Delhi District Court
Anita Verma (Minor) vs Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd on 3 June, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA :
JUDGE : MACT : CENTRAL DISTRICT : DELHI.
JUDGEMENT CORRECTED AND REVIEWED.
Suit No. 825/08
Unique ID No.02401C-1194272005
Anita Verma (Minor),
D/o.Smt.Shakuntala and Pappu Verma,
R/o.N-14/164, Munshi Ram Dairy,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......Petitioner
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unit No. 52-63, Mezzanine Floor,
Ansals Fortune Area, Sector-18,
NOIDA, U.P. .......(Insurer)
2. Pappu Verma,
S/o.Sh.Chiranji Lal,
R/o.K.H.No.1910, 2 Extn.,
25 Feet Road, Kamal Vihar,
New Delhi-84.
Also At:
164, T Huts, MCD Pump House,
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08,
831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 1/56
Munshi Ram Colony,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......(Insured/Owner)
3. M/s.Aar Kay Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd.,
RR2 Mianwali Nagar, Rohtak Road,
Delhi-110087. .......(Financier/Co-Owner)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 19.12.2005
Date on which order was reserved : 26.5.2010
Date of Decision : 26.5.2010
Suit No. 826/08
Unique ID No.02401C-1194242005
Gulshan Verma (Minor),
S/o.Smt.Shakuntala and Pappu Verma,
R/o.N-14/164, Munshi Ram Dairy,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......Petitioner
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unit No. 52-63, Mezzanine Floor,
Ansals Fortune Area, Sector-18,
NOIDA, U.P. .......(Insurer)
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08,
831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 2/56
2. Pappu Verma,
S/o.Sh.Chiranji Lal,
R/o.K.H.No.1910, 2 Extn.,
25 Feet Road, Kamal Vihar,
New Delhi-84
Also At:
164, T Huts, MCD Pump House,
Munshi Ram Colony,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......(Insured/Owner)
3. M/s.Aar Kay Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd.,
RR2 Mianwali Nagar, Rohtak Road,
Delhi-110087. .......(Financier/Co-Owner)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 19.12.2005
Date on which order was reserved : 26.5.2010
Date of Decision : 26.5.2010
Suit No. 827/08
Unique ID No.02401C-1194482005
1. Smt.Rajwati,
W/o.Sh.Harnarain.
2. Sh.Harnarain,
S/o.Sh.Babu Lal
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08,
831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 3/56
Both R/o.
N-14/165, Munshi Ram Dairy,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......Petitioners
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unit No. 52-63, Mezzanine Floor,
Ansals Fortune Area, Sector-18,
NOIDA, U.P. .......(Insurer)
2. Pappu Verma,
S/o.Sh.Chiranji Lal,
R/o.K.H.No.1910, 2 Extn.,
25 Feet Road, Kamal Vihar,
New Delhi-84.
Also At:
164, T Huts, MCD Pump House,
Munshi Ram Colony,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......(Insured/Owner)
3. M/s.Aar Kay Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd.,
RR2 Mianwali Nagar, Rohtak Road,
Delhi-110087. .......(Financier/Co-Owner)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 19.12.2010
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08,
831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 4/56
Date on which order was reserved : 26.5.2010
Date of Decision : 26.5.2010
Suit No. 828/08
Unique ID No.02401C-1212742005
1. Kanchan,
W/o.Sh.Shiv Kishan.
2. Shiv Kishan,
S/o.Sh. Mahadev.
Both R/o.
Village Tirosa, P.O. Kamapatti,
P.S. Sangramgarh, Distt. Partapgarh,
U.P.
Presently at.
H.No. 19, Munshi Ram Colony,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......Petitioners
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unit No. 52-63, Mezzanine Floor,
Ansals Fortune Area, Sector-18,
NOIDA, U.P. .......(Insurer)
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08,
831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 5/56
2. Pappu Verma,
S/o.Sh.Chiranji Lal,
R/o.K.H. No.1910, 2 Extn.,
25 Feet Road, Kamal Vihar,
New Delhi-84.
Also At:
164, T Huts, MCD Pump House,
Munshi Ram Colony,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......(Insured/Owner)
3. M/s.Aar Kay Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd.,
RR2 Mianwali Nagar, Rohtak Road,
Delhi-110087. .......(Financier/Co-Owner)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 24.12.2005
Date on which order was reserved : 26.5.2010
Date of Decision : 26.5.2010
Suit No. 829/08
Unique ID No.02401C-1194172005
Sunita,
W/o.Late Shri Bhopat.
R/o.N-14/109, Munshi Ram Dairy,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......Petitioner
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08,
831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 6/56
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unit No. 52-63, Mezzanine Floor,
Ansals Fortune Area, Sector-18,
NOIDA, U.P. .......(Insurer)
2. Pappu Verma,
S/o.Sh.Chiranji Lal,
R/o.K.H.No.1910, 2 Extn.,
25 Feet Road, Kamal Vihar,
New Delhi-84.
Also At:
164, T Huts, MCD Pump House,
Munshi Ram Colony,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......(Insured/Owner)
3. M/s.Aar Kay Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd.,
RR2 Mianwali Nagar, Rohtak Road,
Delhi-110087. .......(Financier/Co-Owner)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 19.12.2005
Date on which order was reserved : 26.5.2010
Date of Decision : 26.5.2010
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08,
831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 7/56
Suit No. 831/08
Unique ID No.02401C-1194192005
Komal,
D/o. Late Shri Shyam Sunder,
R/o. N-14/164, Munshi Ram Dairy,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......Petitioner
Versus
1. IFFCO-TOKYO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unit No. 52-63, Mezzanine Floor,
Ansals Fortune Area, Sector-18,
NOIDA, U.P. .......(Insurer)
2. Pappu Verma,
S/o.Sh.Chiranji Lal,
R/o.K.H.No.1910, 2 Extn.,
25 Feet Road, Kamal Vihar,
New Delhi-84.
Also At:
164, T Huts, MCD Pump House,
Munshi Ram Colony,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......(Insured/Owner)
3.M/s. Aar Kay Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd.,
RR2 Mianwali Nagar, Rohtak Road,
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08,
831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 8/56
Delhi-110087. .......(Financier/Co-owner)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 19.12.2005
Date on which order was reserved : 26.5.2010
Date of Decision : 26.5.2010
Suit No. 832/08
Unique ID No.02401C-119422005
1. Shyam Sunder,
S/o.Sh.Chiranji Lal.
2. Komal,
D/o.Shri Shyam Sunder.
3. Rohit,
S/o.Shri Shyam Sunder.
All R/o.
N-14/164, Munshi Ram Dairy,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......Petitioners
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08,
831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 9/56
Unit No. 52-63, Mezzanine Floor,
Ansals Fortune Area, Sector-18,
NOIDA, U.P. .......(Insurer)
2. Pappu Verma,
S/o.Sh.Chiranji Lal,
R/o.K.H.No.1910, 2 Extn.,
25 Feet Road, Kamal Vihar,
New Delhi-84.
Also At:
164, T Huts, MCD Pump House,
Munshi Ram Colony,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......(Insured/Owner)
3. M/s.Aar Kay Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd.,
RR2 Mianwali Nagar, Rohtak Road,
Delhi-110087. .......(Financier/Co-Owner)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 19.12.2005
Date on which order was reserved : 26.5.2010
Date of Decision : 26.5.2010
Suit No. 833/08
Unique ID No.02401C-1194352005
Baby Shanti,
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08,
831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 10/56
D/o.Sh.Dharamvir and Urmila,
R/o.N-14/144, Munshi Ram Dairy,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......Petitioner
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unit No. 52-63, Mezzanine Floor,
Ansals Fortune Area, Sector-18,
NOIDA, U.P. .......(Insurer)
2. Pappu Verma,
S/o.Sh.Chiranji Lal,
R/o.K.H.No.1910, 2 Extn.,
25 Feet Road, Kamal Vihar,
New Delhi-84.
Also At:
164, T Huts, MCD Pump House,
Munshi Ram Colony,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......(Insured/Owner)
3. M/s.Aar Kay Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd.,
RR2 Mianwali Nagar, Rohtak Road,
Delhi-110087. .......(Financier/Co-Owner)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 19.12.2005
Date on which order was reserved : 26.5.2010
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08,
831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 11/56
Date of Decision : 26.5.2010
Suit No. 834/08
Unique ID No.02401C-1194232005
Smt.Sunita,
W/o.Late Shri Bhopat,
R/o.N-14/109, Munshi Ram Dairy,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......Petitioner
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unit No. 52-63, Mezzanine Floor,
Ansals Fortune Area, Sector-18,
NOIDA, U.P. .......(Insurer)
2. Pappu Verma,
S/o.Sh.Chiranji Lal,
R/o.K.H.No.1910, 2 Extn.,
25 Feet Road, Kamal Vihar,
New Delhi-84.
Also At:
164, T Huts, MCD Pump House,
Munshi Ram Colony,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. .......(Insured/Owner)
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08,
831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 12/56
3. M/s.Aar Kay Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd.,
RR2 Mianwali Nagar, Rohtak Road,
Delhi-110087. .......(Financier/Co-Owner)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 19.12.2005
Date on which order was reserved : 26.5.2010
Date of Decision : 26.5.2010
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of nine claim petitions bearing nos.
825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08 and 834/08 as they have arisen out of the same accident bearing police report no. 10 and 19 dated 14.11.2005 P.S. Sakrar, Distt. Jhansi, M.P.
2. The present eight claim petitions (except Suit no. 828/08) have been filed by the petitioners u/s.140 and 166 of Motor Vehicle Act. Suit No. 828/08 has been filed u/s. 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present claim petitions are that on 14/11/2005, the petitioner Smt. Sunita (petitioner in Suit No. 829/08 and injured in Suit No. 834/08) along with her husband Sh. Bhopat (deceased in Suit No.834/08) and other relatives, namely, Baby Anita Verma (injured in Suit no.825/08), Master Gulshan Verma ( injured in Suit No. 826/08), Master Akash (deceased in Suit No. 827/08), Baby Komal (injured in Suit no. 831/08), Smt. Kusum (deceased in Suit no. 832/08) and Baby Shanti (injured in Suit No. 833/08), were travelling in Tata Indica Car bearing registration no DL-8C-G-
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 13/56 5838 and were going from Delhi to Village Panwar in Madhya Pradesh. The said car belonged to one of her relatives Sh. Pappu Verma (respondent no.2) and the same was being driven by his driver Sonu Duria (deceased in Suit No. 828/08). When they were going from Jhansi to Maharanipur under the jurisdiction of P.S. Sakrar, District Jhansi, suddenly tyre of the car had burst as due to driving of the car at high speed, the driver could not control the car. As a result thereof, the car had hit a tree causing fatal injuries to Sh. Bhopat, Akash, Kusum and the driver himself. Rest of the occupants had sustained grievous injuries.
4. Respondent No.1 i.e. IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company has filed written statement wherein it is stated that petition does not disclose any cause of action. However, it is admitted that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 8C G 5838 was duly insured with respondent no.1 in the name of Sh. Pappu Verma vide cover note no.32284072 dated 27.10.2005 valid from 27/10/2005 to 26/10/2006.
5. Written Statement was also filed by Ld.Counsel for respondent no. 2 wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. It is stated that the offending vehicle was pre-owned (second hand) and respondent no. 2 had purchased it from Respondent no.3 M/s.Aar Kay Fin- Lease.
6. Written Statement was also filed by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. It is stated that respondent no. 3 is only the financier of the offending vehicle and since he is not the owner, driver or insurer of the offending vehicle, he is not Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 14/56 liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
7. All the claim nine claim petitions bearing Suit no. 402/05 to 409/05 and 414/05 (now Suit no. 825/08 to 829/08 and 831/08 to 834/08) were ordered to be consolidated vide an order dated 13/09/2007 and Suit no. 402/05 (now Suit No. 834/08) was ordered to be treated as main case.
8. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were settled as under
in all the nine the claim petitions:-
1. Whether the deceased Smt. Kusum, Sh. Bhopat, Master Aakash, Sh. Sonu Duriya received fatal injuries and Mrs. Sunita Verma, Ms. Komal (minor), Sh. Gulshan Verma (minor), Baby Shanti (minor), Ms. Anita Verma (minor) received injuries as per medical record on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata Indica Car bearing no. DL-8CG-5838?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
9. Petitioners have examined ten witnesses in support of their claim.
10. Sh.B.S.Bhati, Record Clerk, LNJP Hospital was examined as PW-
1 by the ld.Predecessor of this Court. (However may be read as PW-1 as per order dated 13/09/2007). He proved the medical treatment record pertaining to Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 15/56 patient Komal as Ex.PW-1/A.
11. PW-1 Rajwati (petitioner in claim petition bearing no.827/08
-(However may be read as PW-2 as per order dated 13/09/2007) has tendered in evidence her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/X before the ld.Predecessor of this Court wherein she stated that on 14/11/2005, her son Master Akash (deceased in Suit No. 827/08) alongwith Smt.Sunita (petitioner in Suit No.834/08 and injured in Suit No.829/08), her husband Sh.Bhopat (deceased in Suit No.834/08) and other relatives, namely, Baby Anita Verma (injured in Suit no.825/08), Master Gulshan Verma (injured in Suit No.826/08), Baby Komal (injured in Suit no. 831/08), Smt. Kusum (deceased in Suit no. 832/08) and Baby Shanti (injured in Suit No.833/08) were travelling in Tata Indica Car bearing registration no DL-8C-G-5838 and were going from Delhi to Village Panwar in Madhya Pradesh. The said car belonged to one of their relatives Sh. Pappu Verma (respondent no.2) and the same was being driven by his driver Sonu Duria (deceased in Suit No. 828/08). When they were going from Jhansi to Maharanipur under the jurisdiction of P.S. Sakrar, District Jhansi, suddenly tyre of the car had burst as due to driving of the car at high speed, the driver could not control the car. As a result thereof, the car had hit a tree causing fatal injuries to Sh. Bhopat, Akash, Kusum and the driver himself. Rest of the occupants had sustained grievous injuries.
She further stated that she is mother of deceased Akash. She stated that at the time of his death, the deceased was 7 years of age. She herself and her husband are the only Legal Heirs of the deceased.
She has also proved documents Ex.PR-1 to PR-3 and Mark PRA. On being cross examined by counsel Sh.Bharat Bhushan for respondent no.1, she stated that she has no documentary proof that the Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 16/56 deceased Akash was her son.
On being cross examined by Sh.R.K.Kohli, counsel for respondent no.3, she admitted that she is not an eyewitness to the accident.
12. PW-1 Dharamveer, father of injured Baby Shanti (petitioner in claim petition bearing no.833/08 - However may be read as PW-3 as per order dated 13/09/2007) tendered in evidence his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/X and stated similar acts regarding the manner of accident as stated by PW-1 Rajwati (now PW-2).
He further stated that his daughter had sustained injuries on her forehead and on her eye. She was removed to MLB Medical College Hospital, Jhansi where she had remained admitted from 14/11/2005 to 21/11/2005. Thereafter, she was brought to Delhi and treated at Delhi. Stitches were removed. However, she has suffered disfigurement as a big scar mark has been left due to the injury sustained on her face. Her eye sight has also been adversely affected. He stated that he has spent Rs.20,000/- on her treatment and the treatment had continued for three months.
He has proved on record documents Mark BS-A and BS-1. On being cross examined by Counsel Sh.Bharat Bhushan for respondent no.1, he stated that he does not have any proof of treatment expenses.
On being cross examined by Sh.R.K.Kohli, counsel for respondent no.3, he admitted that he is not an eyewitness to the accident. He also stated that he does not have any proof regarding permanent scar on the face of the petitioner or loss to her eye sight.
13. PW-4 Sh.Phool Chand, Medical Record Officer, Maharani Laxmi Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 17/56 Bai Medical College, Jhansi proved the medical treatment record Ex.PW-4/1.
On being cross examined by counsel Sh.Bharat Bhushan for respondent no.1, he stated that he has no personal knowledge regarding the medical treatment record.
14. PW-5 Sh. Qamarullah Khan, LDC, CMO Office, Jhansi proved the postmortem reports of Sonu Dhuria, Aakash and Bhupat as Ex.PW-5/A to Ex.PW-5/C. He has also proved authority letter issued by CMO Jhansi as Ex.PW-5/D.
15. PW-6 Ct. Mohd. Alim proved DD no.10 and DD no.19 dated 14/11/2005 as Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B.
16. PW-7 Sh.Shyam Sunder (petitioner in claim petition bearing no.832/08) tendered in evidence his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW-7/X and stated the same facts as stated by PW-1 Rajwati.
Regarding claim petition bearing no.404/05 (now 832/08) which has also been filed through him regarding death of his wife Kusum, he stated that his wife Kusum had died in the accident. She was 25 years of age at the time of accident. She was a housewife.
Regarding claim petition bearing no.403/05 (now 831/08) which has also been filed through him regarding injuries sustained by his daughter Komal, he stated that Komal had sustained injuries on the right side of head alongwith fracture in the accident. She had also sustained fracture of femur bone. She was 5 years of age at the time of accident. She had become unconscious after the accident. She was taken to MLB Medical College Hospital, Jhansi where she had remained admitted from 14/11/2005 to Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 18/56 22/11/2005 and thereafter she was shifted to Sahara Hospital in Gwalior where she had remained admitted from 17/11/2005 to 22/11/2005. She was brought to Delhi and was admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital from 23/11/2005 to 17/01/2006. Even thereafter, she had remained an outdoor patient. She was treated at Guru Nanak Eye Hospital and thereafter she was admitted in Institute of Human Behaviour And Allied Sciences (IHBAS), Dilshad Garden, Delhi from 30/08/2007 to 01/09/2007. She is still under treatment.
Regarding claim petition bearing no.407/05 (now 825/08) which has been filed regarding injuries sustained by Anita Verma, who is daughter of his brother Pappu Verma, who was also travelling in the car, he stated that she was aged about 15 years at the time of accident. She had sustained compound fracture of the right leg and other injuries on her body. She was taken to MLB Medical College Hospital, Jhansi where she had remained admitted from 14/11/2005 to 06/12/2005 and thereafter she was shifted to Delhi. She was brought to Delhi against medical advise and was treated at Hans Charitable Hospital, GTB Nagar, Delhi. The treatment had continued for five months. She is still not medically fit.
Regarding claim petition bearing no.406/05 (now 826/08) which has been filed regarding injuries sustained by Gulshan Verma, who is son of his brother Pappu Verma and Shakuntala, who was also travelling in the car, he stated that he was 7 years old at the time of accident and had sustained head injuries in the accident. He was removed to MLB Medical College Hospital, Jhansi where he had remained admitted from 14/11/2005 to 21/11/2005. Thereafter, he was shifted to Delhi and was treated at Hans Charitable Hospital, GTB Nagar, Delhi. Rs.10,000/- was spent on his medical treatment.
He has proved documents as Ex.A to A-17 and G1 and G2. He further stated that his daughter Komal had died on 20/03/2008 at Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 19/56 home. No postmortem was got conducted.
On being cross examined by counsel Sh.Bharat Bhushan for respondent no.1 with respect to claim petition bearing no.404/05 (now 832/08), he stated that Kusum was his wife. He is not an eyewitness to the accident. He stated that he has not re-married.
On being cross examined by counsel Sh.Bharat Bhushan for respondent no.1 with respect to claim petition bearing no.403/05 (now 831/08), he stated that he has no documentary proof to show that his daughter Komal was travelling in the Indica car at the time of accident. He denied that Komal had died natural death.
On being cross examined by counsel Sh.Bharat Bhushan for respondent no.1 with respect to claim petition bearing no.407/05 (now 825/08), he stated that he has no documentary proof that his niece Anita was travelling in the Indica car at the time of accident. The parents of Anita are alive. He is contesting the case on behalf of Anita as her parents cannot come to Court and her father Pappu Verma is respondent no.2 in the case. He stated that Anita is studying in 8th standard.
On being cross examined by counsel Sh.Bharat Bhushan for respondent no.1 with respect to claim petition bearing no.406/05 (now 826/08), he stated that he has no documentary proof that his nephew Gulshan was travelling in the Indica car at the time of accident. The parents of Gulshan are alive. He is contesting the case on behalf of Gulshan as his parents cannot come to Court and her father Pappu Verma is respondent no.2 in the case. He stated that Gulshan is studying in 4th standard.
17. PW-8 Smt.Sunita (injured in claim petition bearing no.829/08 and petitioner in claim petition no.834/08) tendered in evidence her Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 20/56 examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW-8/X and stated similar facts regarding manner of accident as stated by PW-2 Rajwati, PW-3 Dharamveer and PW-7 Shyam Sunder.
She further stated that two police reports vide DDs No.10 and 19 dated 14/11/2005 were registered at Police Station Sakrar District, Jhansi.
She stated that her husband Sh.Bhopat had died in the accident. He was 23 years of age at the time of accident and used to run tea stall near his house. He was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. He was a man of simple habits and was not addicted to any vices.
She stated that she had also sustained injuries in the accident i.e. dislocation of the hip bone, cuts and bruises on her face and body which have left scars on her face. She was taken to Maharani Laxmi Bai Chikitsa Mahavidyalya, Jhansi where she had remained admitted from 14/11/2005 to 06/12/2005. Thereafter, she was shifted to Delhi against medical advise and was treated at Hans Charitable Hospital, GTB Nagar, Delhi.
She has proved documents as Ex.PS-1 to PS-22 and Mark A. On being cross examined by counsel Sh.Bharat Bhushan for respondent no.1, she stated that she has no documentary proof to show that she is eyewitness to the accident. She stated that she has only Ration Card to prove the age of the deceased.
18. PW-9 Sh.Parmod Kumar Parasar, Lab Assistant, Jai Aroyogya Hospital Group, Gwalior proved postmortem report of Kusum as Ex.PW-9/A.
19. PW-10 Smt.Kanchan (petitioner in claim petition bearing no.828/08) tendered in evidence her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW-10/X and stated therein that her son Sonu Duriya was driving Tata Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 21/56 Indica Car bearing registration no.DL 8C G 5838 at the time of accident. She had died in this accident. He was employed with Sh.Pappu Verma at that time and was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. He was 23 years of age at the time of accident and they are the only Legal Heirs of the deceased.
She has proved documents as Mark A, B and Ex.PA.
On being cross examined by counsel, Sh.Bharat Bhushan for respondent no.1, she stated that she is not eyewitness to the accident. She has no documentary proof that deceased was 23 years of age at the time of accident. She stated that Pappu Verma is not related to her and she has no documentary proof of earnings of the deceased.
20. Petitioner's evidence was closed thereafter.
21. Respondent no.1 examined one witness to controvert the claim of the petitioners in Suit no. 829/08.
22. R1W1 Sh. Shailesh Verma, stated that the cover note bearing no. 32284072 has been issued by one of their agents Sh. Harish on 14.11.2005. This cover note has been issued in favour of Sh. Yashpal Khanna. The original Cover Note has been proved as Ex.R1W1/A. Photocopy of the cover note has also been placed on record and the same is Ex.R1W1/B. Sh. Yashpal Khanna had paid the premium in respect of the cover note Ex.R1W1/A vide cheque no. 569788 dated 14.11.2005 for Rs.7,876/-. As per their record Sh. Yashpal Khanna is the insured in respect of this cover note. The receipt payment details taken from their computer system is Mark R1W1/C. The office copy of the policy taken from their computer system in lieu of the cover note Ex.R1W1/A is Mark R1W1/D. The copy of the cover Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 22/56 note no. 32284072 which has been placed on record in Suit no. 825/08 has not been issued by their office. He also stated that there is no record in the name of Sh. Pappu Verma in their office system record. Similarly, there is no record available in their office in respect of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 8CG 5838 (Tata Indica). The vehicle bearing registration no. DL 8CG 5838 was not insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd during the period from 27.10.2005 to 26.10.2006.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 he admitted that he had taken out the insurance cover note Ex.R1W1/A from his record wherein four copies are kept of each insurance cover. He further admitted that the cover note Ex.R1W1/A has been issued by their agent Sh. Harish who was in possession of the book containing this cover note. No investigation or inquiry was carried out by the Insurance company as to whether the remaining copies of the cover note were misused by the agent or not. He denied that the cover note no. 32284072 Mark R3RX has been issued by the respondent no. 1, Insurance Company through its system/agent. He further denied that he is deposing falsely that there is no record in their office of Mr. Pappu Verma having taken this insurance through cover note Mark R3RX. He also denied that he is deposing falsely there is not record of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 8CG 5838 in their office or that for the said reason he has not brought the relevant total record before the court.
23. Respondent no.2 examined one witness to controvert the claim of the petitioners.
24. R2W1 Sh. Pappu Verma, tendered his evidence and examination- in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1/X and stated therein that he is owner of Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 23/56 the offending vehicle. He had purchased the vehicle from finance company M/s. Aar Kay Finance and Lease Pvt. Ltd. It was financed by same company. The car was got insured by the financier and photocopy of the insurance cover note was given to him. The financier had obtained his signatures on blank papers, blank forms and sheets. The car was purchased by him from the finance company in the sum of Rs.1,60,000/- including file charges, charges for transfer of registration certificate, charges for insurance and cost of car. He stated that the financier had issued only photocopy of the cover note. He had made payment of a lump sum amount of Rs.60,000/- to the financier in cash and balance of Rs.1,00,000/- was treated as loan. He stated that the copy of the insurance cover note issued by respondent no. 3 i.e. financier is Ex.R2W1/A. On being cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner he stated that he came to know about the accident in the morning hours and had informed respondent no. 3 about the accident.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3, he stated that some one had told him about the address of the finance company. He had paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- as commission to M/s. Balaji Motors at the instance of official of the finance company. He admitted that he had made statement before the court on 01.6.2006 that he will find out the address of the financier and other persons who had committed fraud upon him and have supplied forged insurance cover note. He denied that he cannot find out address of the person who had handed over the forged insurance cover note to him. He denied that he had gone to Aar Kay Finance and Lease Pvt. Ltd through M/s. Balaji Motors and he had paid Rs.2,000/- as commission to M/s. Balaji Motors. He again stated that he had paid commission to M/s. Balaji Motors at the request of the official of respondent no. 3 as he was told that Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 24/56 they were staff of respondent no. 3. He stated that he had paid 24 cheques to respondent no. 3 of Rs.4,500/-. No agreement was signed between him and respondent no. 3, however, respondent no. 3 had obtained his signatures on many papers. He however, admitted his signatures on the agreement Ex.R2W1/B. He stated that the RC which has been placed on record as Mark A in his name is the only RC in his knowledge. He stated that he did not know as to whether the vehicle was registered in the name of Sh. Bakshish Singh. He stated that he does not remember as to whether he had visited office of respondent no. 3 on 09.11.2005 and had handed over the letter stating therein that he wanted to purchase a vehicle from Sh. Bakshish Singh. He admitted his signatures on the letter Mark C. He denied that he had handed over forged insurance cover note to concerned official of respondent no. 3 on 07.11.2005. He denied that the company had financed him to the tune of Rs.80,000/- only. He had been given no receipt in the sum of Rs.60,000/- from the company.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., he stated that he had not paid any amount to the insurance company nor there was any correspondence between the insurance company and him for issuance of insurance policy.
25. Respondent no.3 examined one witness to controvert the claim of the petitioners.
26. R3W1 Sh. Ram Niwas tendered in evidence his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A and stated therein that they are respondent no.3 Company who had financed respondent no.2 to purchase offending vehicle bearing registration no.DL 8C G 5838, Tata Indica Car. As per Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 25/56 arrangement, respondent no.2 is required to keep the vehicle fully insured during the period the financed arrangement was to last. He stated that the company has no responsibility to satisfy the claim. He stated that the copy of Insurance Cover Note provided to them by respondent no.2.
He proved the photocopies of Power of Attorney as Ex.R3W1/1 and letter dated 07/11/2005 by Mr.Pappu, respondent no.2 as Ex.R3W1/2.
On being cross examined by Sh.M.S.Aggarwal, counsel for petitioners, he stated that he does not have monthwise record of the vehicles financed by them. All the vehicles, which were financed by the company are not got insured by their company. It is the discretion of the buyer as to whether they want the vehicle insured through their company. He stated that the owner Pappu Verma had applied for finance on 07/11/2005. The witness was directed to produce the details regarding the vehicles which were financed through the company during the month of October and November, 2005 and to produce the Insurance Cover Notes of the said vehicles which were insured through their company.
He further stated that he has not brought premium payment record in respect of Insurance Policies of vehicles insured through them. He also stated that the purchaser makes payment in cash or by cheque in installments. He denied that the respondent Pappu Verma had got the vehicle insured through the financier.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 he stated that the petitioner had got the insurance of the offending vehicle on his own and had delivered the same on 07.11.2005 to them.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 he stated that the vehicle which was financed was an old vehicle and he has no knowledge whether it was insured prior to selling or being financed to Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 26/56 respondent no. 2. He denied that the company had handed over the insurance cover note/ policy to respondent no. 2 at the time of handing over of the vehicle.
27. Respondent's evidence was closed thereafter.
28. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. Counsel for petitioners as well as for the respondents. After hearing arguments and having gone through the record, I record my findings on issues settled as follows:-
29.ISSUE NO.1 IN ALL THE NINE CLAIM PETITIONS:
Whether the deceased Smt. Kusum, Sh. Bhopat, Master Aakash, Sh. Sonu Duriya received fatal injuries and Mrs. Sunita Verma, Ms. Komal (minor), Sh. Gulshan Verma (minor), Baby Shanti (minor), Ms. Anita Verma (minor) received injuries as per medical record on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata Indica Car bearing no. DL-8CG-
5838?
The present eight claim petitions (except Suit no. 828/08) have been filed by the petitioners u/s.140 and 166 of Motor Vehicle Act. Suit No. 828/08 has been filed u/s. 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act. Since the claim petition bearing no.828/08 has been filed under section 163-A MV Act, the petitioners in that claim petition are only required to prove that the death of the deceased has taken place due to use and involvement of the offending Indica car.
The petitioners have filed on record true copy of DD No.10 and DD No.19 dated 14/11/2005. The same clearly shows that the accident in this case has taken place due to use and involvement of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-8CG-5838.
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 27/56 The postmortem report, on the other hand, also reflects that the injuries are of the nature which could have been caused due to injuries sustained in road traffic accident.
PW-8 Smt. Sunita, who is the eyewitness of the case have also stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no.DL-8C G 5838.
The petitioners have also stated on oath that the accident in this case has taken place due to use and involvement of the offending vehicle as has been discussed above in the testimony of PW-8 i.e. injured as well as only eyewitness.
Therefore, the testimony of PW-8 considered alongwith the other documents i.e.DD No.10 and DD No.19 dated 14/11/2005, postmortem report, I am of the opinion that deceased Smt. Kusum, Sh. Bhopat, Master Aakash, Sh. Sonu Duriya received fatal injuries and Mrs. Sunita Verma, Ms. Komal (minor), Sh. Gulshan Verma (minor), Baby Shanti (minor), Ms. Anita Verma (minor) received injuries in road traffic accident due to involvement of Indica Car bearing registration No. DL-8C G 5838.
It is therefore prima facie clear that the accident in the case had taken place due to use and involvement of the offending vehicle driven by its driver (since died in the present accident) causing death of the deceased persons and injuries to the injured persons.
Hence, issue no.1 is decided against the respondents.
30.ISSUE NO.2 IN ALL THE NINE CLAIM PETITIONS:
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation. If so, what amount and from whom?
Onus to prove this issue was also on the petitioners. Since it has Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 28/56 been clearly mentioned in the testimonies of the PWs that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased. No contrary evidence has been led by respondents to rebut the claim of petitioners. Therefore, testimonies of petitioners have remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
Since, issue no.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioners that the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained by them in the accident and injureds had received injuries with the offending vehicle, petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.
31.Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 825/08 wherein Anita Verma has received injuries.
32.MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT.
As per medical treatment record, the petitioner Anita was admitted in Laxmi Bai Hospital, Jhansi. It has been mentioned that she had suffered dislocation of the right ankle. POP cast was used to fix the fracture. She was got discharged from the hospital against medical advise on 06/12/2005 as per the doctors notes in the medical treatment record. Surgery had been conducted. She had also suffered lacerated wound on the head. She had remained under medical treatment thereafter from Hans Charitable Hospital till 08/12/2005 where she was advised physiotherapy and she was prescribed further medicines and dressing was done on the wound. She was again treated at Hans Charitable Hospital on 10/12/2005 and was prescribed medicines. Again on 16/12/2005 and 20/02/2006 also, she was prescribed medicines. No further medical treatment is available on record. She has filed on record medical treatment bills in the sum of Rs.2,108/-. However, considering the duration of medical treatment, I am inclined to grant Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner towards medicines and medical treatment.
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 29/56
33.LOSS OF ACADEMICS The petitioner was 15 years old at the time of accident. It is stated that she was a school student. She had suffered dislocation of the right ankle. POP cast was used to fix the fracture. Surgery had been conducted. She had also suffered lacerated wound on the head. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, she must not have been able to attend her school for atleast four months. Therefore, I grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- to petitioner on account of loss of academics.
34.PAIN AND SUFFERING.
The petitioner was 15 years old at the time of accident and has undergone immense trauma of having suffered dislocation of right ankle and head injury. Therefore, I award a sum of Rs.25,000/- to petitioner on account of pain and suffering.
35.CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, she would have had visited the doctors and hospitals several times. I, therefore award a total sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for conveyance and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for special diet to the petitioner.
36.RELIEF In view of my finding on issues no.1 and 2, the petitioner Anita Verma is awarded following compensation:-
Medicines & Medical Treatment : Rs.4,000/- Loss of academics : Rs.10,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs.25,000/-
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 30/56 Conveyance and Special Diet : Rs.10,000/-
Total : Rs.49,000/-
37. Hence, the petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.49,000/-. Petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 19/12/2005 till its realization.
Said amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank in the name of petitioner for the period till she attains the age of majority without the facility of advance/loan or withdrawal. However, Smt.Shakuntla, natural guardian, next friend and mother of the petitioner will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
38.Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 826/08 wherein Gulshan Verma has received injuries.
39.MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT.
Petitioner was admitted in Laxmi Bai Hospital in Jhansi from 14/11/2005 to 21/11/2005. He had suffered cranio cerebral injury with lacerated wounds on the scalp. He was advised medicines and was asked to attend the OPD. As per notes of the doctor concerned of Laxmi Bai Hospital, the wound was stitched. He has not suffered any bony injury. He was discharged from the hospital on 21/11/2005. No further medical treatment is available on record. She has filed on record medical treatment bills in the sum of Rs.87/-. However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, I am inclined to grant Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner towards medicines and medical treatment.
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 31/56
40.PAIN AND SUFFERING.
The petitioner was only 7 years old at the time of accident and has undergone immense trauma of having suffered cranio cerebral injury with lacerated wounds on the scalp. Therefore, I award a sum of Rs.20,000/- to petitioner on account of pain and suffering.
41.CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, he would have had visited the doctors and hospitals several times. I, therefore award a total sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for conveyance and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for special diet to the petitioner.
42.RELIEF In view of my finding on issues no.1 and 2, the petitioner Gulshan Verma is awarded following compensation:-
Medicines & Medical Treatment : Rs.2,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs.20,000/- Conveyance and Special Diet : Rs.10,000/- Total : Rs.32,000/-
43. Hence, the petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.32,000/-. Petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 19/12/2005 till its realization.
Said amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank in the name of petitioner for the period till he attains the age of majority without the facility of advance/loan or withdrawal. However, Smt.Shakuntla, natural guardian, next friend and mother of the petitioner will be entitled to Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 32/56 monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
44.Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 827/08 wherein Master Akash has died.
45.LOSS OF FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY PW-2 Smt.Rajwati, who is mother of the deceased Akash stated that her son was 7 years of age and was a student at the time of accident.
In New India Assurance Co Limited vs Satender and ors reported as JT 2006(10) SC 234 in this case it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievement in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation."
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 33/56 In case of Shyam Narayan vs Kitty Tours Travels and ors reported as IV (2005) ACC 1 delivered by Hon'ble Mr Justice Pradeep Nandrajog of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that in case of death minor child below 15 years as per second schedule appended to Section 163 (A) of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 notional income should be taken of Rs15,000/- per annum to which multiplier of 15 is to be taken as provided in second schedule appended to Section 163 A of Motor Vehicle Act therefore compensation comes out to be Rs2.25 lakhs. On this Hon'ble High Court has awarded Rs50,000/- on account of the loss of company of child and for pain and suffering , therefore total amount of Rs2.75 lakh was awarded by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
After considering judgment as mentioned above I am of the opinion that when specifically notional income has been provided in second schedule appended to Section 163 A of Motor Vehicle Act. The notional income of deceased is in the present case as of 10 years has to be taken as Rs15,000/- per annum and in second schedule itself multiplier of 15 has been provided for the age of deceased being 05 years therefore total loss of dependency will be Rs2.25 lakhs as provided in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
It has been further held in the recent Judgement of Rekha Vs. Raj Balam Rajbhar & Ors, MAC.App.No.576/2007 decided on 9/12/2009 wherein above Judgements were discussed and it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that in the Judgement of R.K.Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, 2009 (8) Scale 451 that the claimants are also entitled to compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards future prospects.
Therefore, in the case of Rekha Vs. Raj Balam Rajbhar & Ors, MAC.App.No.576/2007 decided on 9/12/2009, wherein the deceased was 8 years old, Rs.2,25,000/- was awarded towards pecuniary damages following Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 34/56 the Second Schedule o the Motor Vehicles Act, Rs.75,000/- was awarded towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs.75,000/- was awarded towards future prospects which means that the total compensation was awarded as Rs.3,75,000/-.
In view thereof, I am inclined to award a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- to petitioners since the deceased was 7 years of age at the time of accident. Petitioners are also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 19/12/2005 till its realization.
Out of the said compensation, Petitioner no.1 being mother of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,87,500/- with 7.5% interest as stated above. Out of said amount, Rs.50,000/- be given in cash to petitioner no.1 and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of five years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
Petitioner no.2 being father of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,87,500/- with 7.5% interest as stated above. Out of said amount, Rs.50,000/- be given in cash to petitioner no.2 and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of five years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.2 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
46.Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 828/08 wherein Sh.Sonu Duriya has died.
47.LOSS OF FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY.
PW-10 Smt.Kanchan, who is mother of the deceased Sh.Sonu Duriya stated that her son was 23 years of age and was in employment with Pappu Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 35/56 Verma at the time of accident and was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the respondents to disapprove this claim of the petitioners. Therefore, I am inclined to take the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3,300/- per month.
In the recent Judgement of Smt.Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, CA 3483 of 2008, SC, it has been categorically laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the case of a bachelor, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. It has been further laid down that in such case 50% will be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is also laid down in this judgment that normally 50% is deducted towards personal and living expenses in case of a bachelor since is is assumed that a bachelor tends to spend more on himself, even otherwise there is also possibility of him getting married in short time in which the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically.
In the present case as already stated above, the petitioners have successfully proved that they are the only legal heirs and were financially dependent on the deceased.
As per Sarla Verma Judgement, 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses in case of death of a Bachelor.
Claim petition mentions the age of the petitioner no.2 i.e. father o the deceased to be 45 years. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents. Therefore, I am inclined to take the age of the petitioner no.2 to be 45 years for calculation of loss of financial dependency.
It has been stated by the petitioner no.1 that the deceased was 23 years of age at the time of accident. Petitioners are the parents of the Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 36/56 deceased. In the judgment of New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Shanti Pathak reported as III (2007) ACC 505 (SC) it has been held that multiplier to be adopted is to be determined on the basis of age of claimant and not age of deceased whichever is higher. Father of the deceased is admittedly 45 years old, hence multiplier of 14 as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, CA 3483 of 2008, SC is to be applied.
Therefore, total loss of financial dependency accordingly will be Rs.3,300/- x 12 x 14 x 1/2 which comes to Rs.2,77,200/-.
48.LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.
No amount of compensation can compensate the loss of young son to the parents. No amount of money can wipe the tears, the trauma of the petitioners and the feeling that the petitioners must be feeling each day having lost their young son. The trauma is for the lifetime. I however, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, award a sum of Rs.10,000/- to petitioners towards loss of love and affection.
49.FUNERAL EXPENSES.
Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the petitioners on account of funeral expenses.
50.LOSS TO ESTATE.
I award Rs.10,000/- on account of loss to estate to petitioners.
51.RELIEF.
In view of my finding on issue no.1 and 2, the petitioners are awarded following compensation:-
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 37/56 Loss of financial dependency Rs.2,77,200/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/-
Loss to Estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.3,02,200/-
52. Petitioners are therefore awarded compensation of Rs.3,02,200/-.
Petitioners are also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 24/12/2005 till its realization.
Out of the said compensation, Petitioner no.1 being mother of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,51,100/- with 7.5% interest as stated above. Out of said amount, Rs.50,000/- be given in cash to petitioner no.1 and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of five years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
Petitioner no.2 being father of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,51,100/- with 7.5% interest as stated above. Out of said amount, Rs.50,000/- be given in cash to petitioner no.2 and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of five years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.2 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
53.Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 829/08 wherein Sunita Verma has received injuries.
54.MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT.
As per medical treatment record, the petitioner Sunita was admitted Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 38/56 in Laxmi Bai Chikitsa Mahavidyalya, Jhansi (Government Hospital). She was five months pregnant and had suffered dislocation of the right hip bone. She was taken to the hospital on 14/11/2005. Surgery was conducted upon her. She had remained under medical treatment. However, she was not discharged from the hospital against medical advise on 06/12/2005. There is nothing on the record to show that she had aborted the child or had suffered any other injury. She had remained under medical treatment thereafter from Hans Charitable Hospital till 08/12/2005 where she was advised physiotherapy. She has filed on record medical treatment bills in the sum of Rs.2,100/-. However, considering the nature and duration of injuries, I am inclined to grant Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner towards medicines and medical treatment.
55.LOSS OF WAGES Petitioner has stated that she is a housewife. Since the petitioner is a house wife, there is no actual income of house wife. However, due to this accident, she must not have been able to do the household work and she must have taken help of other persons for her household work.
As per the Ration Card, she has been shown to be born in the year 1987 as on 21/07/2002. The present accident has taken place on 14/11/2005 which means that the petitioner was about 18 years as on the date of accident. As per claim petition, she was 23 years of age as on the date of accident. As per medical treatment record, she has been shown to be 30 years of age at that time. Therefore, I am inclined to consider the age of the petitioner as above 30 years as on the date of accident.
As per Lata Wadhwa's case, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC) which has been discussed at length in the recent judgment of Vijay Chadha and others vs Jasbir Singh, 2007 ACJ 1238 decided by our own High Court of Delhi, it is Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 39/56 clear that in the case of house wife taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation should Rs.3,000/- per month. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 and 59. As far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs. 10,000/- per annum.
However, the difficulty in the present case is that in Lata Wadhwa's case, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC) and Vijay Chadha and others Vs. Jasbir Singh, 2001 ACJ 1238 case, the income or the valued services rendered by the housewives have been considered for the housewives between the age group of 34 and 72 years and in the present case, the age of the petitioner is 30 years and in order to assess the loss of earning capacity, it is essential first to assess the monthly loss in rendering valued services by herself as a housewife.
Relying upon the principles laid down in the above mentioned cases, since the monthly contribution of the housewife in the age group of 34 to 59 years has been taken to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, in the present case where the housewife is 30 years of age, I take her monthly contribution to the family to be Rs. 3,200/- per month.
Considering the nature of injuries as sustained by the petitioner, it is clear that she must not have been able to perform her household work for about three months as she had remained under medical treatment for about one month and thereafter she was advised physiotherapy also. Therefore, I am inclined to grant her loss of wages for three months.
Therefore, loss of wages for three months will be Rs.3,200 x 3 which comes to Rs.9,600/-
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 40/56
56.PAIN AND SUFFERING.
The petitioner has suffered dislocation of right hip joint. She had remained admitted in the hospital from 14/11/2005 to 06/12/2005 and the injuries sustained by her were of the nature that she also must not have been able to attend to her daily work and even to attend to herself. Therefore, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner towards pain and suffering.
57.CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET.
Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, she would have had visited the doctors and hospitals several times. I, therefore award a total sum of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for conveyance and Rs.7,000/- as compensation for special diet to the petitioner.
58.RELIEF In view of my finding on issues no.1 and 2, the petitioner Sunita Verma is awarded following compensation:-
Medicines & Medical Treatment : Rs.3,000/- Loss of wages : Rs.9,600/- Pain and suffering : Rs.30,000/- Conveyance and Special Diet : Rs.14,000/- Total : Rs.56,600/-
59. Hence, the petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.55,700/-. Petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 19/12/2005 till its realization. Said amount be given in cash to the petitioner.
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 41/56
60.Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 831/08 wherein Komal has received injuries.
61.MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT.
The MLC which has been prepared by the doctors of MLB Medical College, Jhansi shows that Komal had suffered head injury and was referred to Sahara Hospital, Gwalior where she had remained admitted from 17/11/2005 to 22/11/2005. Thereafter, she was referred to AIIMS or Safdarjung Hospital. She had also suffered fracture of the frontal head bone. The further medical treatment record of Komal shows that she had been brought to LNJP Hospital where she was admitted from 23/11/2005 to 17/01/2006. She had also suffered neuro problems. Surgery has also been conducted upon her. She had also remained an OPD patient thereafter. She had also suffered multiple fracture of the left leg and her leg was put under plaster. Her eye sight has been affected and she had stopped recognising her relatives and was suffering from episodes of seizures. Her further OPD treatment record shows that she was also treated at Guru Nanak Eye Centre, Delhi as her eye sight had also suffered due to injuries sustained in the accident. She is continuously under medical treatment due to the injuries sustained in the accident and is suffering from repeated seizures. The medical treatment record has continued as per the documents filed by the petitioner of LNJP Hospital, Hindu Rao Hospital, Guru Nanak Eye Centre, Delhi and Institute of Human Behaviour And Allied Sciences (IHBAS) till 01/09/2007. However, she was again advised to undergo physiotherapy and occupational therapy. Unfortunately, there is no further medical treatment record regarding the patient. However, the injuries which have been mentioned and the treatment she has undergone, though it is clear that last treatment record dated 01/09/2007 shows that she had been advised to Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 42/56 undergo physiotherapy and occupational therapy. No disability certificate has been filed. Having undergone prolonged medical treatment for so long, though she has not filed any bills towards medical treatment and has been medically treated at Government Hospitals, she must have spent some amount on x- rays etc and buying medicines which are not available in the hospital. Therefore, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner Komal towards medical treatment and medicines.
62.LOSS OF FUTURE PROSPECTS.
The petitioner was only 5 years old at the time of accident. Her eye sight has been affected. Since the date of accident, she has been suffering from repeated seizures. Though the intensity has come down, it has surely affected her future prospects regarding her education and marriage prospects. Though no specific evidence has been led but it can easily be gathered from the detailed medical examination reports and medical treatment. Therefore, I grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- to petitioner on account of loss of future prospects.
63.PAIN AND SUFFERING.
The petitioner was only 5 years old at the time of accident and has undergone immense trauma of having suffered head injury and repeated seizures etc and is still undergoing further treatment. Therefore, I award a sum of Rs.50,000/- to petitioner on account of pain and suffering.
64.CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, she would have had visited the doctors and hospitals several times. I, therefore award a total sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for conveyance and Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 43/56 Rs.10,000/- as compensation for special diet to the petitioner.
65.RELIEF In view of my finding on issues no.1 and 2, the petitioner Komal is awarded following compensation:-
Medicines & Medical Treatment : Rs.10,000/- Loss of future prospects : Rs.50,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/- Conveyance and Special Diet : Rs.20,000/- Total : Rs.1,30,000/-
66. Hence, the petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.1,30,000/-. Petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 19/12/2005 till its realization.
Said amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank in the name of petitioner for the period till she attains the age of majority without the facility of advance/loan or withdrawal. However, Sh.Shyam Sunder, natural guardian and next friend and father of the petitioner will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
67.Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 832/08 wherein Smt.Kusum has died.
68.LOSS OF FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY.
PW-7 Sh.Shyam Sunder, who is husband of the deceased Smt.Kusum stated that deceased was a housewife.
As per the postmortem report of the deceased Smt.Kusum, the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 25 years. Petitioners have filed on Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 44/56 record Ration Card Ex.A wherein deceased has been shown to be born in the year 1985 as on the date of issuance of Ration Card i.e. 23/09/2005 which means that the deceased was 20 years of age as on the date of accident i.e.14/11/2005. As per the claim petition, the deceased has been shown to be 25 years of age. In absence of any other proof, I am inclined to consider the deceased as a housewife and that she was 25 years of age.
As per Lata Wadhwa's case, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC) which has been discussed at length in the judgment of Vijay Chadha and others vs Jasbir Singh, 2007 ACJ 1238 decided by our own High Court of Delhi, it is clear that in the case of house wife taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation should Rs.3,000/- per month. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 and 59. As far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs. 10,000/- per annum.
However, the difficulty in the present case is that in Lata Wadhwa's case, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC) and Vijay Chadha and others Vs. Jasbir Singh, 2001 ACJ 1238 case, the income or the valued services rendered by the housewives have been considered for the housewives between the age group of 34 and 72 years and in the present case, the age of the petitioner is 25 years and in order to assess the loss of earning capacity, it is essential first to assess the monthly loss in rendering valued services by herself as a housewife.
Relying upon the principles laid down in the above mentioned cases, since the monthly contribution of the housewife in the age group of 34 to 59 years has been taken to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, in the present case where the housewife is 25 years of age, I take her monthly contribution to Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 45/56 the family to be Rs.3,500/- per month.
Hence, multiplier of 18 as per the Judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, CA 3483 of 2008, SC is to be applied.
Therefore, total loss of financial dependency accordingly will be Rs.3,500/- x 12 x 18 which comes to Rs.7,56,000/.
69.LOSS OF CONSORTIUM No amount of money can compensate the husband of loss of consortium of his wife. Therefore, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of consortium.
70.LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.
Petitioner no.1 has lost his wife and petitioners no.2 and 3 have lost their mother in the present accident. Money cannot compensate the loss of love and affection that they have lost due to the accident. I however, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, award a sum of Rs.10,000/- to petitioners towards loss of love and affection.
71.FUNERAL EXPENSES.
Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the petitioners on account of funeral expenses.
72.LOSS TO ESTATE.
I award Rs.10,000/- on account of loss to estate to petitioners.
73.RELIEF.
In view of my finding on issue no.1 and 2, the petitioners are awarded Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 46/56 following compensation:-
Loss of financial dependency Rs.7,56,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/-
Loss to Estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.7,91,000/-
74. Petitioners are therefore awarded compensation of Rs.7,91,000/-. Petitioners are also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 19/12/2005 till its realization.
Out of the said compensation, Petitioner no.1 being husband of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,91,000/- with 7.5% interest as stated above. Out of said amount, Rs.50,000/- be given in cash to petitioner no.1 and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of five years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
Petitioner no.2 is minor daughter of the deceased. She is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with 7.5% interest as stated above. Said amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period till she attains the age of 21 without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
Petitioner no.3 is minor son of the deceased. He is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with 7.5% interest as stated above. Said amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period till he attains the Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 47/56 age of 25 without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
75.Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 833/08 wherein Baby Shanti has received injuries.
76.MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT Petitioner was admitted in Laxmi Bai Hospital in Jhansi on 14/11/2005 and was discharged on 21/11/2005. She had suffered cranio cerebral injury. She remained under treatment and was discharged on 21/11/2005 with the advise to attend the OPD after a week. No further medical treatment is available on record. She has not filed on record medical treatment bills. However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, I am inclined to grant a token sum of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner towards medicines and medical treatment.
77.PAIN AND SUFFERING.
The petitioner was 11 years old at the time of accident and has undergone immense trauma of having suffered cranio cerebral injury. Therefore, I award a sum of Rs.20,000/- to petitioner on account of pain and suffering.
78.CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, he would have had visited the doctors and hospitals several times. I, therefore award a total sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for conveyance and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for special diet to the petitioner.
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 48/56
79.RELIEF In view of my finding on issues no.1 and 2, the petitioner Baby Shanti is awarded following compensation:-
Medicines & Medical Treatment : Rs.2,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs.20,000/- Conveyance and Special Diet : Rs.10,000/- Total : Rs.32,000/-
80. Hence, the petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.32,000/-. Petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 19/12/2005 till its realization.
Said amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank in the name of petitioner for the period till she attains the age of majority without the facility of advance/loan or withdrawal. However, Shri Dharamvir, natural guardian, next friend and father of the petitioner will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
81.Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 834/08 wherein Sh.Bhopat has died.
82.LOSS OF FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY.
PW-8 Smt.Sunita, who is wife of the deceased Sh.Bhopat stated that her husband was 23 years of age and used to run a tea stall near their house and was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the respondents to disapprove this claim of the petitioners. Therefore, I am inclined to take the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3,300/- per month.
As per the postmortem report of the deceased Sh.Bhopat, the age of Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 49/56 the deceased has been mentioned as 40 years. Petitioners have filed on record Ration Card wherein deceased has been shown to be born in the year 1985 as on the date of issuance of Ration Card i.e. 21/07/2002 which means that the deceased was 20 years of age as on the date of accident i.e.14/11/2005. Petitioners have also filed on record Voter I-Card of the deceased wherein deceased has been shown to be 18 years of age as on 01/01/2002 which means that the deceased was 21 years of age as on the date of accident i.e.14/11/2005. As per the claim petition, the deceased has been shown to be 23 years of age. No contrary evidence has been brought on record qua the age of the deceased. Therefore, I am inclined to take the age of the deceased to be 23 years.
Hence, multiplier of 18 as per the Judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, CA 3483 of 2008, SC is to be applied.
As per Sarla Verma's Judgement, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses where the number of dependent family members are 2 to
3. Therefore, 1/3rd amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses in the present case.
Therefore, total loss of financial dependency accordingly will be Rs.3,300/- x 12 x 18 x 2/3 which comes to Rs.4,75,200.
83.LOSS OF CONSORTIUM No amount of money can compensate the wife of loss of consortium of her husband. Therefore, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of consortium.
84.LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.
Petitioner no.1 has lost her husband, petitioner no.2 has lost her Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 50/56 father and petitioner no.3 has lost his son in the present accident. Money cannot compensate the loss of love and affection that they have lost due to the accident. I however, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, award a sum of Rs.10,000/- to petitioners towards loss of love and affection.
85.FUNERAL EXPENSES.
Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the petitioners on account of funeral expenses.
86.LOSS TO ESTATE.
I award Rs.10,000/- on account of loss to estate to petitioners.
87.RELIEF.
In view of my finding on issue no.1 and 2, the petitioners are awarded following compensation:-
Loss of financial dependency Rs.4,75,200/-
Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/-
Loss to Estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.5,10,200/-
88. Petitioners are therefore awarded compensation of Rs.5,10,200/-. Petitioners are also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 19/12/2005 till its realization.
Out of the said compensation, Petitioner no.1 being wife of the Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 51/56 deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,10,200/- with 7.5% interest as stated above. Out of said amount, Rs.50,000/- be given in cash to petitioner no.1 and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of five years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
Petitioner no.2 is minor daughter of the deceased, who was born after the death of the deceased. She is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with 7.5% interest as stated above. Said amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period till she attains the age of 21 without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
Petitioner no.3 is father of the deceased. He is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- with 7.5% interest as stated above. Said amount be given in cash to petitioner no.3.
89.LIABILITY TO SATISFY THE CLAIM.
Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company has stated that they are not liable to pay compensation in this case since they have already proved through R1W1 Sh. Shailesh Verma that in this case Insurance Cover note no.32284072 was issued in the name of Sh. Yashpal Khanna for some other vehicle and insurance cover note filed on record is forged and fabricated.
The owner of the offending vehicle states that he had got the vehicle financed from respondent no. 3 and the insurance cover note/ policy was supplied to him by the financier. It was not in his knowledge that a fake insurance cover note was provided to him by the financier, therefore, he is not liable to make payment of compensation.
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 52/56 The financier, on the other hand states that he is also not liable to make payment of compensation since he is neither the owner nor driver of the offending vehicle. He is merely a financier and they had not issued the insurance cover note to respondent no. 2.
I have heard arguments and have gone through the case file. Having gone through the same, I am of the opinion that the financier in this case has stated that he had not handed over the insurance cover note filed on record by the respondent no. 2. Rather it is stated that it was respondent no. 2 himself who had provided copy of the insurance cover note to the financier and only thereafter the vehicle was financed by them. Respondent no. 2, on the other hand, could not prove that he had specifically paid any premium towards the insurance of the policy to respondent no. 3. The original loan agreement was signed by the petitioner wherein he has admitted his signatures. It also mentions that the loan amount in this case was Rs.80,000/- and not Rs.1,00,000/- as deposed by respondent no. 2. It is nowhere mentioned in the agreement that this included any amount towards insurance or that insurance of the vehicle was to be done by respondent no. 3. There are 24 cheques as per the agreement which were handed over to respondent no. 3 by respondent no. 2 in the total sum of Rs.1,04,000/- towards full and final payment of the vehicle financed by respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 3 has also filed on record an application given to them by respondent no. 2 dated 07.11.2005 which bears the signatures of respondent no. 2 as per his own admission i.e. Ex.R3W1/2. It clearly mentions that he is submitting 8 documents to respondent no. 3 for obtaining finance of the vehicle in question. He has mentioned at serial no. 5 that he is also giving insurance cover note number 32284702 of the vehicle in question to the financier.
Moreover, respondent no. 3 has filed on record Form no. 29 and 30.
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 53/56 Form no. 30 bears the signatures of respondent no. 2 Sh. Pappu Verma which shows that he had purchased the same from one Sh. Bakshish Singh. He had submitted these documents also to the financier. It is, therefore, clear that the fact that the vehicle previously belonged to Sh. Bakshish Singh was in knowledge of respondent no. 2 and as per the documents dated 07.11.2005 admittedly signed by respondent no. 2 and submitted to respondent no. 3, he had himself given the insurance cover note to the financier even prior to disbursement of the amount. Therefore, if the insurance cover note was given to the financier at the time of giving his application for obtaining finance for the vehicle in question, where was the question of financier issuing insurance cover note to respondent no. 2. In view thereof, respondent no. 3 i.e. the financier is not liable to make payment of the compensation amount. Moreover, since they are neither owner nor driver of the offending vehicle they are not liable to make payment of the compensation amount.
Respondent no. 2 has also admitted that he had not paid any premium to the insurance company i.e. respondent no. 1 nor he had obtained the insurance cover note from insurance company i.e. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.. On the other hand, he has stated that he had paid the premium amount to the financier i.e. respondent no. 3. The insurance company has proved on record that this insurance cover note has not been issued by them in the name of Sh. Pappu Verma and they have not received any premium and the same is a forged document. I, therefore, hold that they are not liable to make payment of compensation amount.
Hence, respondent No. 2 being owner of the offending vehicle is liable to make payment of compensation to the petitioner.
90. Respondent no.2 is directed to directly deposit the award amount in Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 54/56 the Court within 30 days. Copy of the order be given dasti to respondent No.2 for compliance.
91. Before parting with this case I deem it appropriate to pass order regarding the fake cover note which has been filed on record.
It is a very serious matter that fake insurance cover notes are prepared and filed which are not only harmful to the economy of the nation but are also tools of playing fraud upon uneducated and at times not very educated people who may not be able to distinguish between a genuine and a fake insurance cover note. Ultimately if a vehicle against which a fake insurance cover note exists, meets with an accident, the victims are the families of the people who have either died in such accidents or who have been injured as in most of such cases the driver and the owner will not be able to satisfy the claim and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
In this process, the victims suffer twice, once when they suffer the accident and lose their near or dear ones or are grievously injured and thereafter, when it is discovered that the insurance cover note is fake and the driver and owner at times is not able to satisfy the claim in entirety.
It will be therefore, appropriate for the undersigned to issue a direction to the DCP, Central District, Delhi to get conducted investigation in this case, since in the present proceedings before the tribunal, detailed inquiry regarding the fraud and who are the actual accused cannot be conducted.
The DCP, Central District, Delhi may register an FIR and get conducted a detailed inquiry/ investigation of the case and file the report before concerned Magistrate. It will not be out of place to mention that the inquiry will be conducted against all the concerned parties in this case.
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 55/56
92. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (SWARANA K.SHARMA) on 26.5.2010 JUDGE:MACT: CENTRAL DISTT. : DELHI
Reviewed and corrected printout of Judgment taken out on 03/06/2010.
Attested copy prepared by the Reader and given to the Ahlmad today itself.
Suit No.825/08, 826/08, 827/08, 828/08, 829/08, 831/08, 832/08, 833/08, 834/08 Page 56/56