Delhi District Court
Petition No. 13/ vs Ranjan Kumar on 15 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT 02
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. 10/10
Deepak @ Daulat Ram
S/o Late Khushi Ram Chug
R/o 16, Sadhu Nagar, Manik Bagh Road,
Indore M.P.
Presently at
A3/14, Janakpuri,
New Delhi
Petition No. 11/10
Usha Bhatia
W/o Sh. Vijay Bhatia
R/o B20, Gali No.1,
Sanjay Nagar, Mahendera Park,
Delhi - 110 033
Petition No. 12/10
Hema Chugh
W/o Sh. Deepak @ Daulat Ram
R/o 16, Sadhu Nagar, Manik Bagh Road,
Indore M.P.
Presently at
A3/14, Janakpuri,
New Delhi
Petition No. 13/10
Vijay Bhatia
S/o Sh. Mool Chand Bhatia
R/o B20, Gali No.1,
Sanjay Nagar, Mahendera Park,
Delhi - 110 033 ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Ranjan Kumar
S/o Sh. Harpal Singh
R/o P2/508, Sultanpuri,
Delhi (Driver)
2. Anurag
S/o Sh. Rohtas
R/o Vill. Samaspur, Sector46,
Gurgaon, Haryana (Owner)
3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Munjal Tower, 2887, Old Railway Road,
Gurgaon, Haryana (Insurer)
...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 31.07.07 (Petition No. 10/10)
04.08.07 (Petition No. 11/10)
04.08.07 (Petition No. 12/10)
31.07.07 (Petition No. 13/10)
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 14.02.12
Date of pronouncement : 15.03.12
J U D G M E N T :
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off the above stated petitions filed under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended upto date (herein after referred to as Act), as the same have emerged out of the road accident which occurred on 19.06.07 at about 10.40 PM at Ring Road, Noida Tpoint in front of IP Park whereby the petitioners have claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by them.
2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts leading to the above stated petitions are that on 19.06.07, the petitioners were going in a Maruti car bearing no. DL 2C AA 5287 from Nizamuddin Railway Station to Azadpur. At about 10.40 PM, near Noida More, a Tavera car bearing no. HR 55 DT 0851 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed came from the side of Noida and hit their car. Due to sudden and forceful impact, the petitioners sustained multiple injuries. They were removed to AIIMS where their MLCs were prepared. A case was registered at the police station Hazrat Nizamuddin vide FIR 351/07.
3. Petitioner Smt. Usha Bhatia sustained fracture in her both hands. She was operated and a plate in her left hand was affixed. She was discharged on 04.07.07. Her treatment is still continuing. She was 50 years of age at the time of accident. She used to earn Rs. 10000/ p.m. Petitioner Deepak was 57 years of age. He was Manager in a factory and earning Rs. 25000/ p.m. He sustained head injuries and fracture in his neck and chest ribs. He was discharged on 09.07.07. He remained bed ridden for six months. Petitioner Vijay Bhatia was 49 years of age. He had been doing business and earning Rs. 15000/ p.m. He sustained head injuries. He was put on plaster and discharged on 21.06.07. He was also advised bed rest. Petitioner Hema Chugh was 52 years of age. She was partner in a factory. She sustained head injuries and fracture on her hip and shoulder/veritable column. She also sustained fracture below her waist. She was discharged on 09.07.07. She was advised six months bed rest. It was stated by the petitioners that they incurred huge expenditure on their treatment, special diet and conveyance. They have also suffered huge loss, mental pain and agony for which they should be adequately compensated.
4. Notice of the petitions was given to the respondents.
5. All the respondents contested the petitions and filed their written statements denying the allegations and the claim of the petitioners. It was alleged by respondent no.2 (Anurag Yadav) that the driver of the Maruti car was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. He was responsible for causing the accident. He is guilty of contributory negligence. He however, stated that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 and the liability if any, is that of the respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 also stated on the lines of respondent Anurag. However, it admitted that the Tavera car was insured with it vide policy no. 214700/2007/3307 and it was valid from 25.10.06 to 24.10.07.
On an application moved by the petitioners, the driver of the Tavera car namely Ranjan Kumar was impleaded as one of the respondents vide order dated 07.01.10. All the petitions were consolidated. During the proceedings, respondent no.1 and 2 absented and they were proceeded Ex parte on 29.07.10.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 28.02.08 :
1. Whether the petitioners received injuries due to an accident on 19.06.07 at about 10.39 PM at IP Park, Noida More, near Nizamuddin Railway Station, Delhi which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of car no.
HR 55 DT 0851 by R1, the vehicle owned by R2 and insured with R3/insurance company?
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to claim and from whom ?
3. Relief.
7. The parties were thereafter, called upon to substantiate their case by leading their evidence.
8. All the petitioners individually tendered their affidavits in the petitions wherein they reiterated the facts as stated in the petitions. The petitioners also tendered documents with the affidavits Ex.PW1/1 to 36 (Hema Chugh). Ex.PW1/A to G, Ex.PW3/1 to 15 and certified copy of criminal record Ex.PW3/16 (Colly.) (Vijay Bhatia), Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/22 (Deepak) and Ex.PW1/A to G and Ex.PW3/1 to 54 (Usha Bhatia).
9. Respondent no.3 examined Sh. Anal Bihari Sahai, Record Clerk, Licensing Authority, Mathura as R3W1 and Sh. Rajpal, Asstt. Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as R3W2.
10. Respondent no.1 and 2 did not examine any witness.
11. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel Sh. Mahender Malhotra for the petitioners and Sh. Chaman Lal for respondent no.3.
12. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the offending vehicle had hit the car of the petitioners from behind. The charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners corroborates this fact. In that accident, all the petitioners sustained injuries. They were taken to AIIMS where their MLCs were prepared. They remained bed ridden for long. They incurred heavy expenditure on their treatment, special diet and conveyance. They also suffered financial loss on account of the injuries.
13. Ld. counsel for respondent no.3 on the contrary argued that it is a case of head on collision. Two vehicles were involved in the accident. The petitioners did not file any proof of their income. The driving license of the respondent no.1 was fake thus, respondent no.3 is not liable to indemnify the insured.
14. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. My findings on the issues are as follows :
I S S U E N o. 1
15. It is well settled law that where a petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and negligent driving. To prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
16. The petitioners have stated that on 19.06.07 at about 10.40 PM, they were going in a Maruti car no. DL 2C AA 5287 from Nizamuddin Railway Station to Azadpur. When they reached Noida More, at about 10.40 PM a Tavera bearing no. HR 55 DT 0851 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed hit their car. Due to this forceful impact they sustained multiple injuries. They were taken to AIIMS by the police. They placed on record the FIR, site plan, recovery memo of the car, MLC, cover note, driving license and the R.C. Ex.PW1/A to G and also filed the certified copy of the Charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. perusal of which reveals that H. C. Ram Khilari on receipt of information about the accident went to the spot and found both the vehicles in accidental condition. He recorded the statement of Vijay Bhatia wherein he had stated that the offending vehicle had come from the side of Noida More at a high speed and hit their car which turned turtle. He had stated that the Tavera was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The site plan placed on record shows that the car of the petitioners was going in the right direction from Ashram to ITO. It was on the extreme left of the ring road. Tavera car had come from the side of Noida and hit the car of the petitioners at point A. I do not agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 that it is a case of contributory negligence or head on collision. The site plan, statement of Vijay Bhatia recorded by the police and the testimony of petitioners clearly show that it was not a headoncollision, rather the offending vehicle had hit the car of the petitioners by its side when it was going from Nizamuddin Railway Station to ITO. It was thus incumbent upon the respondent no.1 while taking turn to see the traffic coming on the main road in order to rule out the possibility of accident. The mechanical inspection report of car shows that its rear Dicci, tail light had damaged. The front bumper had also damaged. The right door had pressed. The vehicle was found unworthy of road test. The Tavera car had fresh damages on its front bumper, head lights which go to show that it had hit the car by its side / back and it was being driven at a fast speed. Nothing material came in the crossexamination of the petitioners to draw an inference that accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of Tavera car by respondent no.1. Further, no evidence contrary to this deposition has been brought on record by the respondents. The Charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. is also against the respondent no.1. Testimony of the petitioners and their MLCs show that the injuries on the person of Usha Bhatia, Vijay Bhatia and Hema Chugh were grievous and the petitioner Deepak Chugh had sustained head injuries. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ''National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pushpa Rana'' reported as 2009 ACJ 287 has held that whenever criminal proceedings are placed on record on completion of investigation by the police, then that in itself is sufficient proof of the negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
17. It is therefore, established that the offending vehicle i.e. HR 55 DT 5287 was very much involved in the accident which led to the injuries on the persons of the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident which was owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents. I S S U E No. 2
18. The petitioners have claimed compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them. It is true that when a person is injured in a road accident, he is entitled to the compensation for the pecuniary and non pecuniary damages.
19. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.O. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that : "Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance;
(ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters ie. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, ie. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED ON MEDICAL TREATMENT :
In Petition No. 11/10
20. The petitioner Hema Chugh has stated that due to the accident she sustained fracture in right clavicle bone, 2nd, 3rd, 4th rib right side, fracture in B/L etc. She placed on record the discharge summary Ex.PW1/1, perusal of which reveals that she was discharged on 09.07.07. She was advised medicines and further followup. She also took treatment from private doctor as is reflected from the record Ex.PW1/4. As per Xray report Ex.PW1/5 she had fractures in superior and inferior pelvis on both sides. There was interior displacement L4 Vertibra over L5 Vertibra. She had Haemotoma in head. Her treatment continued for 89 months. She has filed the bills for Rs. 43,314.12/ Ex.PW1/10 to 31, MLC Ex.PW1/D and discharge summary Ex.PW1/1. Looking into her injuries and followup treatment, I award a sum of Rs. 44,000/ to the petitioner Hema Chugh towards Medical Expenses. In Petition No. 12/10
21. The petitioner Usha Bhatia has stated that in the accident she sustained fracture in her both hands. She was operated. She was discharged on 04.07.07. She also took treatment from private nursing home. She placed on record the MLC Ex.PW1/D, original discharge summary Ex.PW3/1 and the bills. Perusal of the discharge summary would show that she had B/L fracture proximal humerus. So she had inability to use both of her limbs. Her treatment continued till October, 2007. She has filed the bills Ex.PW3/18 to 52 for Rs. 36.095.78. Looking into the injuries and followup treatment, I award a sum of Rs. 37,000/ to the petitioner Usha Bhatia towards Medical Expenses.
In Petition No. 13/10
22. The petitioner Vijay Bhatia has stated that he sustained fracture in his hands and injuries on his head and face. He was discharged on 21.06.07. His treatment is still continuing. He filed MLC Ex.PW1/D, discharge summary Ex.PW3/1 and stated that he was also treated at Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini. He filed the OPD/Treatment cards Ex.PW3/2 to Ex.PW3/5, medical prescription and the bills Ex.PW4/6 to Ex.PW4/15. In this case he has filed bills for Rs. 5,063.70 but looking into the injuries and his followup treatment, I am of the view that he might have spent much more. I therefore, award Rs. 7,000/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses. In Petition No. 10/10
23. The petitioner Deepak has stated that he sustained multiple injuries on his head. The doctor had put stitches on his skull. He also sustained fracture on his neck and chest ribs. He was discharged on 09.07.07. He also took his treatment from a private nursing home. He filed the MLC Ex.PW1/D and the discharge summary Ex.PW4/1 including the medical prescriptions and test reports etc. He has filed the bills for Rs. 3,003/ but looking into the injuries and his follow up treatments, I award Rs. 7,000/ to him towards medical expenses.
In Petition no. 10/10, 11/10, 12/10 and 13/10 COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
24. The medical record of the petitioners show that the petitioners were hale and hearty before the accident. They sustained multiple injuries and fractures. They remained in the hospital for quite a long time. They attended the hospital as an outdoor patient and also took treatment from private nursing home. The injuries had caused them lot of pain and mental agony. Taking into consideration their multiple injuries, I award Rs. 35,000/ each to the petitioners Hema Chugh, Usha Bhatia and Deepak and Rs. 25,000/ to the petitioner Vijay Bhatia towards pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life. In Petition no. 10/10, 11/10, 12/10 and 13/10 COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT CHARGES AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
25. The petitioners have stated that after the accident they were taken to AIIMS. They sustained multiple injuries. The petitioner Hema Chugh sustained fracture in right clavicle bone, 2nd, 3rd, 4th rib right side, fracture in B/L etc. She had fractures in superior and inferior pelvis on both sides. There was interior displacement L4 Vertibra over L5 Vertibra. She was discharged on 09.07.07. The petitioner Usha Bhatia sustained fracture in her both hands. She was operated. She was discharged on 04.07.07. The petitioner Vijay Bhatia sustained fracture in his hands and injuries on his head and face. He was discharged on the same day. The petitioner Deepak sustained multiple injuries on his head. The doctor had put stitches on his skull. He also sustained fracture on his neck and chest ribs. He was discharged on 09.07.07. Their MLCs and further followup treatment i.e. OPD cards also show that they took treatment as an OPD patient as well as from the private nursing home. They were advised special diet for early recovery. The injuries were such that they might have taken the help of attendant for performing their ordinary pursuits. Petitioner Usha Bhatia and Hema Chugh remained bed ridden for 89 months. Petitioner Deepak and Vijay Bhatia remained on bed for about six months and three months. Taking into consideration their multiple injuries, I award Rs. 30,000/ each to the petitioners Usha Bhatia and Hema Chugh and Rs. 20,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively to the petitioners Deepak and Vijay Bhatia towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF INCOME :
Petition No. 11/10
26. Petitioner Hema Chugh sustained multiple injuries and fractures. She remained in the hospital upto 09.07.07. Her treatment is still going on. She has stated that even on now she cannot put pressure on her body. She is a owner of a shoe factory and has been holding 49% share. She had been earning Rs. 20000/ p.m. She has filed the income tax return for the period 01.04.05 to 31.03.06 and 01.04.04 to 31.03.05 showing her income as Rs.
105892/ and 68344/ on which she paid the tax of Rs. 2980/ and Rs. 2668/. Taking a period of nine months she remained bed ridden the loss of income is calculated as 9 x (105892 - 2980)/12 = Rs. 77,184/ which is rounded off to Rs. 77,200/
27. I, therefore, award Rs. 77,200/ to the petitioner Hema Chugh towards loss of income.
Petition No. 12/10
28. Petitioner Usha Bhatia has stated that she used to earn Rs. 10000/ p.m. Due to injuries she remained confined to bed for long and even on now she needs the help of someone. In this case the petitioner was discharged on 04.07.07. She was 50 years of age. She had been working with husband in the factory. Although she did not file any proof as to her income nor any income tax return but it is also to be noted that she used to handle the affairs of the house also.
29. In the case of Arun Kumar Aggarwal & Another Vs National Insurance Company & Others, 2010 ACJ 2161 (Supreme Court) it was held that :
"The contribution made by the housewife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with too love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife or the mother does not work by the clock. She is in constant attendance of the family through out the day and night, unless she is employed and she is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes etc. She teach a small children and small provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maid servant can do the household work such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children. It was held that the approach to compute the compensation by relying upon the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker does not comment our approval because it is most unrealistic to compare the gratuitous services of the housewife/mother with work of a skilled worker."
30. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the value of the services rendered by the injured and that she used to assist her husband in his factory, her income in the present case is assessed as Rs. 60,000/ p.a. Taking a period of nine months, she remained bed ridden the loss of income is calculated as 9 x (60,000) / 12 = Rs. 45,000/.
31. I therefore, award Rs. 45,000/ to the petitioner Usha Bhatia towards Loss of income.
Petition No. 13/10
32. Petitioner Vijay Bhatia sustained fracture in his arm/shoulder. He was discharged on the same day. He was running a stationary factory from his residence and used to earn Rs. 20000/ p.m. In this case he did not file any document or proof as to his income. Although he has stated that he is matriculate but no certificate was filed by him to this effect. Taking the minimum wages for nonmatriculate as on date of accident which as per schedule was Rs. 3894/ p.m. and a period of three months he remained bed ridden as is evident from his OPD card, the loss of income is calculated as 3 x 3894 = 11,682/ which is rounded off to Rs. 11,700/.
33. I, therefore, award Rs. 23,500/ to the petitioner towards loss of income. Petition No. 10/10
34. Petitioner Deepak sustained head injuries. He had fracture in his chest and remained hospitalised for 19 days. He was 57 years of age. He stated that he used to earn Rs. 25,000/ from his consultancy work and salary. He remained bed ridden for six months. His treatment is still continuing. He cannot do driving. He cannot move his mouth freely. In this case he has filed an income tax return of the year 200506 as per which his income was Rs. 97,070/ p.a. Taking a period of six months his loss of income is calculated as 6 x 97,070 / 12 = Rs. 48,535/ which is rounded off to Rs. 48,600/.
35. I therefore, award Rs. 48,600/ to the petitioner towards loss of income.
36. Thus, the total compensation awarded in favour of the petitioners is assessed as under : Petition No. 11/10 12/10 13/10 10/10 Medical Expenses : Rs. 44,000/ 37,000/ 7,000/ 7,000/ Pain & Sufferings & Enjoyment of Life : Rs. 35,000/ 35,000/ 25,000/ 35,000/ Special Diet, Attendant & Conveyance : Rs. 30,000/ 30,000/ 15,000/ 20,000/ Loss of Income : Rs. 77,200/ 45,000/ 11,700/ 48,600/ ============ ======== ======= ======= TOTAL :Rs. 1,86,200/ 1,47,000/ 58,700/ 1,10,600/ ============ ======== ======= ======= L I A B I L I T Y
37. As regards the liability, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1, therefore primary liability to compensate the petitioners is that of respondent no.1. As the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2, therefore, he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no.3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners.
38. Ld. Counsel for the Insurance company, however, in his quest to have the Insurance company exonerated of its contractual obligation contended that the offending vehicle was being driven by the driver using the fake license. He relied on the testimony of R3W1 and R3W2.
39. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
40. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Lal Chand Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported as 2006 (3) TAC321 SC that Insurance Company has to show and prove on record that due and adequate care was not taken by the owner or owner had the knowledge that driver was not holding a valid driving license. Only in that eventuality the Insurance Company can be absolved of its contractual obligation, not otherwise.
41. R3W1 has placed on record the driving license no. ET 1320/MTR/05Ex.R3W1/A. He stated that the said license was not issued in the name of respondent no.1 and the license is fake. R3W2 has filed the original policy of the offending vehicle Ex.R3W2/A. He stated that a notice U/o 12 R 8 CPC mark "A" was issued to the owner/driver to produce the license but they did not produce the same. On going through the testimony of R3W1 and R3W2, I am of the view that no such license was issued by the authority in the name of respondent no. 1. Nothing material has come in the crossexamination of R3W1 and R3W2 to disbelieve them. No evidence is led on behalf of respondent no.2 to prove that he had verified the genuineness of license allegedly in possession of respondent no. 1 before giving him the vehicle to drive. As per the terms of the policy, a person must hold an effective driving license and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. This very act on the part of respondent no. 1 amounts to breach of the insurance policy. It was held in the case of Kamala Mangalal Vayani & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2010) 12 SCC 488 that once a comprehensive insurance policy is admitted on or so proving any breach of insurance conditions, is on the insurer and not claimants. In the present case, the insurance company i.e. respondent no. 3 has been able to establish that the vehicle was not plying on the road in consonance with the terms of the policy. Thus, the liability to compensate the petitioners would remain with that of respondent no. 1 and 2 i.e. driver /owner of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.
42. Legislature being conscious of the magnitude of the plight of the victims of road accident have introduced the present beneficial provisions to protect the interest of third parties i.e. victims of road accident so as to enable them to claim compensation from the driver/ owner of the vehicle. Legislature in its wisdom has made it a statutory obligation of every owner to have his vehicle insured against third party risks. This has been made mandatory so that victims of road accident even after being granted compensation from the court, should not run from pillar to post to have the orders of the court executed and to facilitate them to get the same from the Insurance Company. It was held in the case of "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vasdev Kukreja & Ors II (2010) ACC 148" that primary liability to pay the award amount is of insurance company. In that case there was a breach of terms and conditions of the policy as there was violation as to the category of the vehicle which the driver was authorised to drive. The Hon'ble High Court directed the insurance company to pay the award and granted the recovery rights in its favour to recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.
43. Balancing the "twin interest" of the Insurance Company at one hand and that of the third party i.e. petitioner for whose benefit the present legislation was brought on the statute book, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner within the time given in this award and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
44.For the foregoing reasons, the respondent no. 3 is directed to pay compensation awarded to the petitioner and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent no. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
R E L I E F In Petition No. 11/10, 12/10, 13/10 and 10/10
45. In view of my findings on issues, I award a sum of Rs. 1,86,200/ (Petition No. 11/10), Rs. 1,47,000/ (Petition No. 12/10), Rs. 58,700/ (Petition No. 13/10) and Rs. 1,10,600/ (Petition No. 10/10) to the petitioners as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award.
46. Respondent No. 3 is directed to pay the awarded amount by way of cheque in favour of the petitioners, to be deposited in this Tribunal, within a period of 30 days of this order failing which it shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum on the awarded amount till its realization (for the delayed period). It shall intimate to the petitioners about depositing the cheque in terms of the award at the address of petitioners mentioned in title of this award, so as to facilitate the petitioners to withdraw the same.
47. Copy of this Judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
48. Nazir attached to the Tribunal of undersigned is directed to issue notice to the petitioner immediately on deposit of the cheque of the awarded amount by the Respondent No. 3 in this Tribunal so as to facilitate them to get the same released.
49. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
on 15th Day of March, 2012 (SANJIV JAIN )
Presiding Officer : MACTII
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 15.03.2012
Vijay Bhatia Vs. Anurag
15.03.2012
Present : None.
Vide common judgment dictated in the petition titled "Vijay Bhatia Vs. Anurag" (Petition No. 13/10) all the four petitions have been disposed off. The main judgment be placed in the file titled "Vijay Bhatia Vs. Anurag" (Petition no. 13/10) and copy be placed in other files.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACTII South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 15.03.2012 Usha Bhatia Vs. Anurag 15.03.2012 Present : None.
Vide common judgment dictated in the petition titled "Vijay Bhatia Vs. Anurag" (Petition No. 13/10) all the four petitions have been disposed off. The main judgment be placed in the file titled "Vijay Bhatia Vs. Anurag" (Petition no. 13/10) and copy be placed in other files.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACTII South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 15.03.2012 Hema Chug Vs. Anurag 15.03.2012 Present : None.
Vide common judgment dictated in the petition titled "Vijay Bhatia Vs. Anurag" (Petition No. 13/10) all the four petitions have been disposed off. The main judgment be placed in the file titled "Vijay Bhatia Vs. Anurag" (Petition no. 13/10) and copy be placed in other files.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACTII South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 15.03.2012 Deepak Vs. Anurag 15.03.2012 Present : None.
Vide common judgment dictated in the petition titled "Vijay Bhatia Vs. Anurag" (Petition No. 13/10) all the four petitions have been disposed off. The main judgment be placed in the file titled "Vijay Bhatia Vs. Anurag" (Petition no. 13/10) and copy be placed in other files.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACTII South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 15.03.2012