahampuri, Delhi-110053 ... Petitioner VERSUS
1. Smt. Nirmal Kumar W/o Sh. Lalit R/o H. No. 12K, Durga Gali No. 2, Maujpur, Delhi-53 Also at : Throguh S.H.O. (P.S. Jyoti Nagar), Delhi Owner
2. The Oriental General Insurance Company Ltd.
At Off. A-25/27, Oriental Bhawan,
Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-2 Insurance Company
... Respondents
Presented on : 06.02.2012
Reserved for judgment : 28.02.2012
Judgment delivered on : 28.02.2012
M.A.C. Petition No: 631/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0071912010
1. Smt. Ravita W/o Lt. Sh. Sushil Garg, aged 21 years, Wife
2. Smt. Raj Wati W/o Lt. Sh. Ram Niwas, Aged 50 years, Mohter
3. Master Vivek S/o Lt. Sh. Sushil Garg, aged 7 years, Son
4. Master Yash S/o Lt. Sh. Sushil Garg, aged 3 years, Son All R/o H. No. 9/372, Gali No. 9, Mandoli Extn., Delhi-110093 (Petitioner no.3 and 4 being minor so filing their petition through their natural guardian/ next friend/ Mother Smt. Ravita) ... Petitioners VERSUS
1. Smt. Nirmal Kumar W/o Sh. Lalit R/o H. No. 12K, Durga Gali No. 2, Maujpur, Delhi-53 Also at : Throguh S.H.O. (P.S. Jyoti Nagar), Delhi Owner
2. The Oriental General Insurance Company Ltd.
At Off. A-25/27, Oriental Bhawan,
Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-2 Insurance Company
Presented on : 16.03.2010
Reserved for judgment : 28.02.2012
Judgment delivered on : 28.02.2012
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 4/38
JUDG MENT
1. By a common judgment, I am disposing of these nine petitions as the claims are arising from the same accident involving the same vehicle.
2. The brief facts, as stated by petitioners, are that on 12.01.2010, Sh. Nitin Sharma(the deceased), Sh. Yakshit Sharma @ Jhonny(the deceased), Sh. Deepak Aggarwal @ Deepak Garg(the deceased), Sh. Sonu Kumar @ Pawan(the deceased), Sh. Shailesh Bhati(the deceased), Sh. Gajender @ Appay (the deceased), Sh. Parvesh Jain (petitioner in petition no. 625/10) and Sh. Ganesh Sharma (petitioner in petition no. 626/10) were going in the vehicle no. DL-7CC-6848 (Mahendra Scorpio) and one Sh. Sushil Garg (the deceased) was driving the vehicle rashly, negligently and at high speed in the hill area although he was warned by the passengers to be careful and drive slowly in the hilly area but ignoring all the warnings he continued to drive in a dangerous manner and when they reached ahead of Ghumwarni, Dadhol Village, PS Bharai, Distt. Bilaspur Himanchal Pradesh, the driver lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle fell into Gorge at Dhadhol Village near Ghumarvin. As a result, Sh. Nitin Sharma(the deceased), Sh. Yakshit Sharma @ Jhonny(the deceased), Sh. Deepak Aggarwal @ Deepak Garg(the deceased), Sh. Sonu Kumar @ Pawan(the deceased), Sh. Shailesh Bhati(the deceased), Sh. Gajender @ Appay (the deceased) died and were taken to Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, Himanchal Pradesh and postmortem was conducted and Sh. Parvesh Jain and Sh. Ganesh Sharma suffered injuries and were taken to Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, Himanchal Pradesh. An FIR no. 07/10 u/s 279/338/304A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle Sh. Sushil Garg.
3. Petitioners in petition no. 621/10, put up a claim for Rs.
40,00,000/-( Rs. Forty Lacs) towards the death of Sh. Yakshit Sharma @ Jhonny. The petitioners stated that deceased Sh. Yakshit Sharma was 22 M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 5/38 years of age and was working as a Finance Executive in M/s Win Medicare Private Ltd. at MZ-7, Modi Tower, 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 and was earning Rs. 8500/- per month. The petitioner no. 1 is the mother of the deceased and the petitioner no. 2 is the father of the deceased.
4. Petitioners in petition no. 623/10, put up a claim for Rs.
40,00,000/- (Rs. Forty Lacs) towards the death of Sh. Deepak Aggarwal @ Deepak Garg. The petitioners stated that deceased Sh. Deepak Aggarwal was 26 years of age and was working as a Govt. Contractor of Electrical Fittings and was earning Rs. 2,50,000/- per annum. The petitioner no. 1 is the wife, petitioner no. 2 is the mother, petitioner no. 3 is the father and petitioner no. 4 and 5 are the minor daughter and son of the deceased.
5. Petitioners in petition no. 624/10, put up a claim for Rs.
40,00,000/- (Rs. Forty Lacs) towards the death of Sh. Sonu Kumar @ Pawan. The petitioners stated that deceased Sh. Sonu Kumar was 21 years of age and was working as a Sales Executive plus Promoter in M/s Double Diamond Tea Company at C-10, Parparganj Industrial Area, Delhi and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The petitioner no. 1 is the mother, petitioner no. 2 is the father, petitioner 3 is the minor brother and petitioner no. 4 is the minor sister of the deceased.
6. Petitioner in petition no. 625/10, put up a claim for Rs. 5,00,000/-
(Rs. Five Lacs) towards the injuries sustained by him. The petitioner stated that he suffered injuries and was taken to Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, Himanchal Pradesh on 12.01.2010 but as his condition was serious he was shifted to LBS hospital on 13.01.2010 and two operations were performed and he was discharged on 18.01.2010. Petitioner stated that he suffered crush injury on head, composite communited fracture of both bones of forearm of right hand and fracture of ulna styloid right arm, communited fracture soapoid and ragilunate dislocation right hand, fracture of nasal bone besides other injuries. It is stated that petitioner was working as a Supervisor and was earning Rs. 6000/- per month.
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 6/387. The petitioner, in petition no. 626/10, put up a claim for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) towards the injuries sustained by him. The petitioner stated that after the accident he was taken to Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, Himanchal Pradesh on 12.01.2010 but as his condition was serious he was shifted to Centre for Comprehensive Health Care hospital on 14.01.2010 and there, two operations were done and he was discharged after treatment. It is stated that petitioner suffered crush injury of head besides other grievous injuries. It is stated that petitioner spent Rs. 50,000 on treatment, Rs. 25,000/- on conveyance and Rs. 15,000/- on special diet. It is stated that petitioner was working as Supervisor in M/s Today's Tea at 118, Parparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-92 and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month.
8. Petitioners in petition 627/10, put up a claim for Rs. 40,00,000/-
(Rs. Forty Lacs) towards the death of Sh. Shailesh Bhati. The petitioners stated that Sh. Shailesh Bhati was 26 years of age and was a student of BCA Course (5th semester) at Modern College of Professional Studies, Anand Industrial Area, Mohan Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and was also taking tuitions of 10th and 12th standard students and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Petitioner no. 1 is the mother and petitioner no. 2 is the father of the deceased.
9. The petitioners in petition no. 628/10, put up a claim for Rs.
40,00,000/- (Rs. Forty Lacs) towards the death of Sh. Gajender @ Appay. The petitioners stated that deceased Sh. Gajender @ Appy was 24 years of age and was working as a Sales Executive in M/s Reliance Communications at C6/112, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. It is also stated that petitioner no. 1 was the mother of the deceased and 2 and 3 were the brothers of the deceased.
10. The petitioners in petition no. 629/10, put up a claim for Rs.
40,00,000/- (Rs. Forty Lacs) towards the death of Sh. Nitin Sharma. The M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 7/38 petitioners stated that deceased Sh. Nitin Sharma, the deceased was 26 years of age and was employed in M/s Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd. as Sales Executive and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is also stated that petitioner no. 1 was the mother and petitioner no. 2 was the father of the deceased.
11. The petitioners in petition no. 631/10 filed petition u/s 163-A of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs) towards the death of Sh. Sushil Garg. The petitioners stated that deceased Sh. Sushil Garg was working as a driver and was earning Rs. 3,300/- per month or Rs. 40,000/- per annum from his work and he left behind his wife, petitioner no. 1, his mother, petitioner no. 2 and minor sons petitioner no. 3 and 4. It is stated that in the intervening night of 11.01.2010 and 12.01.2010, Sh. Sushil Garg was driving Scorpio Car no. DL-7CC-6848 and his other friends were sitting and they were going from Shimla to Vaishno Devi Shrine and when they reached ahead of Ghumwarni, Dadhol Village, P.S. Bharai, Distt. Bilaspur, Himanchal Pradesh, the scorpio car no. DL-7CC-6848, driven by Sh. Sushil Garg skidded off the road and fell into a gorge and Sh. Sushil Garg died on the spot. An FIR was registered u/s 279/338/304A.
12. Written statement is filed by respondent no. 1 stating that the vehicle no. DL-7CC-6848 was insured with respondent no. 2 and the driver of the respondent no. 1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The respondent no. 1 denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. It is stated that no accident was caused by respondent no. 1 due to rash and negligent act of driving of the vehicle no. DL-7CC-6848. It is stated that on 10.01.2010, Sh. Sushil Garg, driver of the answering respondent no. 1 asked the respondent no. 1 for Mahendra Scorpio Car bearing no. DL-7CC-6848 for going to Vishno Devi for pilgrimage alongwith his friends and the respondent no. 1 gave her scorpio car to him and the respondent no. 1 came to know that said Scorpio Car met with an accident in Himanchal Pradesh resulting into death of Sh. Sushil Garg and his seven M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 8/38 friends and two of his friends were injured. It is stated that accident took place because of foggy whether and because of blind sharp turn at the place of accident and there was no negligence on the part of driver of Scorpio Car. It is also stated that at the place of accident there was no indication or notice board installed by the govt. of Himanchal Pradesh and as such the driver of the said vehicle could not foresee the turn because of heavy fog and the aforesaid vehicle fell into a ditch.
13. The respondent No. 2 / insurance company filed its written statement admitting that the vehicle no. DL-7C-C-6848 was insured vide policy no. 271702/31/2010/1735 valid for the period 26.05.2009 to 25.05.2010. It is further stated that the insurance company would not be liable in case the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence or if there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It is stated that the negligence on the part of the person who was driving the vehicle could not be ruled out as he himself was not caring for the traffic rules and regulations.
14. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the petition no. 621/10 :-
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the road accident occurred on 12.01.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-7CC-6848 being driven by driver of the said vehicle? (OPP)
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
Following issues were framed in the petition no. 623/10 :-
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the road accident occurred on 12.01.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-7CC-6848 being driven by driver of the said vehicle? (OPP)
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 9/38
3. Relief.
Following issues were framed in the petition no. 624/10 :-
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the road accident occurred on 12.01.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-7CC-6848 being driven by driver of the said vehicle? (OPP)
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
Following issues were framed in the petition no. 625/10 :-
1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in the road accident occurred on 12.01.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-7CC-6848 being driven by driver of the said vehicle? (OPP)
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
Following issues were framed in the petition no. 626/10 :-
1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in the road accident occurred on 12.01.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-7CC-6848 being driven by driver of the said vehicle? (OPP)
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
Following issues were framed in the petition no. 627/10 :-
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the road accident occurred on 12.01.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-7CC-6848 being driven by driver of the said vehicle? (OPP)
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
Following issues were framed in the petition no. 628/10 :-
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the road accident occurred on 12.01.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 10/38 vehicle No. DL-7CC-6848 being driven by driver of the said vehicle? (OPP)
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
Following issues were framed in the petition no. 629/10 :-
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the road accident occurred on 12.01.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-7CC-6848 being driven by driver of the said vehicle? (OPP)
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
Following issues were framed in the petition no. 631/10 :-
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the road accident occurred on 12.01.2010 involving of vehicle No. DL-7CC-6848 being driven by the driver of the said vehicle? (OPP)
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
15. All the cases were consolidated for recording common evidence.
Smt. Ravita (petitioner no. 1 in petition no. 631/10) examined herself as PW-1. Sh. Ganesh Sharma (Petitioner in petition no. 626/10) examined himself as PW-2. Smt. Pravin (Petitioner 1 in petition no. 628/10) examined himself as PW-3. Smt. Savita Devi (Petitioner no. 1 in petition no. 621/10) examined herself as PW-4. Sh. Govind Sharma (Petitioner no. 2 in petition no. 629/10) examined himself as PW-5. Smt. Niru Aggarwal (petitioner no. 1 in petition no. 623/10) examined herself as PW-6. Smt. Brahamwati (petitioner no. 1 in petition no. 627/10) examined herself as PW-7. Smt. Kusum Devi (Petitioner no. 1 in petition no. 624/10) examined herself as PW-8. Sh. Parvesh Jain (petitioner in petition no.625/10) examined himself as PW-11. Petitioners also examined HC Sh. Ratan Lal as PW-9, Sh. Ashock K. Chand as PW-10. On the other hand, respondent no. 1 M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 11/38 examined herself as R1W1. Respondent no. 2 examined Sh. Iqbal Singh, Investigator, Oriental Insurance Co. as R3W1 and Sh. V.D. Talwar, Administrative Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as R3W2.
16. I have heard counsels for the parties. My findings on issues are as under :-
ISSUES NO. 1 of petitions no. 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10 and 629/10 and 631/10 are connected and hence are taken together
17. The testimony of PW-11, Sh. Parvesh Jain is relevant on this issue. PW-11 stated that on 12.01.2010, he along with Sh. Nitin Sharma(the deceased), Sh. Yakshit Sharma @ Jhonny(the deceased), Sh. Deepak Aggarwal @ Deepak Garg(the deceased), Sh. Sonu Kumar @ Pawan(the deceased), Sh. Shailesh Bhati(the deceased), Sh. Gajender @ Appay (the deceased) and Sh. Ganesh Sharma (petitioner in petition no. 626/10) were going in the vehicle no. DL-7CC-6848 (Mahendra Scorpio) and one Sh. Sushil Garg (the deceased) was driving the vehicle rashly, negligently and at high speed in the hill area although he was warned by the passengers to be careful and drive slowly in the hilly area but ignoring all the warnings he continued to drive in a dangerous manner and when they reached ahead of Ghumwarni, Dadhol Village, PS Bharai, Distt. Bilaspur Himanchal Pradesh, the driver lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle fell into gorge at Dhadhol Village near Ghumarvin. As a result, Sh. Nitin Sharma(the deceased), Sh. Yakshit Sharma @ Jhonny(the deceased), Sh. Deepak Aggarwal @ Deepak Garg(the deceased), Sh. Sonu Kumar @ Pawan(the deceased), Sh. Shailesh Bhati(the deceased), Sh. Gajender @ Appay (the deceased) died and were taken to Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, Himanchal Pradesh and postmortem was conducted. It is also stated that he and Sh. Ganesh Sharma suffered injuries and were taken to Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, Himanchal Pradesh. An FIR no. 07/10 u/s 279/338/304A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle Sh. Sushil Garg. During cross- examination, PW-11 Sh. Parvesh Jain denied the suggestion that accident M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 12/38 took place because of the negligence of PW-11 and his other friends as they compelled the driver of the vehicle to drive the vehicle in hilly area having zig zag road in the late night. Sh. Ganesh Sharma (petitioner in petition no. 626/10) examined himself as PW-2 and deposed almost same facts as stated by PW-11. PW-2 exhibited the MLC as PW-2/1 and criminal case record as PW-1/7.
18. PW-9 HC Ratan Lal, PS Bharari, Distt. Bilaspur produced the attested copies of criminal case record Ex.PW-9/1.
19. The FIR, site-plan, postmortem report, and testimony of PW-2 and 11 taken together fully establish the death of the deceased, Sh. Nitin Sharma, Sh. Yakshit Sharma @ Jhonny, Sh. Deepak Aggarwal @ Deepak Garg, Sh. Sonu Kumar @ Pawan, Sh. Shailesh Bhati, Sh. Gajender @ Appay, caused by the injuries sustained by them in the road accident and that Sh. Parvesh Jain (petitioner in petition no. 625/10) and Sh. Ganesh Sharma (petitioner in petition no. 626/10) sustained injuries in the accident involving vehicle bearing no. DL-7CC-6848. There is nothing on record to dispel the inference that deceased Sh. Nitin Sharma, Sh. Yakshit Sharma @ Jhonny, Sh. Deepak Aggarwal @ Deepak Garg, Sh. Sonu Kumar @ Pawan, Sh. Shailesh Bhati, Sh. Gajender @ Appay died on account of injuries sustained by them in a road accident which occurred on 12.01.2010 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL-7CC-6848 being driven by the respondent No. 1. It is also clear from the material on the record that the petitioners Sh. Parvesh Jain (petitioner in petition no. 625/10) and Sh. Ganesh Sharma (petitioner in petition no. 626/10) suffered injuries because of negligence of driver of vehicle bearing no. DL-7CC-6848.
20. The FIR, site-plan, postmortem report, and testimony of PW-2 and 11 taken together fully establish the death of the deceased Sh. Sushil Garg caused by the injuries sustained by him in a road accident involving vehicle no. DL-7CC-6848. The issues no. 1 are accordingly decided in favour of M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 13/38 petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2 in M.A.C. Petition No. 621/10 (Savita Devi vs Nirmal Kumari and ors.)
21. PW-4 Smt. Savita devi deposed that Sh. Yakshit Sharma @ Jhonny, the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the accident and died and was taken to Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, Himanchal Pradesh. It is stated that deceased was 22 years of age and was working as Finance Executive in M/s Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd. at MZ-7, Modi Tower, 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 and was earning Rs. 8,500/- per month. During cross- examination, PW-4 stated that she had no documentary proof regarding her son's employment and income and her husband was working in private job earning Rs. 3000-3500/- per month.
22. I have gone through the material on record. The PW-4 stated that deceased was working as Finance Executive in M/s Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd. at MZ-7, Modi Tower, 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 and was earning Rs. 8,500/- per month but there is no material on record to show that deceased was working in the said company and was earning Rs. 8,500/- per month. In the absence of any material on record, the minimum wages at the time of accident for unskilled workman as prevailing in NCT of Delhi, can be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation. The minimum wages, at the time of accident, for unskilled workman were Rs. 4,000/- (approx.) per month. Keeping in view the rising price index and increasing inflation rate 50% of salary can be added towards future prospects. Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment passed on 18.01.2010 in the matter titled "Kiran Devi & ors. Vs Surjeet Yadav & ors", MAC App. No. 511/2009 observed "It is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate.
23. In the present case as noted above, the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of death was considered as Rs. 4,000/-. Adding Rs.
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 14/382,000/- towards future prospects the salary comes to Rs. 6,000/- [Rs. 4,000 + 2,000] per month and Rs. 72,000/- per annum (Rs. 6,000 x 12).
24. Interest of justice in the present case would be met if 1/2 i.e. Rs. 36,000/- is deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased (as the deceased was bachelor). After such deduction the contribution to the family (dependants) is determined as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The multiplier applicable would be 7 (as the age of mother of deceased was 63 years as mentioned in the ration card, PW-4/1 at the time of accident). Therefore, the total loss on dependency would be Rs. 36,000 x 7 = Rs. 2,52,000/-.
25. The claimant is granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the head of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the compensation will be Rs. 2,92,000/-.
ISSUE NO. 2 IN M.A.C. Petition No.623/10 (Neeru Aggarwal and ors. Vs Nirmal Kumari and ors.)
26. PW-6 Smt. Neeru Aggarwal stated that Sh. Deepak died as a result of injuries suffered in the accident and he was 26 years of age and was working as a Govt. Contractor of Electrical Fittings and was earning Rs. 2.5 lac per annum. It is stated that deceased left behind his wife, two minor sons, mother and father and there was no body else to look after the petitioners. PW-6 exhibited the copy of ITR as PW-6/5, PM report of Sh. Deepak Aggarwal as PW-6/6. During cross-examination, PW-6 stated that she had no document to show that Sh. Deepak Aggarwal was working as a Govt. Contractor.
27. I have gone through the material on record. The income tax return for the assessment year 2002-03 shows the gross income of the deceased to be Rs. 49,285/-, for the assessment year 2003-04 shows the income of the deceased to be Rs. 55,038/- and for the assessment year 2004-05 M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 15/38 shows the gross income of the deceased was Rs. 53,652/-. The last Income Tax Return pertains to assessment year 2004-05 (financial year 2003-04) and there is no income tax return or documentary proof regarding income of deceased at the time of accident. There is no material on record with regard to deceased working as Govt. Contractor. In the absence of any material on record, the minimum wages at the time of accident for unskilled workman as prevailing in NCT of Delhi, can be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation. The minimum wages, at the time of accident, for unskilled workman were Rs. 4,000/- (approx.) per month. Keeping in view the rising price index and increasing inflation rate 50% of salary can be added towards future prospects. Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment passed on 18.01.2010 in the matter titled "Kiran Devi & ors. Vs Surjeet Yadav & ors", MAC App. No. 511/2009 observed "It is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate.
28. In the present case as noted above, the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of death was considered as Rs. 4,000/-. Adding Rs. 2,000/- towards future prospects the salary comes to Rs. 6,000/- [Rs. 4,000 + 2,000] per month and Rs. 72,000/- per annum (Rs. 6,000 x 12).
29. Interest of justice in the present case would be met if 1/4 i.e. Rs. 18,000/- is deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased (as there were 4 dependents i.e. wife, daughter, son and mother). After such deduction the contribution to the family (dependants) is determined as Rs. 54,000/- per annum. The multiplier applicable would be 17 (as the age of deceased was 27 years as mentioned in the ration card at the time of accident). Therefore, the total loss on dependency would be Rs. 54,000 x 17 = Rs. 9,18,000/-.
30. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the head of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/-
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 16/38towards consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the compensation will be Rs. 9,68,000/-.
ISSUE NO. 2 in M.A.C. Petition No. 624/10 (Kusum Devi and ors vs Nirmal Kumari and ors.)
31. PW-8 Smt. Kusum Devi stated that Sh. Sonu Kumar, the deceased was 21 years of age and was working as a Sales Executive, promoter in M/s Double Diamond Tea at C-10, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi and was earning Rs. 6000/- per month. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 was the mother, petitioner no. 2 was the father, petitioner no. 3 and petitioner no. 4 were the minor brother and sister of the deceased and were dependent on the deceased. During cross-examination, PW-8 stated that she had no document to show that deceased Sh. Sonu @ pawan was employed and was earning Rs. 6000/- per month.
32. I have gone through the material on record. The PW-8 stated that deceased was working as a Sales Executive, promoter in M/s Double Diamond Tea at C-10, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi and was earning Rs. 6000/- per month but there is no material on record to show that deceased was working as a Sales Executive, promoter in M/s Double Diamond Tea at C-10, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi and was earning Rs. 6000/-. In the absence of any material on record, the minimum wages at the time of accident as prevailing in NCT of Delhi, can be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation. PW-8/5 shows that deceased was doing B.A. However, there no document with regard to deceased of having completed B.A hence minimum wages for matriculate can be taken into consideration. The minimum wages, at the time of accident, for matriculate workman were Rs. 4400/- (approx.) per month. Keeping in view the rising price index and increasing inflation rate 50% of salary can be added towards future prospects. Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment passed on 18.01.2010 in the matter titled "Kiran Devi & ors. Vs Surjeet Yadav & ors", MAC App. No. 511/2009 observed "It is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court that the Court should take M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 17/38 judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate.
33. In the present case as noted above, the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of death was considered as Rs. 4,400/-. Adding Rs. 2,200/- towards future prospects the salary comes to Rs. 6,600/- [Rs. 4,400 + 2,200] per month and Rs. 79,200/- per annum (Rs. 6,600 x 12).
34. Interest of justice in the present case would be met if 1/2 i.e. Rs. 39,600/- is deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased (as the deceased was bachelor). There is no material on record to show that sister and brother were dependants on deceased. Father of the deceased is earning and hence cannot be taken as dependants. After such deduction the contribution to the family (dependants) is determined as Rs. 39,600/- per annum. The multiplier applicable would be 14 (as the age of mother of deceased was 45 years as mentioned in the ration card at the time of accident). Therefore, the total loss on dependency would be Rs. 39,600 x 14 = Rs. 5,54,400/-.
35. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the head of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the compensation will be Rs. 5,94,400/-.
ISSUE NO. 2 in M.A.C. Petition No.625/10 (Pravesh Jain vs Nirmal Kumari and ors.)
36. PW-11 stated that he suffered grievous injuries and was taken to Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, H.P but as his condition was serious so he was shifted to LBS hospital on 13.01.2010 and two operations were done and he was discharged on 18.01.2010. Petitioner stated that he suffered crush injuries on head, composite communited fracture of both bones of forearm of right hand, fracture of ulna styloid right arm, M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 18/38 communited fracture soapoid and regilunate dislocation right hand, fracture of nasal bone besides other injuries. It is stated that on 12.01.2010, debridement of wound, wound repair, primary closer of wound was done and in LBS hospital open reduction and internal fixation and DCP for fracture of bones of forearm of right hand was done, nailing for fracture of Ulna and screwing, fixing for fracture of scapoid and K wire fixing for right hand and debridement of wound was done. Petitioner stated that he incurred Rs. 50,000/- on treatment, Rs. 25,000/- on conveyance and Rs. 15,000/- on special diet. Petitioner stated that he had to keep an attendant and was paying salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Petitioner also stated that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. During cross-examination, PW-11 stated that he did not have any document to show that he had appointed the attendant to look after him or he was paying Rs. 2,000/- per month. PW-11 stated that he did not have any document to suggest that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month.
37. I have gone through the material on record. The OPD Ticket issued by LBS Hospital shows that petitioner has suffered compound fracture of both bone of forearm/ trans scaphoid with fracture of radius. The treatment record shows that physiotherapy was also done. Bills are for Rs. 880/-. It can be easily deduced that petitioner must have remained out of job for about 3-4 months and must have required services of attendant for about 1-2 months. The petitioner has stated that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month but there is no document on record regarding the earnings of petitioner. In the absence of any material on record minimum wages for unskilled workman as prevailing at the time of accident can be taken into consideration. The minimum wages were Rs. 3950/-. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider the following amount to be the just compensation to the petitioner:-
1 Compensation towards pain and sufferings Rs. 65,000/- 2 Loss of earning for 4 months @ Rs. 3,950/- p.m. Rs. 15,800/- 3 Expenses towards medical bills Rs. 880/-M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 19/38
4 Compensation towards attendant Rs. 4,000/-
charges for two months @ Rs. 2,000/- per month.
5 Compensation towards conveyance and Rs. 10,000/-
special diet (without bills) Therefore, in my opinion the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 95,680/- (rounded off to Rs.95,700/-) which shall be the just compensation to petitioner.
ISSUE NO.2 in M.A.C. Petition No. 626/10(Ganesh Sharma_vs Nirmal Kumar and ors.)
38. PW-2 stated that he suffered grievous injuries and was taken to Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, H.P. on 12.01.2010 and as his condition was serious he was shifted to Centre for Comprehensive Health Care Hospital on 14.01.2010 and two operations were done. Petitioner stated that he suffered crush injuries on head besides other injuries. Petitioner stated that he incurred Rs. 50,000/- on treatment, Rs. 25,000/- on conveyance and Rs. 15,000/- on special diet. Petitioner stated that he had also kept an attendant and paid Rs. 2,000/- per month. Petitioner stated that he was working as a Supervisor at M/s Today's Tea and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. During cross-examination, petitioner stated that he did not have any document to show that he appointed any attendant nor he had any document to show that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month.
39. I have gone through the material on record. The MLC of petitioner shows that petitioner suffered pain in chest and pain in left shoulder girdle. On the back of the MLC it is written that petitioner had not suffered any grievous injuries and he had got treatment in Centre for Comprehensive Health Care, Delhi. There is no document regarding treatment and the expenses on treatment of the petitioner except the MLC. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider Rs. 10,000/- to be the just compensation to the petitioner on all the allowable head.
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 20/38ISSUE NO. 2 in M.A.C. Petition No. 627/10 (Brahamwati and ors vs Nirmal Kumari and ors.)
40. PW-7, Smt. Brahmwati deposed that deceased Sh. Shailesh was student of BCA at Modern College of Professional Studies, Anand Industrial Area, Mohan Nagar, U.P and was also taking tuitions of 10 th and 12th standard and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Petitioner exhibited the mark sheet of BCA of Sh. Shailesh Bhatti of PW-7/3. During cross- examination, PW-7 stated that she had not document to show that Sh. Shailesh was giving tuitions and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month.
41. I have gone through the material on record. The PW-7 stated that deceased was giving tuitions and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month but there is no material on record to show that deceased was giving tuitions and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The I Card issued by Modern College of Professional Studies shows that the deceased was a B.C.A student but there is nothing on record regarding probable income of the deceased after completion of B.C.A. The petitioners failed to place on record any material to show the prospective income of the student of that college. In the absence of any material on record, the minimum wages at the time of accident for matriculate workman as prevailing in NCT of Delhi, can be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation. The minimum wages, at the time of accident, for matriculate workman were Rs. 4400/- (approx.) per month. Keeping in view the rising price index and increasing inflation rate 50% of salary can be added towards future prospects. Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment passed on 18.01.2010 in the matter titled "Kiran Devi & ors. Vs Surjeet Yadav & ors", MAC App. No. 511/2009 observed "It is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate.
42. In the present case as noted above, the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of death was considered as Rs. 4400/-. Adding Rs.
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 21/382200/- towards future prospects the salary comes to Rs. 6600/- [Rs. 4400 + 2200] per month and Rs. 79,200/- per annum (Rs. 6600 x 12).
43. Interest of justice in the present case would be met if 1/2 i.e. Rs. 39,600/- is deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased (as the deceased was bachelor). After such deduction the contribution to the family (dependants) is determined as Rs. 39,600/- per annum. The multiplier applicable would be 13 (as the age of mother of deceased was 47 years as mentioned in the voter I card at the time of accident). Therefore, the total loss on dependency would be Rs. 39,600 x 13 = Rs. 5,14,800/-.
44. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the head of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the compensation will be Rs. 5,08,000/-.
ISSUE NO. 2 in M.A.C. Petition No.628/10 (Smt. Pravin Devi and ors vs Nirmal Kumari and ors.)
45. PW-3 Smt. Pravin stated that her son Sh. Gajender Rastogi suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. PW-3 stated that Sh. Gajender Rastogi was 24 years of age and was working as a Sales Executive in M/s Reliance Communications at C-6/112, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. It is also stated that Petitioner no. 1 is the mother and petitioner no. 2 is the brother of the deceased. During cross-examination, PW-3 stated that she has no document regarding employment of her deceased son or deceased was getting Rs. 8,000/- per month and she was having two more children namely Jitender and Anil and Jitender was in job and her younger son Anil was studying in B.A 2nd year.
46. I have gone through the material on record. The PW-3 although stated that deceased was working as a Sales Executive in M/s Reliance Communications at C-6/112, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi and was earning Rs.
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 22/388,000/- per month but there is no material on record to show that deceased was working as a Sales Executive in M/s Reliance Communications at C-6/112, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. In the absence of any material on record, the minimum wages at the time of accident for unskilled workman as prevailing in NCT of Delhi, can be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation. The minimum wages, at the time of accident, for unskilled workman were Rs. 4,000/- (approx.) per month. Keeping in view the rising price index and increasing inflation rate 50% of salary can be added towards future prospects. Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment passed on 18.01.2010 in the matter titled "Kiran Devi & ors. Vs Surjeet Yadav & ors", MAC App. No. 511/2009 observed "It is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate.
47. In the present case as noted above, the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of death was considered as Rs. 4,000/-. Adding Rs. 2,200/- towards future prospects the salary comes to Rs. 6,000/- [Rs. 4,000 + 2,000] per month and Rs. 72,000/- per annum (Rs. 6,000 x 12).
48. Interest of justice in the present case would be met if 1/2 i.e. Rs. 36,000/- is deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased (as the deceased was bachelor). After such deduction the contribution to the family (dependants) is determined as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The multiplier applicable would be 13 (as the age of mother of deceased was 47 years as mentioned in the ration card at the time of accident). Therefore, the total loss on dependency would be Rs. 36,000 x 13 = Rs. 4,68,000/-.
49. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the head of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the compensation will be Rs. 5,08,000/-.
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 23/38ISSUE NO. 2 in M.A.C. Petition No.629/10 (Krishan Sharma and ors. Vs Nirmal Kumari and ors.)
50. PW-5 Sh. Govind Sharma deposed that his son suffered injuries in the accident and died. PW-5 deposed that his son was 26 years of age and was working as a Sales Executive in M/s Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. During cross-examination, PW-5 stated that he was having one more child Amit Sharma who was unemployed.
51. PW-10 Sh. Ashock K. Chand, Sr. Officer, HR, Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd. deposed that Sh. Nitin Sharma was working as Commission Agent and was on the roll of the company and Sh. Nitin Sharma was getting salary of RS. 2000 per month and Sh. Nitin Sharma used to get commission besides Rs. 2,000/- per month. The appointment letter was issued to Sh. Nitin Sharma. PW-10 marked the copy of form 16A as marked A.
52. I have gone through the material on record. The PW-10 stated that income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,000/- per month and stated that deceased was also getting commission. The PW-10 failed to place on record the original or certified copy of form 16 A or the appointment letter. In the absence of any material on record, the minimum wages at the time of accident for unskilled workman as prevailing in NCT of Delhi, can be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation. The minimum wages, at the time of accident, for unskilled workman were Rs. 4,000/- (approx.) per month. Keeping in view the rising price index and increasing inflation rate 50% of salary can be added towards future prospects. Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment passed on 18.01.2010 in the matter titled "Kiran Devi & ors. Vs Surjeet Yadav & ors", MAC App. No. 511/2009 observed "It is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate.
53. In the present case as noted above, the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of death was considered as Rs. 4,000/-. Adding Rs.
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 24/382,000/- towards future prospects the salary comes to Rs. 6,000/- [Rs. 4,000 + 2,000] per month and Rs. 72,000/- per annum (Rs. 6,000 x 12).
54. The petition was filed by mother and father of deceased but during pendency of petition, mother of the deceased expired leaving father as the only petitioner. The petitioner failed to establish that he was dependant on deceased. Therefore is entitled to loss of estate. The deceased would have saved 1/3rd of his income, therefore loss of estate is taken as 1/3 rd of total income of deceased.
55. The multiplier applicable would be 9 (as the age of father of deceased was 57 years as mentioned in the ration card at the time of accident). Therefore, the total loss of income would be Rs. 72,000 x 9 = Rs. 6,48,000/-. The amount on account of loss of estate comes to Rs. 2,16,000/- (Rs. 6,48,000/- x 1/3).
56. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the head of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the compensation will be Rs. 2,46,000/-.
ISSUE NO. 2 in M.A.C. Petition No.631/10 (Ravita and ors. Vs Nirmal Kumari and ors.)
57. The petitioner no. 1, Smt. Ravita PW-1 deposed that the deceased was driving the vehicle and at the time of accident he suffered injuries and died. It is stated that deceased was 34 years of age and was getting Rs. 3300/- or Rs. 40000/- per annum from his work and he left behind wife, his mother and two minor sons. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that she did not have any document regarding income of the deceased. It is stated that on the day of accident the deceased was driving the vehicle of Nirmal Kumari and he was working as a driver.
58. The respondent no. 1 has stated that she was paying Rs. 4,000/-
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 25/38per month as salary to Sh. Sushil Kumar and also stated that Sh. Sushil Kumar was being paid salary by her. Respondent no. 1, R1W1 also stated that Sh. Sushil Kumar was working in the workshop of her husband and whenever she was to go to any place Sh. Sushil Kumar was driving the vehicle. Respondent no. 1 also stated that Sh. Sushil Kumar was not her driver and she was not paying salary to Sh. Sushil Kumar and her husband was paying salary to Sh. Sushil Kumar. The petitioner did not state with whom her husband was working as a driver and during cross-examination stated that her husband was not working with Smt. Nirmal Kumari, respondent no. 1. The facts as emerging from the above said testimony is that Sh. Sushil Kumar was not the driver of Smt. Nirmal Kumari and was working with her husband in his workshop. Further it has come out in the testimony of respondent no. 1 that Sh. Sushil Kumar has borrowed the vehicle from Smt. Nirmal Kumari for going to Vaishno Devi for pilgrimage.
59. The PW-2, Sh. Ganesh and PW-11 Sh. Pravesh Jain have stated that accident took place because of negligence of Sh. Sushil Kumar Garg and findings have already been given on issue no. 1 of other petitions that accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of Sh. Sushil Kumar Garg, who was driving the vehicle no. DL-7CC-6848 rashly, negligently and at fast speed in the hilly area despite being asked by the passengers to drive carefully. Further it has also come on record that FIR was registered against Sh. Sushil Kumar Garg. The petitioner in the present case has not challanged the FIR nor they have stated that FIR was lodged against Sh. Sushil Kumar Garg on wrong facts or that there was no negligence on the part of Sh. Sushil Kumar Garg. Rather the petitioners in the present case has relied upon the said FIR. It is clearly emerged that accident took place because of negligence of Sh. Sushil Kumar Garg.
60. The law is well settled as laid down in "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sinitha and Ors." MANU/SC/1374/2011, Hon'ble M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 26/38 Supreme Court observed as under :
"15. The heading of Section 163A also needs a special mention. It reads, "Special Provisions as to Payment of Compensation on Structured Formula Basis". It is abundantly clear that Section 163A, introduced a different scheme for expeditious determination of accident claims. Expeditious determination would have reference to a provision wherein litigation was hiterto before (before the insertion of Section 163A of the Act) being long drawn. The only such situation (before the insertion of Section 163A of the Act) wherein the litigation was long drawn was under Chapter XII of the Act. Since the provisions under Chapter XII are structured under the "fault" liability principle, its alternative would also inferentially be founded under the same principle. Section 163A of the Act, catered to shortening the length of litigation, by introducing a scheme regulated by a pre-structured formula to evaluate compensation. It provided for some short-cuts, as for instance, only proof of age and income, need to be established by the claimant to determine the compensation in case of death. There is also not much discretion in the determination of other damages, the limits whereof are also provided for. All in all, one cannot lose sight of the facts that claims made under Section 163A can result in substantial compensation. When taken together the liability may be huge. It is difficult to accept, that the legislature would fasten such a prodigious liability under the "no-fault" liability principle, without reference to the "fault" grounds. When compensation is high, it is legitimate that the insurance company is not fastened with liability when the offending vehicle suffered a "fault" ("wrongful act", "neglect", or "defect") under a valid Act only policy. Even the instant process of reasoning, leads to the inference, that Section 163A of the Act is founded under the "fault" liability principle.
16.At the instant juncture, it is also necessary to reiterate a conclusion already drawn above, namely, that Section 163A of the Act has an overriding effect on all other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Stated in other words, none of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which is in conflict with Section 163A of the Act will negate the mandate contained therein (in Section 163A of the Act). Therefore, no matter what, Section 163A of the Act shall stand on its own, without being diluted by any provision. Furthermore, in the course of our determination including the inferences and conclusions drawn by us from the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala (Supra), as also, the statutory provisions dealt with by this Court in its aforesaid determination, we are of the view, that there is no basis for inferring M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 27/38 that Section 163A of the Act is founded under the "no-fault" liability principle.
Additionally, we have concluded herein above, that on the conjoint reading of Sections 140 and 163A, the legislative intent is clear, namely, that a claim for compensation raised under Section 163A of the Act, need not be based on pleadings or proof at the hands of the claimants showing absence of "wrongful act", being "neglect" or "default". But that, is not sufficient to determine that the provision falls under the "fault" liability principle. To decide whether a provision is governed by the "fault" liability principle the converse has also to be established, i.e., whether a claim raised thereunder can be defeated by the concerned party (owner or insurance company) by pleading and proving "wrongful act", "neglect" or "default". From the preceding paragraphs (commencing from paragraph 12), we have no hesitation in concluding, that it is open to the owner or insurance company, as the case may be, to defeat a claim under Section 163A of the Act by pleading and establishing through cogent evidence a "fault" ground ("wrongful act" or "neglect" or "default"). It is, therefore, doubtless, that Section 163A of the Act is founded under the "fault" liability principle. To this effect, we accept the contention advanced at the hands of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner."
61. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovesaid judgment clearly observed that insurance company can defeat the claim of the claimants (the LRs of driver), by establishing the negligence on the part of driver of the vehicle. It has clearly emerged from material on record that accident took place because of rash and negligence driving of Sh. Sushil Garg. In view of the above discussions no compensation can be granted to petitioners.
62. The present petition filed by petitioners u/s 163-A of MV Act is not maintainable also for the reason that the deceased does not come under the definition of third party. So far as the mandate of Section 163-A MV Act is concerned, it is clear that only a third party can maintain a petition under Section 163-A of MV Act. In the matter in hand, the deceased has taken the vehicle which met with an accident. It is not the case of the petitioner that the car was hit by some other vehicle. In a third party insurance, the insurer and insured have contract between them and both are bound by terms and conditions of the contract. Generally, the insurer agree to indemnify the losses, if any, M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 28/38 suffered by the third party on account of the use of the motor vehicle of the insured. It cannot be said that insured can claim compensation for injuries caused to him or his legal heirs can claim compensation for his death under the head of third party. There may be contract between the insurer and the insured with regard to the personal accident of the insured. In that eventuality, the insured can enforce claim against insurer for the damages or injury caused to him.
63. The law is well settled as laid down in Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance company Ltd., reported as 2009 SCCL.Com 78, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
'If it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as a liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A. In the instant case, the deceased was not the owner of the vehicle, in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorized to drive the vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the steps of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed the compensation under Section 163-A.'
64. In the matter titled as 'M/s. HDFC CHUBB General insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Rajwal Singh Hapur and another', hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that as the deceased driver of the motorcycle has borrowed the vehicle from the owner and met with an accident, he cannot come within the definition of third party.
65. It is clear from the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance company Ltd. and other, judgments as referred above that the person borrowing vehicle from the owner cannot be treated as third party. Following the ratio as laid down in the above said judgment the deceased cannot be the third party, therefore, the petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased is not maintainable.
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 29/38Petition is therefore, dismissed.
LIABILITY
66. Respondent no. 1 examined herself as R1W1 and deposed that she was owner of vehicle no. DL-7CC-6848 and Sh. Sushil Garg was her driver and was working with her as driver for the last three years. On 10.01.2010, her driver Sh. Sushil Garg asked her for the said vehicle as he wanted to go to Vaishno Devi for pilgrimage alongwith his friend and she gave the said vehicle and on 12.01.2010 she came to know about the accident through newspaper. R1W1 stated that she had not given the said vehicle on hire or for using for commercial purpose. During cross- examination, R1W1 stated that she was paying salary of Rs. 4,000 per month to Sh. Sushil Kumar and she did not have any document to show that Sh. Sushil Kumar was her driver and she had no knowledge if Sh. Sushil Kumar was using the vehicle for commercial purpose at the time of accident. R1W1 also stated that Sh. Sushil Kumar was being paid salary by her husband and was working in the workshop of her husband. R1W1 further stated that whenever she was to go to any place Sh. Sushil Kumar was driving her vehicle and Sh. Sushil Kumar was not her driver and she was not paying salary to Sh. Sushil Kumar.
67. On the other hand, insurance company examined two witnesses. R3W1 Sh. Iqbal Singh, Investigator deposed that he carried out investigation and submitted his report to the company on 09.12.2010. He stated that during investigation he met with IO of the case and also contacted the other persons and the IO and the other person informed him that vehicle involved in accident was brought by the persons travelling in the same on hire basis. During cross-examination, R3W1 stated that he did not know on what basis IO has stated that vehicle involved was hired one and he did not know the name of the person with whom he has investigated the matter. R3W1 stated that he never investigated from the injured persons. R3W1 further stated that he did not record the statement of IO or any public witness and he did not have any documentary proof to show M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 30/38 about the use of the vehicle by the passengers.
68. R3W2 Sh. V.D. Talwar exhibited the copy of the policy as R3W2/1. R3W2 further stated that he was relying upon Ex.PW-1/9.
69. I have gone through the material on record. As per the report of the investigator the vehicle was taken on hire. The investigator has admitted that he has not recorded statement of any person nor placed on record any document to show that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. The report of the investigator is based on hear say. Further no question was put by the Insurance company to the injured person nor any suggestion was given to the injured that vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. The insurance company failed to establish that vehicle was being used for commercial purpose or was taken on hire basis.
70. Since Insurance company has admitted the policy as on date of accident therefore respondent no. 2 is liable to pay the compensation amount.
71. There being no evidence of violation of the policy condition and there being no evidence to support the permitted defence U/s. 149(2) of the M.V. Act, I am unable to grant the recovery rights. Therefore, insurance company shall make good the compensation in terms of the accepted policy.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
72. While granting the relief to petitioners in all the cases, I am also to award the interest @ 7.5% p.a on the amount awarded to petitioners from the date of filing of petitions till realization of the amount. Issue no. 3 is answered accordingly.
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 31/38RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 621/10:-
73. In view of the above, I am directing to the respondent no. 2, the insurance company, to pay to the claimants a sum of Rs. 2,92,000/- towards compensation within one month. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners.
74. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 621/10
75. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 2,92,000/- within one month to the claimants. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The claimants are entitled to the compensation in the following proportions along with corresponding interest :-
(a) Petitioner No. 1 shall get Rs. 2,62,800/- along with corresponding interest.
(b) Petitioner No. 2 shall get Rs. 29,200/- along with corresponding interest.
76. The award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
77. 50% of the amount awarded to petitioner no. 1 shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years and rest of the amount be released to petitioner no. 1.
RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 623/10:-
78. In view of the above, I am directing to the respondent no. 2, the insurance company, to pay to the claimants a sum of Rs. 9,68,000/- towards compensation within one month. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the total compensation M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 32/38 amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners.
79. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 623/10
80. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 9,68,000/- within one month to the claimants. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners. The claimants are entitled to the compensation in the following proportions along with corresponding interest :-
(a) Petitioner No. 1 shall get Rs. 3,38,800/- along with corresponding interest.
(b) Petitioner No. 2 shall get Rs. 1,93,600/- along with corresponding interest.
(c) Petitioner No. 3 shall get Rs. 48,400/- along with corresponding interest.
(d) Petitioner No. 4 and 5 shall get Rs. 1,93,600/- (each) along with corresponding interest.
81. The amount granted to minor petitioners shall be kept in FDR till their attaining age of majority.
82. 25% (each) of the amount awarded to petitioner no. 1 shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years, four years, six years and rest of the amount be released to petitioner no. 1.
83. 50% of the amount awarded to petitioner no. 2 shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years and rest of the amount be released to petitioner no. 2.
84. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 33/38RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 624/10:-
85. In view of the above, I am directing to the respondent no. 2, the insurance company, to pay to the claimants a sum of Rs. 5,94,400/- towards compensation within one month. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners.
86. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 624/10
87. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,94,400/- within one month to the claimants. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners. The claimants are entitled to the compensation in the following proportions along with corresponding interest :-
(a) Petitioner No. 1 shall get Rs. 5,14,960/- along with corresponding interest.
(b) Petitioner No. 2 shall get Rs. 59,440/- along with corresponding interest.
(c) Petitioner No. 3 and 4 shall get Rs. 10,000/- each along with corresponding interest.
88. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
89. 25% (each) of the amount awarded to petitioner no. 1 shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years, four years, six years and rest of the amount be released to petitioner no. 1.
RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 625/10:-
90. In view of the above, I am directing to the respondent no. 2, the insurance company, to pay to the claimants a sum of Rs. 95,700/- towards M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 34/38 compensation within one month. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners.
91. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 625/10
92. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 95,700/- within one month to the claimants. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners.
93. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 626/10:-
94. In view of the above, I am directing to the respondent no. 2, the insurance company, to pay to the claimants a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation within one month. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners.
95. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 626/10
96. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- within one month to the claimants. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners.
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 35/3897. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 627/10:-
98. In view of the above, I am directing to the respondent no. 2, the insurance company, to pay to the claimants a sum of Rs. 5,54,800/- towards compensation within one month. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners.
99. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 627/10
100. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,54,800/- within one month to the claimants. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners. The claimants are entitled to the compensation in the following proportions along with corresponding interest :-
(a) Petitioner No. 1 shall get Rs. 4,99,320/- along with corresponding interest.
(b) Petitioner No. 2 shall get Rs. 55,480/- along with corresponding interest.
101. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
102. 25% (each) of the amount awarded to petitioner no. 1 shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years, four years, six years and rest of the amount be released to petitioner no. 1.
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 36/38RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 628/10:-
103. In view of the above, I am directing to the respondent no. 2, the insurance company, to pay to the claimants a sum of Rs. 5,08,000/- towards compensation within one month. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners.
104. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 628/10
105. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,08,000/- within one month to the claimants. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners. The claimants are entitled to the compensation in the following proportions along with corresponding interest :-
(a) Petitioner No. 1 shall get Rs. 4,98,000/- along with corresponding interest.
(b) Petitioner No. 2 shall get Rs. 10,000/- along with corresponding interest.
106. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
107. 25% each of the amount awarded to petitioner no. 1 shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years, four years, six years and rest of the amount be released to petitioner no. 1.
RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 629/10:-
108. In view of the above, I am directing to the respondent no. 2, the insurance company, to pay to the claimants a sum of Rs. 2,46,000/- towards compensation within one month. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the total compensation M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 37/38 amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner.
109. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 629/10
110. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 2,46,000/- within one month to the claimants. The respondent No. 2, insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner.
111. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
112. 50% of the amount awarded to petitioner shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years and rest of the amount be released to petitioner.
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 631/10
113. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
114. List for reporting compliance on 28.04.2012.
115. Original judgment be kept in M.A.C. Petition No. 621/10 and a copy in other files. A copy of the award be given free of cost to the parties concerned.
Announced in the (Arvind Kumar)
open court on 28.02.2012 Presiding Officer:MACT
Karkardooma Court
Delhi
M.A.C. Petition No: 621/10, 623/10, 624/10, 625/10, 626/10, 627/10, 628/10, 629/10 & 631/10 Page No. 38/38