Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Suman, Luv And Kuldeep Kumar (3 Cases) vs . Vikash Kumar & Ors. on 26 October, 2020

          MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16
       Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
               MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
                      ROHINI COURTS, DELHI


MAC Petition No.5653/16
Suman Vs. Vikas Kumar & ors.
In respect of death of Sh. Mohan Lal @ Mohan Kaushik

1.   Smt. Suman
     W/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal @ Mohan Kaushik

2.   Abhishek
     S/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal @ Mohan Kaushik

3.   Anmol
     S/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal @ Mohan Kaushik

4.   Smt. Bala Devi
     W/o Late Sh. Jagdish Kumar

     (petitioner no.2 and 3 are minor through their mother and natural
     guardian Smt. Suman/petitioner no.1.)

     All R/o House no. 216, G Block Aman Colony,
     Punjabi Colony, Narela, Delhi­110040        ................Petitioners

MAC Petition No.6128/16
Luv Vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.

1.   Luv
     S/o Sh. Kuldeep Kumar
     R/o House o. 180, Buddho Devi Dispwali Gali
     Punjabi Colony, Narela, Delhi­110040

     (Petitioner being minor represented through his father/natural
     guardian Sh. Kuldeep Kumar)


                                                              Page no.1 of total 39
            MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16
        Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

                                                            ................Petitioner

MAC Petition No.6129/16
Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.

(in respect of death of minor Kush)

1.   Kuldeep Kumar
     S/o Sh. Ram Kumar
     R/o House no. 180, Budho Devi Dispwali Gali
     Punjabi Colony, Narela, Delhi­110040


                                                            ................Petitioner

MAC Petition No.6130/16
Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.

(in respect of death of Smt. Meenakshi Gupta)

1.   Kuldeep Kumar
     S/o Sh. Ram Kumar

2.   Luv
     S/o Sh.Ram Kumar

     (Petitioner no.2 being minor represented through his         father/natural
     guardian Sh. Kuldeep Kumar)

     Both R/o House no. 180, Budho Devi Dispwali Gali
     Punjabi Colony, Narela, Delhi­110040

                                                            ................Petitioner




                                                            Page no.2 of total 39
             MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16
         Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.




MAC Petition No.6238/16
Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.

(in respect of injuries suffered by injured Sh. Kuldeep Kumar)

1.    Kuldeep Kumar
      S/o Sh. Ram Kumar
      R/o House no. 180, Budho Devi Dispwali Gali
      Punjabi Colony, Narela, Delhi­110040

                                                               ................Petitioner


                                      VERSUS

1.    Sh.Vikas Kumar
      S/o Sh. Rampal Singh
      R/o Village Saidpur, District Buland Shahar, UP
      2nd Address: Khatouli Depot, District Meerut,
      UP.                                                            .......Driver.

2.    Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC)
      Depot Manager,
      Khatouli Depot, District Meerut, UP.                           .....Owner

3.    Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC)
      Head Quarter, Tehri Kothi,
      MG Marg, Lucknow­226001
      Uttar Pradesh                                                  ...... Owner

                                                         ............Respondents

Date of Institution in MACP no. 5653/16 : 30.07.2015 Date of Institution in remaining four cases : 02.02.2016 Date of Arguments : 26.10.2020 Page no.3 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors. 

Date of Decision                               : 26.10.2020


APPEARANCES:        Sh. Palvinder Singh, Adv for petitioners.
                    Sh. Ram Kumar Prabhakar, Ld.counsel for all the
                    respondents.

Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD

1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off five separate claim petitions bearing no. 5653/16 titled as Suman Vs. Vikas Kumar &Ors., MACP no. 6128/16 titled as Luv Vs. Vikas Kumar & ors, MACP no. 6129/16 titled as Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.(in respect of death of minor Kush), MACP no. 6130/16 titled as Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.(in respect of death of Smt. Meenakshi Gupta) and MACP no. 6238/16 titled as Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.(in respect of injuries suffered by injured Sh. Kuldeep Kumar) arising out of the same accident which occurred on 17.06.2015 at about 11.50 PM in front of Bhudbaral Masjid, Meerut UP involving the Uttar Pradesh Roadways bus bearing no. UP­11AT­0321 (alleged offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 Sh. Vikas Kumar in rash and negligent manner. In the said accident Sh. Mohan Lal @ Mohan Kaushik (deceased in MACP no.5653/16), Smt. Meenakshi Gupta(deceased in MACP no.6130/16) and Master Kush (deceased in MACP no.6129/16) had sustained fatal injuries and the injured persons Luv and Sh. Kuldeep Kumar had sustained grievous hurt. Case vide FIR No. 245/15, Under Section 279/338/304A IPC with regard to the said accident was registered at PS Page no.4 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

Parta Pur, Meerut, UP.

2. Brief facts of both the cases are that on 17.06.2015 Sh. Mohan Kaushik @ Mohan Lal (deceased) alongwith Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Meenakshi (deceased), Luv and other persons were coming from Haridwar to Narela in a car and at about 11.50 PM when they reached in front of Bhudbaral Masjid, Meerut, UP in the meantime one bus bearing no. UP­11AT­0321 being driven in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed came and hit the car with great force. Due to forceful impact all the occupants of the car suffered injuries. Sh.Mohan Kaushik @ Mohan Lal, Smt. Meenakshi and Kush suffered fatal injuries whereas injured Sh. Kuldeep Kumar and minor Luv suffered grievous hurt. It is stated that the accident was caused solely due to negligence of respondent no.1 Sh. Vikash Kumar. The aforesaid UP Roadways Bus bearing no. UP­11AT­0321 was found to be owned by respondents no.2 and 3 UPSRTC at the relevant time of accident and it was uninsured being a government owned vehicle.

3. Notice of the claim petitions were issued to respondents. It is pertinent to note that respondents no.2 and 3 are the same authority i.e. UPSRTC and vide order dated 29.09.2015 the name of respondent no.3 was deleted from the array of parties.

4. Respondents appeared and contested the claim petitions. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondent no.2 only and thereafter the same was also adopted on behalf of respondent no.1 driver Sh. Vikash Kumar. In their written statement the respondents have stated that no Page no.5 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

accident as alleged has taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no.1. It is stated that the car bearing no. DL­3 CAP­8474 was running ahead of the roadways bus and was being driven by its driver at a very high speed and the said car had hit the another vehicle plying ahead of it. That respondent no.1 had applied brakes but due to unexpected effect the car struck with the above said roadways bus. That the accident was caused due to negligence of car deriver. The averments made on merits are denied. It is denied that the respondents are liable to pay compensation.

5. Vide order dated 12.07.2016 all the claim petitions were consolidted for the purposes of evidence to be led by the parties and MACP no. 5653/16(old no.388/15) titled as Suman & ors. Vs. Vikash Kumar & Anr. was treated as lead case.

6. It be noted that separate issues in all the claim petitions were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 12.07.2016. Perusal of the issues shows that all three issues are almost same except the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased/injured in all claim petitions. Therefore in order to avoid repeatition issues are consolidated as under:­

1. Whether the deceased Mr. Mohan Kaushik @ Mohan Lal, Smt. Meenakshi Gupta and Master Kush suffered fatal injuries and the injured persons Sh. Kuldeep Kumar and Master Luv suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident on 17.06.2015 at about 11.50 PM in front of Budbaral Masjid, Meerut, UP within the jurisdiction of PS Partapur, Meerut, UP due to rashness and negligence on the part of the R1 who ws drivng bus bearing registration Page no.6 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

no. UP­11AT­0321, owned by R2? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.

3. Relief.

7. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined Six witnesses i.e.petitioner no.1 in MACP no. 5653/16 Smt.Suman as PW­1, injured as well as claimant/LR of deceased Smt. Meenakshi and Master Kush/Sh. Kuldeep Kumar as PW­2, Sh. Krishan Rathi, Accountant with M/s Arjun Dass Jai Prakash as PW­3, sh. Virender, Accountant, Maharaja Agrasen Public School as PW­4 and Dr. Sudhir Dubey, Director Minimally Neuro Surgery, Medanta Hospital, Gurugram Haryana as PW­5 and Dr. Sneha Sharma, Senior Resident, Orthopaedics, LNJP Hospital as PW­6. Thereafter the petitioners closed their evidence on 05.04.2019. On the other hand respondent no.1/driver has examined himself as R1W1. No other witness was examined and respondents closed their evidence on 12.12.2018.

8. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh.Palvinder Singh, Ld.counsel for petitioners and Sh. Ram Kumar Prabhakar, Ld.counsel for respondents driver and registered owner. I have gone through the records. My findings on the issues are as under:­ ISSUE NO. 1(in all cases).

9. In order to prove the negligence on the part of respondent no.1 the petitoners have relied upon the deposition of PW­2 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar/injured.

Page no.7 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

In his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A, PW­2 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar has deposed that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus bearing no.UP­11AT­0321. He further stated that he as well as other occupants of the car had suffered serious injuries in the accident and they were removed to Subharti Hospital, Meerut. In order to prove the negligence on the part of respondent no. 1, PW­2 relied upon the certified copies of criminal case record Ex. PW2/13(colly).

10. It be noted that respondents in their written statement have not disputed the factum of accident, however, they stated that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of car driver. In support of their submissions the respondents have also examined respondent no.1 the driver of the offending vehicle as R1W1. He deposed that the accident has taken place due to negligent driving of the car driver and he was not at fault.

11. Though respondent no.1 has examined himself as R1W1 but in the cross­examination he admitted that the case vide FIR no. 305/15, under Section 279/338/304A IPC was registered against him and the offending vehicle was also seized in the said case. He also admitted that he is facing trial as an accused in the said criminal case and he has not lodged any complaint for his implication in the said case. He also admitted that he was not driving the bus in the concerned lane meant for heavy vehicles. It is evident from the testimony of PW2 injured Kuldeep Singh that the respondents could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross­examination and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross­examination. Even otherwise, PW2 himself is the injured having sustained Page no.8 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

injuries due to the accident in question. There is no reason as to why they would depose falsely against respondent no.1.

12. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 namely Sh.Vikash KUmar (accused in State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/338/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending bus bearing no. UP­11AT­0321 by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of aforesaid bus by respondent no.1.

13. The medical treatment record of the injured LUv and Sh. Kuldeep Singh shows that they had suffered grievous injuries and they were removed to hospital immediately after the accident with the history of RTA. Further the postmortem reports of Deceased Sh. Mohan Lal, Smt. Meenakshi and Master Kush shows that they had received fatal head injuries. Again, there is no challenge to the said documents from the side of respondents.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that the deceased Sh. Mohan Lal @ Mohan Kaushik, Smt. Meenakshi and Master Kush suffered fatal injuries and injured persons Sh. Kuldeep Kumar and Master Luv suffered injuries in road accident which took place on 17.06.2015 at about 11.50 PM in front of Bhudbaral Masjid, Meerut UP due to rash and negligent driving of the Uttar Pradesh Roadways bus Page no.9 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

bearing no. UP­11AT­0321 by respondent no.1 Sh. Vikas Kumar. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.

ISSUE NO. 2.

15. I will take this issue petitionwise.

16 Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.

COMPENSATION IN MACP NO. 5653/16 TITLED AS SUMAN & ORS. VS. VIKAS KUMAR & ORS.

LOSS OF DEPENDENCY

17. The claimants are the widow, children and mother of deceased. It is stated that the father of deceased is predeceased. Petitioner no.1/widow of deceased appeared in witness box as PW­1. She deposed that at the time of accident, her husband was aged about 34 years and was working as Munshi with M/s Arjun Dass Jai Parkash, 2073A, Narela Mandi, Delhi­110040 and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/­ per month. She further deposed that the deceased was only earning member of the family and was spending his all earnings for the household expenses.

18. In order to prove the employment and income of deceased the Page no.10 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

deposition of PW­3 Sh. Krishan Rathi, Accountant from M/s Arjun Dass Jai Prakash is relevant. In order to prove the employment of the deceased Sh. Mohan Lal, PW­3 Sh. Krishan Rathi has produced on record the copy of ledger book Ex. PW3/(colly) and certificate Ex. PW3/6. The petitioners have not produced any other document in order to prove the employment and income of deceased. In the considered opinion of this tribunal the documents Ex. PW3/5(colly) and Ex. PW3/6 are not sufficient enough to prove the employment and income of deceased with M/s Arjun Dass Jai Prakash. The petitioners have also not filed any documentary proof of educational or technical qualifications of deceased. In view of aforesaid the income of the deceased is taken as minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevalent at the time of accident i.e. on 17.06.2015 which were Rs. 9048/­

19. The copy of PAN card of deceased Ex. PW1/5 shows his date of birth as 02.06.1986. Hence, the deceased was around 29 years of age at the time of accident. Thus, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.

20. Considering the fact that deceased was below 40 years of age and was doing private job at that time, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as well as in view of recent decision of Page no.11 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.

21. It is stated that the deceased was survived by 4 dependents. PW­1/widow of deceased has categorically deposed that all the petitioners were financially dependent upon the earnings of deceased. No evidence to the contrary has been adduced by respondents. Hence, it is held that the deceased was survived by four dependents and hence 1/4th is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs.19,38,081/­(rounded of Rs.19,38,000/­) (Rs.9048x3/4 X 140/100 X12X 17). Hence, a sum of Rs.19,38,000/­ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.

LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION

22. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non­pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this Page no.12 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

head.

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

23. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020 I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner no.1/widow of deceased, petitioners no.2 and 3 sons and petitioner no.4/ mother of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/­ each towards loss of consortium. Consequently a sum of Rs.1,60,000/­ is awarded to the petitioners under this head.

LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES

24. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/­ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The total compensation is assessed as under:­

1. Loss of dependency Rs. 19,38,000/­

2. Loss of Love and affection Rs. NIL

3. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,60,000/­

3. Loss of Estate &Funeral Rs. 30,000/­ Expenses Total Rs. 21,28,000/­ Page no.13 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

COMPENSATION IN MACT NO. 6128/16 TITLED AS LUV VS. VIKAS KUMAR & ORS.

MEDICAL EXPENSES

25. The father of the minor injured Sh. Kuldeep Kumar appeared in witness box as PW2. He has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW2/A) that immediately after the accident his son was removed to Subharti Hospital, Meerut where he remained admitted from 18.06.2015 to 26.06.2015. He further stated that after discharge from the said ospital h is son also took treatment as an OPD patient for about 2 months. He deposed that he spent a sum of Rs.50,000/­ on his medical treatment. He filed on record the medical treatment record and medical bills of the injured Luv as Ex. Pw2/11 and Ex. PW2/12(colly).

26. The ocular testimony of PW­2/father of minor injured is duly supported with the medical treatment record. The discharge card of the injured Luv prepared at Chhatarpati Shivaji Subharti HOspital sows that he remained admitted in the said hospital from 18.06.2015 to 26.06.2015 and he has suffered head injury. PW­2 has filed on record the medical bills amounting to Rs.19,112/­. It is quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry. Respondents have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the geuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.19,112/­ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Page no.14 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

PAIN AND SUFFERING

27. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under:­ " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".

28. Father of minor injured has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW2/A) that the minor injured has suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question. As already noted above, the medical treatment record of the minor petitioner shows that he remained under treatment for a considerable period. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 40,000/­ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.

LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE

29. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the minor petitioner remained under treatment for a Page no.15 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

considerable period. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 30,000/­ towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.

CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES

30. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by him on conveyance, special diet and attendant charges. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the minor petitioner has suffered head injury and remained under treatment for a considerable period. Thus, the parents of minor injured must have given special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. Since the injured is minor, the family members of the minor injured must have suffered loss of income while taking the injured to hospital and thereafter at home, during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs.10,000/­ each for conveyance, special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.

Page no.16 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:­

1. Medical Expenses Rs. 19,112/­

3. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/­

4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 30,000/­ enjoyment of life

5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 30,000/­ attendantcharges Total Rs. 1,19,112/­ Roundedoff to Rs. 1,19,200/­ COMPENSATION IN MACP NO. 6129/16 TITLED AS KULDEEP KUMAR VS. VIKAS KUMAR & ORS.

IN RESPECT OF FATAL INJURIES SUFFERED BY MASTER KUSH.

LOSS OF DEPENDENCY

31. The claimant Sh. Kuldeep Kumar is the father of minor deceased Kush. The mother of the deceased Master Kush has expired in the present accident. It is stated that the deceased Kush was aged about 09 years at the time of accident and he was studying in 4th standard at the time of accident. The copy of school identity card of deceased Ex. PW2/4 shows his date of birth to be 12.12.2005 and hence he was aged about 9 years and six months of age at the time of accident. Even otherwise, the respondents have nowhere disputed the age of deceased throughout the inquiry. Hence, it is accepted that deceased was aged about 9 years at the time of accident.

Page no.17 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

32. Now, the question arises as to how the compensation has to be calculated in case of death of minor person. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the celebrated judgment delivered in the case titled as " Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram & Ors." passed in MAC. APP. No. 554/10 decided on 13.05.2016, has held that compensation on account of death of children in Motor Vehicular Accident cases ought to be dealt with by considering the claim towards pecuniary damages (towards loss of estate), in accordance with the age group wise categories as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as " R.K Malik Vs. Kiran Pal"

reported at 2009 (14) SCC 1; the first category being of children less than 10 years' in age, the second category being of children more than 10 years' and upto 15 years' in age, and the third category of children more than 15 years' but not having attained the age of majority (18 years).

33. In the above cited decision, Hon'ble Dehi High Court further held in para 68 of the judgment that since in the claims arising out of death of children, generally speaking, (non­earning hands), the income is to be notionally assumed on the basis of the Second Schedule of the M.V Act, the general practice of deduction of one­half (50%) towards personal and living expenses, as applied in case of bachelors above the age of 18 years would be unfair. Pertinently, the notional income specified for non­earning persons in the Second Schedule is very low as compared to the rates of Minimum Wages. Therefore, the deduction of one­ third ( 1/3rd ) on this account, as provided by the first note below the Second Schedule would only be appropriate.

Page no.18 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

34. Now, again turning back to the facts of the present case. As already stated above, deceased Master Kush was aged about 9 years at the time of accident. By applying the dictum of law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chetan Malhotra's case mentioned supra, the value of notional income in respect of deceased would be Rs. 48,987/­(15,000 x 1081/331(Cost Inflation Index of relevant year)/331)( The date of accident being 17.06.2015). The said amount is rounded off to Rs.49,000/­. After making deduction of one third towards personal and living expenses of deceased, annual loss to estate would come to Rs.32,666.66/­ (rounded off Rs.32,700/­) (49000 x 2/3). Since the deceased was below 10 years of age, multiplier of 10 shall be applicable. The total loss of estate would be Rs.3,27,000/­ (32700x10). Accordingly, the amount of Rs.3,27,000/­ is awarded as pecuniary damages on account of death of Master Kush. Similarly, amount of Rs.3,27,000/­ is awarded as composite non pecuniary damages on account of death of said child. Thus, the total compensation amount is assessed as Rs.6,54,000/­ for the fatal injuries sustained by Master Kush.

COMPENSATION IN MACP NO. 6130/16 TITLED AS KULDEEP KUMAR & ANR. VS. VIKAS KUMAR & ORS. COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF DEATH OF SMT. MEENAKSHI GARG LOSS OF DEPENDENCY

35. The claimants are the husband and son of deceased Smt. Meenakshi Garg. Petitioner no.1/husband of deceased appeared in witness box as PW2. He deposed that her wife Smt. Meenakshi was aged about 34 years at the Page no.19 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

time of accident. He further deposed that at the time of accident his wife was working as Teacher with Maharaja Agrasen Public School and was getting Rs.25,000/­ per month. He deposed that both the petitioners were completely dependent upon the earnings of deceased.

36. In order to prove the employment and income of deceased Smt. Meenakshi Garg, the petitioners have examined Sh. Virender Accountant from Maharaja Agarsen Public School as PW­4. He deposed that the deceased Smt. Meenakshi was working as PGT in their school and he proved on record the salary sheets from April 2015 to June 2015 as Ex. PW4/2(colly). He deposed that at the time of accident the deceased Smt. Meenakshi was drawing salary of Rs.22,500/­ per month. He also deposed that the deceased was also entitled for annual increment of Rs.3,000/­. In the cross­examination he denied the suggestion that the documents Ex. PW4/2(colly) are false and fabricated. During the course of cross­ examination he also produced the documents whereby the deceased was offered job of PGT in the said school. In view of deposition of PW­4 Sh. Virender and documents produced on record, it is clear that the deceased was working as PGT with Maharaja Agarsain Public School on contract basis and she was drawing salary of Rs. 22,500/­ per month.

37. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of accident. The copy of matriculation certificate of deceased Ex. PW2/5 shows her date of birth as 08.08.1982. Hence, the deceased was around 33 years of age at the time of accident. Thus, the multiplier of 16 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as Page no.20 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

"National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.

38. Considering the fact that deceased was below 40 years of age and was doing private/contractual job at that time, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.

39. It is stated that the deceased was survived by 2 dependents. PW­2/husband of deceased has categorically deposed that both the petitioners were financially dependent upon the earnings of deceased. No evidence to the contrary has been adduced by respondents. Hence, it is held that the deceased was survived by two dependents and hence 1/3rd is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs.40,32,000/­(Rs.22500x2/3 X 140/100 X12X 16) Hence, a sum of Rs.40,32,000/­ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.

LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION

40. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment Page no.21 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non­pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

41. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020 I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner no.1/husband of deceased and petitioner no.2 son of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/­ each towards loss of consortium. Consequently a sum of Rs.80,000/­ is awarded to the petitioners under this head.

LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES

42. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/­ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The total compensation is assessed as under:­

1. Loss of dependency Rs. 40,32,000/­ Page no.22 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

2. Loss of Love and affection Rs. NIL

3. Loss of Consortium Rs. 80,000/­

3. Loss of Estate &Funeral Rs. 30,000/­ Expenses Total Rs. 41,42,000/­ COMPENSATION IN MACP NO. 6238/16 TITLED AS KULDEEP KUMAR VS. VIKAS KUMAR IN RESPECT OF INJURIES SUFFERED BY INJURED SH.

KULDEEP KUMAR MEDICAL EXPENSES

43. PW2 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar i.e. injured himself, has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW2/A) that after the accident, he was taken to Subharti Hospital, Meerut and he remained admitted there from 18.06.2015 to 01.07.2015. He further stated that after the discharge from the said hospital he took further treatment from GTB Hospital as an outdoor patient for about 15 days. He further stated that thereafter he was shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where he remained admitted from 23.07.2015 to 26.07.2015 and after his discharge from the said hospital he took further treatment as an OPD patient. He further stated that he also remained under treatment at Sharda Multip Speciality Hospital from 01.10.2015 to 26.11.2015. He also stated that he also took treatment from SRHC Hospital, Jain Neurospychiatry and Multi Speciality Hospital and Rajat Bran Centre, Panipat. He also deposed that the Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon has advised him further operation which will cost around Rs. 2,56,729/­. The petitioner has relied upon his medical treatment record and medical bills Ex. PW2/9(colly) and Ex.

Page no.23 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

PW2/10(colly).

44. The Ocular testimony of the petitioner with regard to the injuries suffered in the present accident and regarding his medical treatment is duly supported with his medical treatment record. The petitioner is also stated to have suffered 94% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb. Same is evident from the disability certificate dated 11.03.2019 Ex. PW6/1.

45. It is relevant to note that the injured has filed on record the medical bills to the tune of Rs.1,56,724/­ only. It is quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry. Respondents have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the geuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,56,724/­ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

46. The petitioner has also claimed a sum of Rs.2,56,729/­ towards future treatment. However, PW­5 Dr. Sudhir Dubey, Director Minimoally, Neuro Surgery, Medanta Hospital, Gurugram has clearly deposed that since the petitioner was advised to undergo the surgery for about two years ago and considerable period has alredy passed, no purpose would be served by performing the said surgery upon the petitioner as on now as the said surgery ought to have been undergone at the most within the maximum period of two years from the date of sustaining injuries by him due to the accident. Hence, in view of deposition of PW­5 Dr. Sudhir Dubey, the claim of petitioner towards future treatment is not sustainable and same is declined.

Page no.24 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

LOSS OF INCOME

47. Injured Sh.Kuldeep Kumar (PW1) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW2/A) that at the time of accident he was doing private job and was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/­ per month.

48. It be noted that the thought the petitioner has claimed that he was doing private job but he has not adduced any cogent evidence in this regard. The petitioner has also not filed any documentary proof of his educational/technical qualifications. In view of aforesaid position, the income of the petitioner is taken as minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevalent at the time of accident i.e. on 17.06.2015 which were Rs.9048/­ per month.

49. The petitioner has not filed any document showing that he was advised complete bed rest for any specific period. However, it can not be overlooked that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries resulting into 94% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb and remained under treatment for a considerable period. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and in view of the treatment record brought on record, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at all atleast for a period of 8 months or so. Thus, a sum of Rs. 72,384/­(Rs.9048x8) is awarded in favour of petitioner and against the respondent under this head.

PAIN AND SUFFERING

50. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Page no.25 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under:­ " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".

51. Injured himself as PW2 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW2/A) that he had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. As already noted above, the medical treatment record of the petitioner shows that he remained under treatment for a considerable period. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 94 % in relation to his right upper limb. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 80,000/­ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.

LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE

52. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner remained under treatment for a considerable Page no.26 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

period. The disability certificate Ex. PW6/1 show that he had suffered 94% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 60,000/­ towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.

CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES

53. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by him on conveyance, special diet and attendant charges. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that he had sustained 94% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb and remained under treatment for a considerable period. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs.10,000/­ each(Total Rs.30,000/­) for conveyance, special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.

Page no.27 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME

54. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 94% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 11.03.2019 of Medical Board of Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi.

55. In order to prove the genuineness of the disability certificate the petitioner has examined PW­6 Dr.Sneah Sharma, Senior Resident, Orthopaedics, LNJP Hospital, Delhi. She proved on record the disability certificate Ex. PW6/1. She deposed that the injured Sh. Kuldeep Kumar was found to have suffered 94% locomotor disability in relation to his right upper limb and the same was permanent in nature. She further deposed that the said disability is permanent in nature and same is not likely to improve. She further deposed that due to the disability suffered the petitioner camnot do conordinated activities without help of other hand. She further stated that the petitioner would have difficulty in lifting overhead objects, in eating indian style, combing, in putting on shirt, in drinking glass of water, in buttoning of shirt, in tying nara and writing etc.

56. The petitioner has not proved his avocation by cogent evidence. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of injuries and disability suffered by petitioner, his functional disability is taken as 50% with regard to whole body.

57. The copy of PAN card of the petitioner shows his date of birth to be 09.01.1979. The date of accident is 17.06.2015. In view of said document, his Page no.28 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

age was about 36 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 15 in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17. The monthly notional income of petitioner has been taken as Rs.9048/­ per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs.4524/­ (Rs.9048x 50/100 ). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 11,40,048­ (rounded off Rs.11,40,000/­) (Rs.4524 x 140/100 x 12 x15). (Reliance placed on Jagdish Vs. Mohan & Ors. (2018) 4 SCC 571 and unreported decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in " The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Arora & Ors.", MAC APP No. 320/2013 decided on 28.09.18). Thus, a sum of Rs. 11,40,000/­ is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.

Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:­

1. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,56,724/­

2. Loss of income Rs. 72,384/­

3. Pain and suffering Rs. 80,000/­

4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 60,000/­ enjoyment of life

5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 30,000/­ attendantcharges

6. Loss of future income Rs. 11,40,000/­ Total Rs. 15,39,108/­ Roundedoff to Rs. 15,39,100/­

58. Respondent no.1/driver is principal tort feasor. Respondent Page no.29 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

no.2/owner is vicarously liable for the act of respondent no.1/driver. Respondent no.1 driver was under the employment of respondent no.2/UPSRTC. Hence, respondent no.2/registered owner UPSRTC is directed to make payment of award amount to the claimants. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF IN MACP NO. 5653/16 TITLED AS SUMAN & ORS. VS. VIKASH KUMAR & ORS.

59. Vide order dated 16.10.2019 the interest on the award amount was curtailed from the date of said order till further orders. However, vide order dated 06.03.2020 t her order dated 16.10.2019 curtailing the interest on the award amount was recalled from the date of said order i.e. 06.03.2020. hence, in view of aforesaid the petitioners are not entitled to interest from 16.10.2019 to 06.03.2020. In view of findings on issue no.1 & 2(supra) I award compensation of Rs.21,28,000/­ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.30.07.2015 till the date of its realization(except the aforesaid period from 16.10.2019 till 06.03.2020), in favour of petitioners and against the respondents (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).

ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF IN MACP NO. 6128/16 TITLED AS LUV VS. VIKASH KUMAR & ORS.

60. Vide order dated 16.10.2019 the interest on the award amount was curtailed from the date of said order till further orders. However, vide order dated 06.03.2020 t her order dated 16.10.2019 curtailing the interest on the award Page no.30 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

amount was recalled from the date of said order i.e. 06.03.2020. hence, in view of aforesaid the petitioners are not entitled to interest from 16.10.2019 to 06.03.2020. In view of findings on issue no.1 and 2(supra) I award compensation of Rs.1,19,200/­ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.02.02.2016 till the date of its realization(except the aforesaid period from 16.10.2019 till 06.03.2020), in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.

ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF IN MACP NO. 6129/16 TITLED AS KULDEEP KUMAR VS. VIKASH KUMAR & ORS. IN RESPECT OF DEATH OF MINOR KUSH

61. Vide order dated 16.10.2019 the interest on the award amount was curtailed from the date of said order till further orders. However, vide order dated 06.03.2020 t her order dated 16.10.2019 curtailing the interest on the award amount was recalled from the date of said order i.e. 06.03.2020. hence, in view of aforesaid the petitioners are not entitled to interest from 16.10.2019 to 06.03.2020. In view of findings on issue no.1 and 2(supra) I award compensation of Rs.6,54,000/­ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.02.02.2016 till the date of its realization(except the aforesaid period from 16.10.2019 till 06.03.2020), in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.

ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF IN MACP NO. 6130/16 TITLED AS KULDEEP KUMAR & ANR. VS. VIKASH KUMAR & ORS. IN RESPECT OF DEATH OF SMT. MEENAKSHI GARG

62. Vide order dated 16.10.2019 the interest on the award amount Page no.31 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

was curtailed from the date of said order till further orders. However, vide order dated 06.03.2020 t her order dated 16.10.2019 curtailing the interest on the award amount was recalled from the date of said order i.e. 06.03.2020. hence, in view of aforesaid the petitioners are not entitled to interest from 16.10.2019 to 06.03.2020. In view of findings on issue no.1 and 2(supra) I award compensation of Rs.41,42,000/­ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.02.02.2016 till the date of its realization(except the aforesaid period from 16.10.2019 till 06.03.2020), in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.

ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF IN MACP NO. 6238/16 TITLED AS KULDEEP KUMAR VS. VIKASH KUMAR & ORS.

IN RESPECT OF INJURIES SUFFERED BY INJURED SH. KULDEEP

63. Vide order dated 16.10.2019 the interest on the award amount was curtailed from the date of said order till further orders. However, vide order dated 06.03.2020 t her order dated 16.10.2019 curtailing the interest on the award amount was recalled from the date of said order i.e. 06.03.2020. hence, in view of aforesaid the petitioners are not entitled to interest from 16.10.2019 to 06.03.2020. In view of findings on issue no.1 and 2(supra) I award compensation of Rs.15,39,100/­ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.02.02.2016 till the date of its realization(except the aforesaid period from 16.10.2019 till 06.03.2020), in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.

Page no.32 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

APPORTIONMENT IN MACP NO. 5653/16 TITLED AS SUMAN & ORS. VS. VIKASH KUMAR & ORS.

64. Statement of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 04.06.2019. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statements of claimants, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioners no. 2 Abhishek and petitioner no.3 Anmol shall be entitled to share amount of Rs.4,00,000/­/­(Rupees Four Lacs Only) each alongwith proportionate interest. Petitioner no.4 mother of deceased shall have share amount of Rs.3,00,000/­ alongwith proportionate interest. Petitioner no.1 Smt. Suman /widow shall be entitled to remaining share amounts of Rs.10,28,000/­ (Rupees Ten Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand only) alongwith proportionate interest.

65. Out of share amount of petitioner no.1, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh Only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her A/c no. 3747695582 with Central Bank of India having IFSC code no. CBIN0283195 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/­ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.

66. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 4 Smt. Bala Devi, a sum of Rs.50,000/­( Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her Saving Bank A/c no 3747678601 with Central Bank of India having IFSC code no. CBIN0283195 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/­each for one month, two months, Page no.33 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.

67. Entire share amount of petitioner no.2 Abhishek and petitioner no.3 Anmol (minors) be kept in FDR till they attain 18 years of age and thereafter a sum of Rs.50,000/­ is ordered to be released to them through their respective saving bank account i.e. A/c no. 3747676499 with Central Bank of India having IFSC code no. CBIN0283195 of claimant Sh. Abhishek and A/c no. 3747957243 with Central Bank of India having IFSC code no. CBIN0283195 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.10,000/­ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest. The petitioner no.1/mother of claimants is at liberty to withdraw the monthly interest on the FDR in the name of minor till they attain 18 years of age, in order to meet their educational and other expenses.

APPORTIONMENT IN MACP NO. 6128/16 TITLED AS LUV VS. VIKASH KUMAR & ORS.

68. Entire award amount of minor Luv be kept in FDR till he attain 18 years of age and thereafter a sum of Rs.50,000/­ is ordered to be released to him through his Saving Bank A/c no. 3747669969 with Central Bank of India having IFSC code no. CBIN0283195 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.10,000/­ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar/father of minor claimant is at liberty to withdraw the monthly interest on the FDR in the name of minor till he attain 18 years of age, in order to meet Page no.34 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

his educational and other expenses.

APPORTIONMENT IN MACP NO. 6130/16 TITLED AS KULDEEP KUMAR VS. VIKASH KUMAR & ORS.

IN RESPECT OF DEATH OF MINOR KUSH

69. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statement of claimant, It is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees two lacs Only) be immediately released to petitioner Sh. Kuldeep Kumar through his Saving Bank A/c no. 3747670011 with Central Bank of India having IFSC code no. CBIN0283195 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/­ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.

APPORTIONMENT IN MACP NO. 6130/16 TITLED AS KULDEEP KUMAR & ANR. VS. VIKASH KUMAR & ORS.

IN RESPECT OF DEATH OF SMT. MEENAKSHI

70. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statement of claimants, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioners no. 2 Master Luv shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 15,00,000/­(Rupees Three Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest. Petitioner no.1 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar/husband shall be entitled to remaining share amounts of Rs.26,42,000/­(Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Forty Two Thousand) alongwith proportionate interest.

Page no.35 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

71. Out of share amount of petitioner no.1, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees Two Lacs Only) is directed to be immediately released to hun through his Saving Bank A/c no. 3747670011 with Central Bank of India having IFSC code no. CBIN0283195 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/­ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.

72. Entire share amount of minor Luv be kept in FDR till he attain 18 years of age and thereafter a sum of Rs.50,000/­ is ordered to be released to him through his Saving Bank A/c no. 3747669969 with Central Bank of India having IFSC code no. CBIN0283195 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.10,000/­ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar/father of minor claimant is at liberty to withdraw the monthly interest on the FDR in the name of minor till he attain 18 years of age, in order to meet his educational and other expenses.

APPORTIONMENT IN MACP NO. 6238/16 TITLED AS KULDEEP KUMAR VS. VIKASH KUMAR & ORS.

IN RESPECT OF INJURIES SUFFERED BY INJURED KULDEEP

73. Out of the award amount, a sum of Rs..3,00,000/­ (Rupees Three Lacs Only)(Since the medical bills around Rs.1,56,000/­ have been filed) is directed to be immediately released to him through his Saving Bank A/c no.

Page no.36 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

3747670011 with Central Bank of India having IFSC code no. CBIN0283195 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/­ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.

74. The FDRs to be prepared as per the aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following directions:­

(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).

(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).

(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.

(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.

(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre­mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.

(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.

Page no.37 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.

(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.

75. The respondent no.2/UPSRTC is directed to deposit the award amount, in terms of aforesaid directions with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the aforesaid amount immediately to aforesaid petitioners in their aforesaid saving bank accounts mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and respondents. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.

Page no.38 of total 39 MACP no. 5653/16, 6128/16, 6129/16, 6130/16 and 6238/16 Suman, Luv and Kuldeep Kumar (3 cases) Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors.

Form V & Form IV­B and IVA in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure­A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.

Digitally signed by 
                                             DEVENDER        DEVENDER
                                             KUMAR           KUMAR JANGALA
                                                             Date: 2020.10.26
Announced in the open                        JANGALA         17:32:25 +0800

Court on 26.10.2020
                                               (DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA)
                                                        Judge MACT­2 (North)
                                                          Rohini Courts, Delhi

Certified that above award contains 39 pages and each page is signed by me.

(DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) Judge MACT­2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Page no.39 of total 39