Delhi District Court
Sanjay Kr. Gupta@Sanjay Gupta &Ors. vs . Subhash Chand & Ors. Mact No. 141/15 on 25 July, 2017
Digitally signed
by ANAND
SWAROOP
ANAND AGGARWAL
SWAROOP Location: Delhi
AGGARWAL Date:
2017.07.25
16:12:32
+0530
Sanjay Kr. Gupta@Sanjay Gupta &Ors.Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors. MACT No. 141/15
BEFORE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
NORTHEAST DISTT. : KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI
Presiding Officer: ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL: DHJS
Additional District & Sessions Judge: Delhi
MACT No. 141/15 FIR No. 235/15
ID No. 14713/15 U/s. 279/338/304A IPC,
P.S. Reings
In the matter of:
1. Sanjay Kr. Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta S/o. Sh. Prem Prakash
2. Ms. Neha Gupta D/o. Sh. Sanjay Kr. Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta
3. Vikas Gupta S/o. Sh. Sanjay Kr. Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta
4. Ankit Gupta S/o. Sh. Sanjay Kr. Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta
All R/o. X209, Gali No. 12, 4th Floor, Brahampuri Ghonda,
Delhi 110 052
ALSO AT : H. NO. L36, Gali No. 4,
Jai Prakash Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi 110 052.
Through:
Ms. Debakie Rani Sharma, Adv. (Mobile No. 9891045318).
Chamber No. A40, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi - 110 054.
( details given in compliance with Clause 27 of
Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure) ....... Claimants
Versus
1. Subhash Chand S/o. Sh. Mohan Lal Meena (DRIVER)
R/o. Dhabawali Shri Madhopur Sikar, Rajasthan
2. Vinod Kumar S/o. Jagdish (OWNER)
R/o. Mohalla Meeno Ka,
Nathushar, Tehsil Siri Madhopur Sikar
Rajasthan. ......... Defendants
i) Date of institution of Claim Petition : 15.10.2015
ii) Date when reserved for award : 25.07.2017
iii) Date of award : 25.07.2017
Page No. 1 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /25.07.2017
Sanjay Kr. Gupta@Sanjay Gupta &Ors.Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors. MACT No. 141/15
CLAIM PETITION U/S. 166 & 140 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
A W A R D
1. CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS AS PLEADED IN CLAIM PETITION
Claimants, being husband and children of deceased Smt. Meenu Gupta aged
about 48 years, have filed this claim petition u/s. 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 with the averments 28.06.2015 in the morning deceased and other family
members were going towards "Khatushyam" from Delhi by Bus No. UP 81 AF 8982.
When the bus stopped for breakfast at Shekhwati Pavitra Bhojnalaya, near Bharni
Stand at about 2:00 p.m. the deceased was standing inside on the road, in the
meanwhile one Commando Jeep bearing no. RJ23UA7825, coming from Reingus
at a very fast speed in zigzag manner rashly and negligently, hit the deceased. As a
result of this the deceased fell down on the road and sustained dangerous/multiples
injuries all over the body. She was admitted at Ghayal Hospital, Reingus. After first
aid she was taken to S. K. Soni Mahipal Hospital, Shikher Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan on
28.06.2015 and after 3 days on 02.07.2015 the deceased was admitted in St. Stephen
Hospital, Delhi and deceased was discharged from the said hospital on 07.07.2015 .
Thereafter, the deceased was admitted in RML Hospital on 07.07.2015 and on
20.07.2015 the deceased died at RML Hospital.
FIR No. 235/15, U/s. 279/337/304A IPC was registered at P.S. Reings and
postmortem of deceased was conducted at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Mortuary, Subzi
Mandi, Delhi vide postmortem report no. 1272/15 dated 21.07.2015. Deceased was
aged about 48 years and was private teacher and her monthly income was Rs.
15,000/. Claimants have claimed Rs. 50 lakhs as compensation from the defendants.
2.1 SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS NO. 1 & 2 AND THEIR BEING
PROCEEDED AS EXPARTE.
Vide order dated 17.03.2016 defendant no. 1 Subhash Chand stood served through
Page No. 2 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /25.07.2017
Sanjay Kr. Gupta@Sanjay Gupta &Ors.Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors. MACT No. 141/15
registered AD but he failed to appear despite repeated calls and the summons to
defendant no. 2 Vinod were returned back with report of refusal and thus, he was
taken as deemed served. Hence both the defendants were proceeded agaisnt as ex
parte.
3. ISSUES
Vide order dated 17.03.2016 ld. predecessor of this tribunal framed the
following issues:
1. Whether deceased Smt. Meenu Gupta died on account of injuries sustained in
accident taking place on 28.06.2015 at about 2:00 PM in front of Shekhawati Pavitra
Bhojnalya near Bharini Stand, Rajasthan within the jurisdiction of PS Reings due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. RJ 23UA 7825 by respondent no. 1?
OPP
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?OPP
3. Relief.
4 EVIDENCE 4.1 Claimant no. 1 appeared in the witness box as PW 1 Sanjay Kumar Gupta. Claimants have also examined PW 2 G. B. Khatri and PW 3 Liazley Roburt Ilias. PE was closed on15.04.2017. On 18.07.2017 additional evidence affidavit of claimant no. 1 was filed and he was again examined.
5. STATEMENTS OF CLAIMANTS UNDER CLAUSE 26 OF MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE.
On 18.07.2017 statements of all the claimants were recorded under clause 26 of MCTAP.
6. ARGUMENTS I have heard claimant no. 1 and Ms. Nupur Sharma, (Law Student IVth year) Page No. 3 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /25.07.2017 Sanjay Kr. Gupta@Sanjay Gupta &Ors.Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors. MACT No. 141/15 Proxy for Ms. Debakie Rani Sharma, Adv. for claimants. Material available on judicial file perused carefully.
7. My issuewise findings are as under: 7.1 ISSUE No. 1 Whether deceased Smt. Meenu Gupta died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 28.06.2015 at about 2:00 PM in front of Shekhawati Pavitra Bhojnalya near Bharini Stand, Rajasthan within the jurisdiction of PS Reings due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. RJ 23UA 7825 by respondent no. 1? OPP Claimant no. 1 has appeared in the witness box as PW 1 Sanjay Kumar Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta . He has tendered his examination in chief vide evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/1 reiterating the averments made in claim petition. The depositions made by PW 1 Sanjay Kumar Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta have gone totally unrebutted/unchallenged inasmuch as defendants have not entered their appearance before the court and have been proceeded against exparte. Claimants have filed on record certified copy of record of criminal case file against defendant no. 1 in the court of Sr. Civil Judge cum Addl. Chief Metropolitan , Ringus (Sikar). As per the said record defendant no. 1 has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable u/s. 279/304A IPC and 134/187, 146/196 , Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Postmortem report of the deceased Meenu Gupta has been brought on record as PW 2/1. This record of criminal case supports the case of claimants herein. This court finds no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted/unchallenged depositions of PW 1 Sanjay Kumar Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta, which find corroboration from the record of criminal case. By applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities issue in hand is decided in favour of claimants.
7.2 ISSUE NO. 2 Page No. 4 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /25.07.2017
Sanjay Kr. Gupta@Sanjay Gupta &Ors.Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors. MACT No. 141/15
Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?OPP In view of my finding(s) on issue no. 1 , claimants are entitled u/s 166 & 140 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Here as per claimants deceased Smt. Meenu Gupta was a private teacher and earning Rs.15,000/ per month. However, these averments have not been proved on record by leading possible positive, cogent and convincing evidence. Except the bald averments/depositions nothing has been brought on record to prove the abovesaid averments. There is no evidence as to the educational qualification of the deceased. Hence, these averments/depositions deserve to be discarded by this tribunal. In any way deceased can be said to be a housewife and claimants are entitled to compensation as per law laid down by Hon'ble High Court Of Delhi in (i) Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Master Manneet Singh & Ors. 2012 ACJ 721 and (ii) Rajender Jhakal & Ors. Vs. Munna Khan & Ors. MAC Appeal No. 619/2007 decided on 09.05.2014 by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Deepa Sharma, Judge High Court of Delhi. In Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ruled as under: "34. To sum up, the loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife shall be:
(i) Minimum salary of a graduate where she is a graduate.
(ii) Minimum salary of a matriculate where she is a matriculate.
(iii) Minimum salary of a nonmatriculate in other cases.
(iv) There will be an addition of 25 per cent in the assumed income in
(i), (ii) and (iii) where the age of the homemaker is up to 40 years; the increase will be restricted to 15 per cent where her age is above 40 years but less than 50 years; there will not be any addition in the assumed salary where the age is more than 50 years.
(v) When the deceased homemaker is above 55 years but less than 60 years, there will be deduction of 25 per cent and when the deceased homemaker is above 60 years, there will be deduction of 50 per cent in the assumed income as the services rendered decrease substantially.
Normally, the value of gratuitous services rendered will be nil (unless Page No. 5 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /25.07.2017 Sanjay Kr. Gupta@Sanjay Gupta &Ors.Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors. MACT No. 141/15 there is evidence to the contrary) when the homemaker is above 65 years.
(vi) If a housewife dies issueless, the contribution towards the gratuitous services is much, as there are greater chances of the husband's remarriage. In such cases, the loss of dependency shall be 50 per cent of the income as per the qualification stated in (i), (ii) and (iii) above and addition and deduction thereon as per (iv) and (v) above.
(vii) There shall not be any deduction towards the personal and living expenses.
(viii) As an attempt has been made to compensate the loss of dependency, only a notional sum which may be up to Rs.25,000/ (on present scale of the money value) towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000 towards loss of consortium, if the husband is alive, may be awarded.
(ix) Since a homemaker is not working and thus not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss to estate." In Rajender Jhakal & Ors. the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi following the principle laid down in case Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563 awarded the sum of Rs. One Lakh towards loss of consortium, Rs. One Lakh towards loss of love and affection, care and guidelines to children and Rs.25,000/ towards funeral expenses. As on the date of accident/death of deceased Meenu Gupta minimum wages for nonmatriculate were Rs. 10,010/ . As per Ex. PW 1/B1 - Election I Card of deceased Meenu Gupta her age as on 01.01.2013 was 48 years. Her age as on date of accident/death comes out to be about 50 years and some months. Multiplier corresponding to age of the deceased is 13 as per case law of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma vs. DTC 2009(6) SCALE 129 is 16. As per para. 34 (iv) of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Master Manneet Singh & Ors. 2012 ACJ 721 no addition is to be made in the assumed income of the deceased where the age is more than 50 years. Claimants are not entitled to reimbursement against two requisitions, each for Rs. 25,000/, advance payment. Here deceased was resident of Delhi and the accident had occurred within the jurisdiction of PS Reings in Rajasthan. During Page No. 6 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /25.07.2017 Sanjay Kr. Gupta@Sanjay Gupta &Ors.Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors. MACT No. 141/15 treatment she was brought from place of accident to Jaipur and then to Delhi. Hence claimants are also entitled to reasonable expenses on account of ambulance charges. Loss of dependency to the claimants nos. 1 to 4 comes out to be (Rs. 10,010/ X 12 X 13 =) Rs. 15,61,560/ FURTHER claimants are entitled to following :
(i) Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/
(claimant no. 1 is husband of deceased)
(ii) Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/
(iii) Loss of Love, care, and
affection and guidance of the children Rs. 1,00,000/
(iv) Medical bills/ expenses Rs. 5,00,000/
(including ambulance charges)
(v) Loss of Estate
(Royal Sundaram Vs. Master Manneet
Singh) Rs. 0
Rs. 7,25,000 /
Total compensation to which claimants are entitled comes out to be Rs.22,86,560/ (₹15,61,560/ + ₹ 7,25,000/).
7.3 LIABILITY Both defendants no. 1 (Subhash Chand) and defendant no. 2 (Vinod Kumar Registered Owner) are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
7.4 ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF:
Claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of ₹ 22,86,560/. It is held that claimants are entitled to receive the abovesaid compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition on (15.10.2015) till the date of notice of deposit of awarded amount inclusive of interest by defendants no. 1& 2 to claimants with copy of ld. counsel for claimants.
Page No. 7 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /25.07.2017
Sanjay Kr. Gupta@Sanjay Gupta &Ors.Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors. MACT No. 141/15
If award is not complied with within 30 days from today, defendants no. 1& 2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the abovementioned sum (i.e.₹ 22,86,560/) for the default period.
In the course of her statement under clause 26 of MCTAP claimant no. 2 has stated that she has got married on 03.05.2017 and she does not need money but her father and both the brothers need money for future prospects.
Shares of the claimants no. 1, 3 & 4 in the facts and circumstances of this case are determined as 50%, 250% and 25% respectively, of the total awarded amount. Defendants no. 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the share of each of the claimants in above terms by issuing separate cheques for each claimant in the names of claimants no. 1,3 & 4. It is noted that as the award is to be complied by private individuals decision as to investment of awarded amount to safeguard the interest of the claimants or release of the awarded amount shall be taken keeping in view the extent of recovery effected from the defendants.
Put up for compliance on 25.08.2017. Also defendants no. 1 & 2 shall file on record proof of notice of deposit and calculation of interest.
8. Attested copies of the award be furnished to the concerned parties for compliance. Also attested copy of the award be sent to DLSA.
9. FormIV to the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure is attached herewith as Annexure A.
10. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in Open Court on 25.07.2017
(ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD COURTS / DELHI
Page No. 8 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /25.07.2017
Sanjay Kr. Gupta@Sanjay Gupta &Ors.Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors. MACT No. 141/15
Annexure A
FORM - IV
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 28.06.2015
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not applicable as accident took place Officer to the Claims Tribunal. (Clause 2) out of Delhi.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not applicable as accident took place Officer to the Insurance Company. (Clause 2) out of Delhi.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. Not applicable as accident took place before the Metropolitan Magistrate. (Clause 10) out of Delhi.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report Not applicable as accident took place (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims out of Delhi. Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Company Not applicable as accident took place (Clause 11) out of Delhi.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s) (Clause 11) Not applicable as accident took place out of Delhi.
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause Not applicable as accident took place
16) out of Delhi.
9. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR Not applicable as accident took place out of Delhi.
10. Whether the police has verified the documents filed Not applicable as accident took place with DAR (Clause 4) out of Delhi.
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part Not applicable as accident took place of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any out of Delhi. action / direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not applicable as accident took place Insurance Company. (Clause 19) out of Delhi.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Not applicable as accident took place Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 19) out of Delhi.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Not applicable as accident took place Company submitted his report within 30 days of the out of Delhi.
DAR? (Clause 21)
Page No. 9 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /25.07.2017
Sanjay Kr. Gupta@Sanjay Gupta &Ors.Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors. MACT No. 141/15
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the Not applicable as accident took place liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the out of Delhi. Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
(Clause 22)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part Not applicable as accident took place of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? out of Delhi. If so, whether any action / direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of the Not applicable as accident took place Insurance Company. (Clause 23) out of Delhi.
18. Date of the award 25.07.2017
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No. parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) examined at the time of Yes. passing of the award to ascertain his / their financial condition? (Clause 26)
21. Whether the photographs, specimen signatures, proof Yes of residence and particulars of bank account of the injured / legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award? (Clause 26)
22. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to the Shall be decided as and when claimant(s). (Clause 28) recoveries are made from the defendants who are private individuals.
23. Next Date of compliance of the award. 25.08.2017.
(Clause 30)
(ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
P.O. MACT(NorthEast), KKD Delhi
Page No. 10 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /25.07.2017