Delhi District Court
Sh. V. N. Bansal vs . Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. on 27 October, 2014
-:1:-
Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK JAGOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL,DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF : Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
M.A.C.P NO : 182/13/14
Sh. V. N. Bansal
S/o Late Sh. H. C. Bansal
R/o RZ219, Shiv Block,
Raghu Nagar, New Delhi45. ........ (Petitioner)
Through Advocate Sh. J. S. Dagar,
Ch. No. 627, Dwarka Court Complex
Sector10, New Delhi.
Versus
1 Smt. Sonia Arora
W/o Sh. Arun Arora,
R/o Flat No. B406, Plot No. 10,
Sheetal Vihar, CGHS Sector23,
Dwarka, New Delhi110074
2 National Insurance Company
Division Office: VIII, C3,
Puja House, First Floor,
Karampura, New Delhi15 ...........Respondents
Page no. 33 of 1 -:2:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
AND (II) IN THE MATTER OF : Sh. V. N. Bansal &Ors Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
M.A.C.P NO : 181/13/14 1 Sh. V. N. Bansal S/o Late Sh. H. C. Bansal 2 Sanjay Bansal S/o Sh. V. N. Bansal 3 Ajay Bansal S/o Sh. V. N. Bansal 4 Rajeev Bansal S/o Sh. V. N. Bansal 5 Smt. Rekha D/o Sh. V. N. Bansal All are R/o RZ219, Shiv Block, Raghu Nagar, New Delhi45. ........ (Petitioner) Through Advocate Sh. J. S. Dagar, Ch. No. 627, Dwarka Court Complex Sector10, New Delhi.
Versus 1 Smt. Sonia Arora W/o Sh. Arun Arora, R/o Flat No. B406, Plot No. 10, Sheetal Vihar, CGHS Sector23, Dwarka, New Delhi110074 2 National Insurance Company Division Office: VIII, C3, Puja House, First Floor, Karampura, New Delhi15 ...........Respondents Page no. 33 of 2 -:3:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
AND (III) IN THE MATTER OF : Smt. PoonamVs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. M.A.C.P NO : 180/13/14 Smt. Poonam Bansal W/o Sh. Rajeev Bansal R/o RZ219, Shiv Block, Raghu Nagar, New Delhi45. ........ (Petitioner) Through Advocate Sh. J. S. Dagar, Ch. No. 627, Dwarka Court Complex Sector10, New Delhi.
Versus 1 Smt. Sonia Arora W/o Sh. Arun Arora, R/o Flat No. B406, Plot No. 10, Sheetal Vihar, CGHS Sector23, Dwarka, New Delhi110074 2 National Insurance Company Division Office: VIII, C3, Puja House, First Floor, Karampura, New Delhi15 ...........Respondents Page no. 33 of 3 -:4:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
AND (IV) IN THE MATTER OF : Sh. Sanjay Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
M.A.C.P NO : 179/13/14 1 Sh. Sanjay Bansal S/o Late Sh. H. C. Bansal 2 Ambika Bansal D/o Sh. Sanjay Bansal 3 Vaishali Bansal D/o Sh. Sanjay Bansal 4 Sachin Bansal S/o Sh. Sanjay Bansal All are R/o RZ219, Shiv Block, Raghu Nagar, New Delhi45. ........ (Petitioner) Through Advocate Sh. J. S. Dagar, Ch. No. 627, Dwarka Court Complex Sector10, New Delhi.
Versus 1 Smt. Sonia Arora W/o Sh. Arun Arora, R/o Flat No. B406, Plot No. 10, Sheetal Vihar, CGHS Sector23, Dwarka, New Delhi110074 2 National Insurance Company Division Office: VIII, C3, Puja House, First Floor, Karampura, New Delhi15 ...........Respondents Page no. 33 of 4 -:5:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
1. Date of institution : 22/05/2013
2. Date of framing of issues: 10/09/2013
3. Date of hearing arguments : 16/09/2014
4. Date of decision : 27/10/2014 AWARD/ JUDGEMENT:
1 Petition bearing no. 182/13/14 titled as "Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors." was filed by the petitioner himself whereas petition bearing no. 181/13/14 titled as "Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors." was filed by husband and children of the deceased whereas petition bearing no. 180/13/14 titled as "Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors." was filed by the petitioner herself whereas petition bearing no. 179/13/14 titled as "Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors." was filed by husband and children of the deceased claiming compensation as per the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 from the respondents.
2 All the above said petitions have arisen out of same accident, therefore, all the petitions shall be decided by this common judgment. 3 Facts in the concise format are that on 25/02/2013, Sh V. N. Bansal, Poonam Bansal, Dropti Bansal and Meena Bansal all met with an Page no. 33 of 5 -:6:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. accident with a Santro car bearing no. DL4CR3749 being driven by Sonia Arora in a rash and negligent manner and hit them. As a result of the impact Sh. V. N. Bansal and Poonam Bansal received injuries on their persons whereas Smt. Dropti Bansal and Smt. Meena Bansal received fatal injuries. 4 I have heard both the sides and carefully perused the record of the case.
5 Ld. counsel for the claimant submits that they have proved their case and claim good compensation towards both the cases. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for the dismissal of all the petitions.
Recapitulation of the sequence of events are as follows: 6 All the petitions have been filed on 22/05/2013. Written statements on behalf of both the respondents was filed on 23/07/2013. Issues were framed on 10/09/2013. In order to prove their case petitioners have examined PW1 Sh. B. N. Bansal, PW2 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, PW3 Sajjan Sharma, PW4 Shri Rajesh Kumar, PW4 Smt. Sushma Sharma, PW5 Smt. Prem and closed their evidence on 11/02/2014. No evidence has been led on behalf of the insurance company and has closed its evidence on 29/04/2014.
Page no. 33 of 6 -:7:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. 7 On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : Issue No. 1 Whether Smt. Dropti Bansal W/o Sh.
V. N. Bansal in MACT No. 49/13, Smt. Meena Bansal W/o Sh. Sanjay Bansal in MACT No. 51/13 sustained fatal injuries and Smt. Poonam Bansal in MACT No. 50/13 and Sh. V. N. Bansal S/o Late Sh. H. C. Bansal in MACT No. 48/13 received injuries in an accident on 25/02/2013 caused by Respondent No. 1, while driving Santro Car bearing No. DL4CR3749 rashly and negligently, owned by Respondent No. 1 and insured by Respondent No. 2? .....OPP Issue No. 2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? ...... OPP Issue No. 3 Relief.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO.1 8 In this case Sh. V. N. Bansal being an eye witness who has seen Page no. 33 of 7 -:8:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. the entire incident has come in the witness box as PW1 and deposed that On 25/2/13, he alongwith Dropti Bansal, Meena Bansal, Poonam Bansal and others were going to Dada Dev Temple. He further stated that they boarded the DTC bus and reached at Sec1, J. J. Colony, Dwarka bus stand and all the family members got down from the bus and started moving ahead close to footpath on the road for crossing the road through Zebra Crossing. He further stated that suddenly a Santro Car bearing no. DL4CR3749 being driven by R1 Sonia Arora came from behind and hit them due to which they fell down and he and Poonam Bansal received head injuries whereas Dropti and Meena Bansal received fatal injuries. 9 FIR no. 52/13 was registered on the statement of Ms. Vaishali Bansal, site plan was prepared. Offending vehicle was taken into possession by the police Mechanical inspection report was prepared. MLC and respective postmortem report were obtained from the hospital. Sonia Arora was formally arrested. After conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
10 Sh. Sanjay Bansal and Poonam Bansal were also examined before the Tribunal. They have also narrated the same facts leading to the accident as stated by Sh. V. N. Bansal. The statement of Sh. V. N. Bansal and Poonam Bansal are absolutely believable for the simple reason that Page no. 33 of 8 -:9:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. they were present at the spot and have witnessed the entire incident with their own eyes. The criminal case record further supports and corroborates their case. There is no manner of doubt that the accident had happened because of the rash and negligent driving of Sonia Arora as she drove her car perilously close to the pavement thereby hitting as many as four persons. As per site plan the accident had happened very close to the pavement. Mechanical inspection report also reveals that the car must have hit the persons from its front as there was lot of impact on the front portion of the car including front bumper and front grill. 11 From the statement of the witnesses alongwith site plan prepared by the police. It could be seen that all the persons were walking on the extreme left side of the road closer to the pavement after getting down from the bus. It was incumbent on their part to have walked on the pavement instead of the road. It appears that all of them may be engaged in talking to each other and completely failed to observe that they should be walking on the pavement instead they chose to walk on the road itself closer to the pavement. Though it goes without saying that road belongs to the traffic and pedestrian should use the pavement. Mereso, when the pavement already exists for them.
12 It is not their case they put their steps on the road in order to Page no. 33 of 9 -:10:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. walk and cross through Zebra Crossing whereas they were walking where their was no zebra crossing. All of them were not supposed to do what they have done by walking on the road. Therefore, there is a contributory negligence on the part of all to the extent of 10%. 13 It is a settled law that claimants need not to prove its present case beyond reasonable doubt. The matter has to be seen on the premise of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts & circumstances of the matter, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. 14 Findings on issue no. 1 in both the cases shall remain the same. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts & circumstances of the matter, this issue is also decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
FINDING ON ISSUE NO.2 15 For deciding the quantum of compensation which may be awarded in favour of the petitioners regard shall be had, to the accidental injuries received by them. The amount that has been spent on their treatment, loss of income, if any, pain & sufferings and conveyance and special diet etc. The quantum of compensation shall not be fixed, keeping Page no. 33 of 10 -:11:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. an eye on the relevant judgments delivered by the Apex Court as also by our own High Court and other High Courts on the subject. At this stage it would be appropriate to cite an authority of Apex Court in a case titled as Kavita v. Deepak and Ors. reported in 2012 ACJ 2161 wherein their lordships has been pleased to observe as under : "In case of injury while fixing an 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 is 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 upto the date of trial ; (iii) other material loss. So far nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include
(i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain 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 i.e. on account of injury the claimant may no be able to walk run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment Page no. 33 of 11 -:12:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. frustration and mental stress in life."
IN PETITION BEARING NO. 182/13/14 LOSS OF INCOME 16 As per Adhar card the year of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 1940 which makes him 73 years on the date of accident. The petitioner in his evidence has not said anything if he was earning any amount. Especially, considering his age it is also not expected that he was earning any amount. Therefore, there is no loss caused to him under this head.
17 As per medical record he was admitted in the hospital on 25/02/2013 for his treatment of head injury and multiple abrasions on hand & foot and was discharged on 28/02/2013. Therefore, he remained in the hospital for about 3 days. It is natural that he had suffered pain and suffering because of the said injury in which he is entitled to be compensated. Though no amount of compensation can lesson or can reduce what he has gone through after the accident.
Page no. 33 of 12 -:13:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS 18 As per the settled law for assessing the pain & suffering following factors have to be taken into account:
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
19 There is no element of doubt that in the present case the petitioner / claimant had to suffer injuries from the accident. 20 As per medical record he had sustained simple injuries. Keeping in view that he had received injuries on his body. The petitioner deserves fair compensation on this count. Thus, the amount of Rs. 40,000/ (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) be awarded to the petitioner under the head of Pain & Sufferings.
MEDICINES & TREATMENT 21 The bill of the medical expenses incurred by the injured are Ex. PW1/4 and the same are liable to be believed as nothing on record has Page no. 33 of 13 -:14:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. come in order to contradict the same. It is nobody's case that these bills are not related to the injured during and post treatment. 22 The total bill is for an amount of Rs. 73,751/ (Rs. Seventy Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty One Only). No other conclusion can be formed that these bills are not related to the present matter and not for the treatment of the injured. Therefore, injured is entitled to the entire amount of Rs. 73,751/ (Rs. Seventy Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty One Only towards medical expenses.
CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET 23 Nothing on record has come which could specifically show that injured had spent any amount on the conveyance. Having said that it is natural that he must have traveled back and forth to the hospital from his house on some conveyance. He must have paid number of visits to the Doctor in order to take stalk of his health. In order to recover himself properly, he also needed some special diet to have fast recovery from the injuries. Needless to say that special diet helps in the full recovery of the patient. Therefore, cumulatively an amount of Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) is awarded in favour of petitioner/ claimant towards conveyance and special diet.
Page no. 33 of 14 -:15:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
LOSS OF AMENITIES 24 It goes without saying that the injured had suffered in the evening of his life. He had also suffered loss of enjoyment of life and amenities of life as a result of the accident. Thus an amount of Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) is awarded under this head.
25 The break up of compensation that has been awarded in favour of
the petitioner is tabulated as below:
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT
1 Medicines & Treatment Rs. 73,751/
2 Pain & Suffering Rs. 40,000/
3 Conveyance & Special Diet Rs. 10,000/
4 Loss of Amenities Rs. 10,000/
Total Rs. 1,33,751/
In petition No. 181/13/14
GRATUITOUS SERVICES
26 As per PW1 Sh. V. N. Bansal his wife Smt. Dropti Bansal,
deceased was housewife. In such a scenario the injured shall be
governed by Minimum Wages Act applicable for non matriculate
Page no. 33 of 15
-:16:-
Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. person which is Rs. 8008/ on the date of accident. Therefore, her annual income comes to Rs. 8008/ X 12 which comes to Rs. 96,096/ (Rs. Ninety Six Thousand and Ninety Six Only).
AGE 27 As per Adhar card of the deceased where year of birth is mentioned as 1948 which makes her age 65 years at the time of accident.
MULTIPLIER 28 Keeping in view the age of the deceased which was 65 years at the time of accident, therefore, multiplier of '7' is taken.
FUTURE PROSPECTS 29 Having regard to the age of the deceased which is 65 year at the time of accident, regard shall be had towards her future prospects as her value of gratuitous services income could have been decreased due to advance age. Therefore, keeping in view her future prospects, there will be a 50% substraction in her annual value of gratuitous services towards the future prospects as the deceased was above 60 years at the time of accident. Judgment of Royal Sundaram Vs. Manmeet Singh reported in 2012 ACJ 721 is relied upon.
Page no. 33 of 16 -:17:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS 30 As per the statement of PW1, the deceased has left behind Sh. V. N. Bansal (husband), Sanjay Bansal (Son), Ajay Bansal (Son), Rajeev Bansal (Son) and Smt. Rekha (Daughter). In view of the Royal Sundaram's case (Supra) no amount is deducted towards personal & living expenses.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY 31 Now the annual contribution to the family when multiplied by a multiplier shall give us the loss of dependency to the entire family.
a) Annual value of gratuitous
services of the deceased Rs. 96,096/
b) 50% substraction towards future
gratuitous services Rs. 48,048/
Rs. 48,048/
32 The break up of compensation that has been awarded in favour
of the petitioners have been tabulated as below: S.No. HEAD AMOUNT
1. Loss of dependency (Rs. 48,048/ X 7) Rs. 3,36,336/
2. Loss of love and affection* Rs. 1,00,000/
3. For funeral expenses ** Rs. 25,000/
4. Loss of consortium *** Rs. 1,00,000/ TOTAL Rs. 5,61,336/ Under the head of loss of love and affection only 1,00,000/ (in total to the claimant) is Page no. 33 of 17 -:18:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. granted. MAC appeal no. 743/2012 Chandra Kala & anr. Vs. Satpal & ors. decided on 11.09.2013 is relied upon.
**'Funeral expenses' in the absence to contrary for hire expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/ ***'loss of consortium' amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/ after applying the ratio of the judgment of Rajesh & ors. Vs. Rajbir APPORTIONMENT 33 Though all the claimants are major yet they were dependent on the deceased. As far as her gratuitous services are commenced there is no dispute even if the children are major. The question of gratuitous services rendered by their mother is indisputable or unquestionable. Therefore, all the children are entitled to some portion of award where as her husband is entitled to more share than the major children. IN PETITION BEARING NO. 180/13/14 LOSS Of GRATUITOUS SERVICE 34 As per PW1, Poonam Bansal, she is educated upto B. Com and B. Ed. And use to earn her livelihood by giving tuitions at home and earning approximately Rs. 16,000/ per month. 35 In the cross she has admitted that she has not filed any Page no. 33 of 18 -:19:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. document to show that she was earning Rs. 16,000/ per month from tuitions prior to the accident and she has also not filed her ITR. In the absence of any documentary or other oral evidence it is difficult to believe that she was either working as a Tutor or earning Rs. 16,000/ per month. 36 As per Ex. PW1/2 she is graduate from Delhi University. As per medical record she has suffered head injury with temp contusion. She was admitted in hospital on 25/2/2013 and discharged on 26/2/2013. She was again admitted on 26/2/2013 in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and discharged on 12/03/2013. Therefore, it must have taken at least 3 months to get himself recovered from the said injuries. As per minimum wages applicable for graduate person is Rs. 9594/. Therefore, she is entitled to Rs. 9594/ X 3 which comes to Rs. 28,782/ (Rs. Twenty Eight Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty Two Only).
PAIN & SUFFERINGS 37 As per the settled law for assessing the pain & suffering following factors have to be taken into account:
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any Page no. 33 of 19 -:20:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
38 There is no element of doubt that in the present case the
petitioner / claimant had to suffer grievous injuries from the accident. 39 As per medical record she has suffered head injury with temp contusion. She was admitted in hospital on 25/2/2013 and discharged on 26/2/2013. She again admitted on 26/2/2013 in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and discharged on 12/03/2013.
40 Keeping in view that he had received injuries on her body. The petitioner deserves fair compensation on this count. Thus, the amount of Rs. 40,000/ (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) be awarded to the petitioner under the head of Pain & Sufferings.
MEDICINES & TREATMENT 41 The bill of the medical expenses incurred by the injured are Ex. PW1/4 (colly) and the same are liable to be believed as nothing on record has come in order to contradict the same. It is nobody's case that these bills are not related to the injured during and post treatment. 42 The total bill is for an amount of Rs. 3,12,134/ (Rs. Three Lacs, Twelve Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Only). No other Page no. 33 of 20 -:21:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. conclusion can be formed that these bills are not related to the present matter and not for the treatment of the injured. Therefore, injured is entitled to the entire amount of Rs. 3,12,134/ (Rs. Three Lacs, Twelve Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Only) towards medical expenses.
CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET 43 Nothing on record has come which could specifically show that injured had spent any amount on the conveyance. Having said that it is natural that she must have traveled back and forth to the hospital from his house on some conveyance. She must have paid number of visits to the Doctor in order to take stalk of his health. In order to recover herself properly, she also needed some special diet to have fast recovery from the injuries. Needless to say that special diet helps in the full recovery of the patient. Therefore, cumulatively an amount of Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) is awarded in favour of petitioner/ claimant towards conveyance and special diet.
LOSS OF AMENITIES 44 There is no manner of doubt that the injured had suffered injuries due to the accident. She must have lost enjoyment of life and amenities of life as a result of the accident. Thus, she is entitled to an amount Page no. 33 of 21 -:22:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. of Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) under this head.
45 The break up of compensation that has been awarded in favour of
the petitioner is tabulated as below:
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT
1 Loss of Gratuitous Services Rs. 28,782/
2 Pain & Suffering Rs. 40,000/
3 Medicines and Treatment Rs. 3,12,134/
4 Conveyance & Special Diet Rs. 10,000/
5 Loss of Amenities Rs. 10,000/
Total Rs. 4,00,916/
In petition no. 179/13/14
LOSS OF INCOME
46 As per PW1 Sh. Sanjay Bansal, her deceased wife was B. Sc.
and B. Ed and was working as a Manager cum Teacher with Trustworthy Career Shapers, C4E322, Janakpuri and was getting monthly salary of RS. 18,500/. Apart from this she used to earn Rs. 11,500/ by way of tuitions to seven other children.
47 In order to support his statement Sh. Rajesh Kumar has come in the witness box to prove that Smt. Meena Bansal was working in his institute w.e.f. 9/4/12 and drawing a salary of RS. 18,500/ per month. He Page no. 33 of 22 -:23:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. had issued a certificate. In the said certificate the break up of the salary has been given and the total salary has been shown as Rs. 15,500/. It is worth noting that the salary certificate dated 09/04/13 is issued after the accident where her salary was shown as Rs. 18,500/ per month. Nothing on record has come which could suggest that her salary has been increased from 15,500/ which was on 04/04/2012 to Rs. 18,500/ or stated. 48 In such a scenario it shall be taken that deceased Meena Bansal was getting an amount of Rs. 15,000/ per month as Rs. 500/ shall deducted which was given as conveyance which was for her personal use and consumption and incidental to the employment. 49 As far as her income from seven other children is concerned, though one witness Sh. Sajjan Kumar has been examined on her behalf to show that their children namely Yash Kumar and Disha Sharma were taking tuitions from Meena Bansal on payment of total amount of RS. 3500/ per month.
50 However, this is not in consonance with the facts elicited in the cross examination where it has come out by way of cross examination of Sh. Sanjay Bansal wherein he had stated that the timing of Trustworthy Career Shapers Institute were from 3.00 PM to 9.00 PM.
Page no. 33 of 23 -:24:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. 51 In the same cross he further says that his wife was teaching students in the evening after 7.00 PM to those seven children. The natural corollary is that being Manager cum Teacher she used to be engaged in the institute from 3.00 PM to 9.00 PM. Therefore, there would be hardly any time left for herself to give further tuitions to seven other children as mentioned in the affidavit. A lady who works so late in the evening must be left with no time to work extra than her usual working hours in the institute. Under these circumstances the statement given by Mr. Sajjan Kumar is not at all believable. He may have given the statement in order to help the claimants to get good compensation. Therefore, her annual income comes to Rs. 15,000/ X 12 which comes to Rs. 1,80,000/ (Rs. One Lac and Eighty Thousand Only).
AGE 52 As per Ex. PW1/3 her date of birth is 05/06/1968 which makes her 44 years at the time of accident.
MULTIPLIER 53 Keeping in view the age of the deceased which was 44 years plus at the time of accident, therefore, multiplier of '14' is taken.
FUTURE PROSPECTS Page no. 33 of 24 -:25:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. 54 Having regard to the age of the deceased which is 46 year at the time of accident, regard shall be had towards her future prospects as her value of gratuitous services income could have been increased due to change in the economic scenario in its entirety. Therefore, keeping in view his future prospects, there may be a 30% addition in her annual income towards the future prospects as the deceased was above 40 years but less than 50 years at the time of accident.
NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS 55 The deceased has left behind Sh. Sanjay Bansal (husband), Ambika Bansal (Daughter), Vaishali Bansal (Daughter) and Sachin Bansal (Son).Therefore, 1/4th deductions has to be made on account of personal and living expenses. (Sarla Verma's case is relied on) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY 56 Now the annual contribution to the family when multiplied by a multiplier as per the guidelines shall give us the loss of dependency to the entire family.
a) Annual income of the deceased Rs. 1,80,000/
b) 30% addition towards future
Page no. 33 of 25
-:26:-
Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors.
prospects Rs. 54,000/
Rs. 2,34,000/
c) 1/4 deductions on personal living
expenses Rs. 78,000/
Rs. 1,02,000/
57 The break up of compensation that has been awarded in favour
of the petitioners is tabulated as below: S.No. HEAD AMOUNT
1. Loss of dependency (Rs.1,02,000/ X 14) Rs. 14,28,000/
2. Loss of love and affection* Rs. 1,00,000/
3. For funeral expenses ** Rs. 25,000/
4. Loss of consortium *** Rs. 1,00,000/ TOTAL Rs. 16,53,000/ Under the head of loss of love and affection only 1,00,000/ (in total to the claimant) is granted. MAC appeal no. 743/2012 Chandra Kala & anr. Vs. Satpal & ors. decided on 11.09.2013 is relied upon.
**'Funeral expenses' in the absence to contrary for hire expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/ ***'loss of consortium' amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/ after applying the ratio of the judgment of Rajesh & ors. Vs. Rajbir APPORTIONMENT 58 As far as children of deceased are concerned, they are entitled Page no. 33 of 26 -:27:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. more share of compensation than their father as they have full life ahead of them.
INTEREST in all the petitions.
59 There is no material on record to withhold the interest and as such, the petitioners are awarded interest @ Rs. 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 22/05/2013 till realization.
LIABILITY 60 No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondents. The vehicle was being driven and owned by R1 and the same was insured with R2 and as such, insurance company is the principal tort feasor. R1 is also vicariously liable. Thus, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. Since the vehicle was insured with R2, therefore, it shall pay the awarded amount. 61 In view of the above discussions, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF 62 In view of findings on issues no. 1 and 2 , this issue is also Page no. 33 of 27 -:28:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. decided in favour of the petitioners and against respondents. 63 In petition bearing no. bearing no. 182/13/14 titled as "Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors." the claimants is entitled to Rs. 1,33,751/ (Rupees One Lac, Thirty Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty One only) with interest.
64 The awarded amount be deposited by R2 with State Bank of India, Dwarka Court Complex Branch, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi within 30 days from today in the respective names of the petitioner either directly or through RTGS or by NEFT mode (IFSC Code SBIN0011566) under intimation with proof of notice to the claimant & his counsel to the Nazir of this Court. Bank Manager of State Bank of India, Dwarka Court Complex, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to release amount of the petitioner in his account as shown in the following manner after deducting 10% out of total awarded amount, towards contributory negligence.
S. No. Name Status Total Entitlement Release
amount Amount
1 V. N. Bansal Petitioner Rs.1,20,376/ Rs.1,20,376/
65 In petition bearing no. bearing no. 181/13/14 titled as "Sh. V. N.
Bansal &Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors." the claimants is entitled to Page no. 33 of 28 -:29:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Rs. 5,61,336/ (Rupees Five Lacs, Sixty One Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Six only) with interest.
66 The awarded amount be deposited by R2 with State Bank of India, Dwarka Court Complex Branch, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi within 30 days from today in the respective names of the petitioners either directly or through RTGS or by NEFT mode (IFSC Code SBIN0011566) under intimation with proof of notice to the claimants & their counsel to the Nazir of this Court. Bank Manager of State Bank of India, Dwarka Court Complex, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to release amount of the petitioner in his account as shown in the following manner after deducting 10% out of total awarded amount, towards contributory negligence. S. Names Status Total Entitlement Release Amount in Rs.
No. amount in Rs. 1 V. N. Bansal Widower 3,05,202/ 3,05,202/ 2 Sanjay Bansal Son 50,000/ 50,000/ 3 Ajay Bansal Son 50,000/ 50,000/ 4 Rajeev Bansal Son 50,000/ 50,000/ 5 Rekha Bansal Daughter 50,000/ 50,000/ 67 In petition bearing no. bearing no. 180/13/14 titled as "Smt.
Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors." the claimants is entitled to Page no. 33 of 29 -:30:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Rs. 4,00,916/ (Rupees Four Lacs, Nine Hundred and Sixteen only) with interest.
68 The awarded amount be deposited by R2 with State Bank of India, Dwarka Court Complex Branch, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi within 30 days from today in the respective names of the petitioner either directly or through RTGS or by NEFT mode (IFSC Code SBIN0011566) under intimation with proof of notice to the claimant & her counsel to the Nazir of this Court. Bank Manager of State Bank of India, Dwarka Court Complex, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to release amount of the petitioner in her account as shown in the following manner after deducting 10% out of total awarded amount, towards contributory negligence.
S. No. Name Status Total Entitlement Release
amount Amount
1 Poonam Petitioner Rs.3,60,824/ Rs.3,60,824/
Bansal
69 In petition bearing no. bearing no. 179/13/14 titled as "Sh. Sanjay
Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors." the claimants is entitled to Rs. 16,53,000/ (Rupees Sixteen Lacs and Fifty Three Thousand only) with Page no. 33 of 30 -:31:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. interest.
70 The awarded amount be deposited by R2 with State Bank of India, Dwarka Court Complex Branch, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi within 30 days from today in the respective names of the petitioners either directly or through RTGS or by NEFT mode (IFSC Code SBIN0011566) under intimation with proof of notice to the claimants & their counsel to the Nazir of this Court. Bank Manager of State Bank of India, Dwarka Court Complex, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to release amount of the petitioner in his account as shown in the following manner after deducting 10% out of total awarded amount, towards contributory negligence. S. Names Status Total Entitlement Release Amount in Rs.
No. amount in Rs.
1 Sanjay Widower 2,87,700/ 2,87,700/
Bansal
2 Ambika Daughter 4,00,000/ 4,00,000/
Bansal
3 Vaishali Daughter 4,00,000/ 4,00,000/
Bansal
4 Sachin Son 4,00,000/ 4,00,000/
Bansal
71 The beneficiaries shall furnish all the relevant documents for
Page no. 33 of 31
-:32:-
Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. opening of the respective saving bank accounts. 72 Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the beneficiaries after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo Identity Cards to the beneficiaries to facilitate identities. 73 No cheque books shall be issued to the beneficiaries without their permission of this Court.
74 On the request of the beneficiaries, Bank shall transfer the saving accounts to any other branch according to their convenience. 75 R2 shall inform the petitioners as well as their counsel through registered post that the cheques of the awarded amount are being deposited so as to facilitate the petitioners to know about their deposits in their accounts.
76 Copy of the award be supplied to both the parties at free of cost. Copy of this award be sent to the Nodal Officer of the Bank alongwith Page no. 33 of 32 -:33:- Sh. V. N. Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. V. N. Bansal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Smt. Poonam Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. Sh. Sanjay Bansal Vs. Smt. Sonia Arora & Ors. the Court stamped, copy of the photographs and signatures of the claimants. 77 Thus, the petition has been disposed of accordingly. 78 File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
DATED: 27/10/2014
(1+1) (DEEPAK JAGOTRA)
PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
All pages signed DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Page no. 33 of 33