Delhi District Court
( vs Himachal Road on 17 July, 2018
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
In the Court of Sh. G. N Pandey
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16
MACT No. 574/16
IN THE MATTER OF :
(1) Smt. Salma Begum
( Wife of deceased aged 26 years)
W/o Late Rashid Khan
(2) Mohammad Anas ( Minor son aged about 14 years)
S/o Late Rashid Khan
(3) Baby Mantasa ( Minor daughter aged about 10 years)
D/o late Rashid Khan
(4) Master Fardeen Khan ( Minor son aged about 12 years)
S/o Late Rashid Khan
(5) Master Rafid ( Minor son aged about 12 years)
S/o late Rashid Khan
(6) Smt. Vakila ( Mother aged about 56 years)
W/o Sh. Rafik
(7) Sh. Raphik ( Father aged about 50 years)
S/o Sh. Phaiyyaj
(8) Ms. Shahjahan ( Unmarried sister aged 22 years)
D/o Sh. Rafiq Ahmed
( Petitioner No. 2 and 4 representing through their natural
mother petitioner No. 1)
All R/o 1802, Gali No. 18, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar,
Mustafabad, Tukmirpur, North East, Delhi.
............ Petitioners
MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 1 of 40
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
V E R S U S
1. Sh. Harbhajan Singh
S/o Sh. Tehal Singh
R/o Village Chanarthal Khurd,
Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab Owner
2. Sh. Vijay Kumar
S/o Sh. Mallu Ram
R/o H. No. 48, Sector 5 B,
M Gobindgarh, Fatehgah Saheb140406
Driver
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental House, A25/25,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi02 Insurer
........ Respondents
Date of Institution of petition : 08.12.2016 Date of Judgment/Order : 17.07.2018.
MACT No. 575/16IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Smt. Reshma Ansari ( Wife of deceased aged 26 years) W/o late Mohd. Islam Ansari
2. Abdul Rehman ( Minor son aged about 4 ½ years) S/o late Mohd. Islam Ansari
3. Mohd. Tayyab Ansari ( minor son aged about 2 ½ 10 years) S/o Late Mohd. Islam Ansari
4. Smt. Shakeela ( Mother aged about 65 years) W/o Sh. Ali Mohd.
5. Sh. Ali Mohd. ( Father aged about 68 years) S/o Late Sh. Shaukat Ali MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 2 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
( Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are representing through their natural mother petitioner No. 1) All R/o H. No. 577, Gali No. 8, near Transfarmer, Mustafabad, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Delhi94 ............ Petitioners V E R S U S
1. Sh. Harbhajan Singh S/o Sh. Tehal Singh R/o Village Chanarthal Khurd, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab Owner
2. Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Mallu Ram R/o H. No. 48, Sector 5 B, M Gobindgarh, Fatehgah Saheb140406 Driver
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental House, A25/25,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi02 Insurer
........ Respondents
Date of Institution of petition : 08.12.2016 Date of Judgment/Order : 17.07.2018.
MACT No. 576/16IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Smt. Saba Wife of deceased aged 29 years) W/o late Mohd. Imran
2. Mohd. Zeeshan Ansari ( Minor son aged about 9 years) S/o Late Mohd. Imran
3. Sumera ( Minor daughter aged about 7 years) MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 3 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
S/o Late Mohd. Imran
4. Supyan ( aged about 2) S/o late Mohd. Imran
5. Smt. Nanno( Mother aged about 56 years) W/o Sh. Nizamuddin
6. Sh. Nizamuddin( Father aged about 58 years) S/o Late Sh. Abdul Sakur
7. Ms. Nagma ( Sister aged about 22 years) D/o Sh. Nizamuddin ( petitioner No. 2 & 4 ar representing through their natural mother petitioner No. 1) All R/o 871, Gali No. 11, Mustafabad, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Delhi ............ Petitioners V E R S U S
1. Sh. Harbhajan Singh S/o Sh. Tehal Singh R/o Village Chanarthal Khurd, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab Owner
2. Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Mallu Ram R/o H. No. 48, Sector 5 B, M Gobindgarh, Fatehgah Saheb140406 Driver
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental House, A25/25,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi02 Insurer
........ Respondents
Date of Institution of petition : 08.12.2016 Date of Judgment/Order : 17.07.2018.
MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 4 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
A W A R D:
1. By this order, I shall dispose off three connected claim petitions bearing No. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16. Petitioners have filed the claim petitions under Sec. 166 & 140 of MV Act.
2. These petitions are filed by the petitioners stating that on 22.10.2016 at about 7:30 AM, deceased Rashid was going to Amritsar from Delhi alongwith his friend Mohd. Imran and Islam Ansari in vehicle No. DL 7 CL 0236. The vehicle was driving by Rashid. They were going to Amritsar for the purpose of purchasing the goods alongwith another friend namely Harsimrat Singh @ Richi. Sh. Harsimrath Singh was in his vehicle No. PV 26 F 4330 alongwith his friend Pradeep Kumar. The vehicle which was driven by Rashid very smoothly and vehicle No. PV 26 F 4330 just behind the said vehicle driven by Rashid. When they reached Barmalipur Pull just mid of the road, a overloaded truck No. PB 23H 9397 was illegally parked by its unknown driver without parking light. All of sudden, the vehicle No. DL 7 CL 0236 was hit on the back side from the offending truck No. PB 23 H 9397. Due to which, the deceased Mohd. Rashid and Mohd. Imran died at the spot and Mohd. Islam was badly injured. Immediately Mohd. Islam was taken to Sindhu Hospital, Doraha and Mohd. Islam was also declared brought dead by the doctors. Regarding accident, FIR No. 167/17 was registered at PS Doraha for offence U/s 283/304A/427/279 IPC. Thereafter, petitioners have filed three petitions for compensation i.e. petition No. 574/16, 575/16 and 576/16. The respondents in all the petitions are common.
MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 5 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
3. The respondent No. 1 and 2 jointly filed their WS denying the averments made in the petition contending that this petition is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for filing of the same. As contended, answering respondent No. 1 has not caused any accident; driver of Scorpio himself was responsible for the said accident as he was driving the said car in a high speed, rashly and negligently and due to his own negligence, the driver of Scorpio car himself struck against the vehicle of the respondent No. 1 from backside. . It is further contended that vehicle of respondent No. 1 was duly insured with the respondent No. 3 at the time of accident. While denying rest of the claim of the petitioner in the petition, the respondent No. 1 and 2 prayed to dismiss the petition with cost.
The respondent No. 3 / insurance company filed WS of the claim petition contended that insurance company has issued the insurance policy No. 233603/31/2016/4726 valid for the period from 28.10.2015 to 27.10.2016 for vehicle No. PB 23 H 9397.
4. In view of the records, following issues were framed on 29.07.2017 in petition No. 574/16:
1. Whether deceased Rashid S/o Mr. Rafiq Ahmed died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 22.10.2016 at about 7:30 AM at Barmali Pull, Doraha, Distt. Khanna within the jurisdiction of PS Doraha, Punjab due to illegal parking of Truck No. PB 23 H 9397 without parking light in the middle of the road by defendant No. 1 ?OPP
2. Whether claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
5. Following issues were framed in petition No. 575/16 on MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 6 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
29.07.2017 :
1. Whether deceased Mohd. Islam Ansari S/o Mr. Ali Mohammad died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 22.10.2016 at about 7:30 AM at Barmali Pull, Doraha, Distt. Khanna within the jurisdiction of PS Doraha, Punjab due to illegal parking of Truck No. PB 23 H 9397 without parking light in the middle of the road by defendant No. 1 ?OPP
2. Whether claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
6. Following issues were framed in petition No. 576/16 on 29.07.2017:
1. Whether deceased Mohd. Imran S/o Mr. Nizamuddin died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 22.10.2016 at about 7:30 AM at Barmali Pull, Doraha, Distt. Khanna within the jurisdiction of PS Doraha, Punjab due to illegal parking of Truck No. PB 23 H 9397 without parking light in the middle of the road by defendant No. 1 ?OPP
2. Whether claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
The evidence were recorded in the matter for disposal of the petitions: Evidence in Petition No. 574/16
7. Petitioners examined eyewitness i.e. Harsimran jeet Singh @ MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 7 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Richi as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex. PW 1/ 1.
Wife of deceased/ petitioner No. 1 filed her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW 2/A and examined herself as PW2. Witness has relied upon the documents as mentioned in the affidavit.
Wife of deceased/ petitioner No. 1 summoned and examined the witness i.e. Ms. Rajni, Inspector, Income Tax ward, New Delhi as PW3 appeared with the copies of computerized ITRs for assessment year 201314; 201415 and 20152016 of the assessee of Mohd. Imran Ex. PW 3/1. PE was thereafter closed.
8. Respondent No. 3 examined the witness i.e. Ms. Neelam Rani, Asstt., The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd as R3W1 appeared with the computerized attested certified copy of the insurance policy bearing no. 233603/31/2016/4726 for the period 28.10.2015 to 27.10.2016, insuring vehicle bearing no. PB23H9397 Truck in the name of Harbhajan Singh. The certified copy of the policy Ex.R3W1/1 (collectively 3 pages). The abovesaid policy contains the permit's clause Mark - A to A on Ex.R3W1/1.
A notice to produce under order 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued by counsel for production of the documents the copy Ex.R3W1/2. The original postal registration slip Ex.R3W1/3.
The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured Harbhajan Singh.
Respondent No. 3 examined the witness i.e. Vijay Kumar / respondent No. 1 as R3W2 deposed that on 22.10.2016, he was driving his truck bearing registration no. PB23H9397 and going from Mandi Govindgarh to Ludhiana, he was carrying woods in truck. At around 7.15 7.30 a.m., before the flyover near Barmali Pur, his truck had developed MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 8 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
some faults whereby he had stopped the truck on the side of the road with the parking lights and blinker on and had gone to fetch a mechanic. He had reached 200 - 300 meters from the spot where he had parked the vehicle, when he came to know from the people an accident had occurred on the road. He came back to the spot and remained there till evening. The copy of newspaper report relating to the accident Ex.R3W2/1. His truck had been properly parked on the road and the Scorpio had struck the truck from back side at a high speed. It is correct that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Scorpio. Copy of permit of truck Ex.R3W2/2 (OSR). RE was thereafter closed.
Evidence in Petition No. 575/16
9. Petitioners examined eyewitness i.e. Harsimran Jeet Singh @ Richi as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex. PW 1/ 1.
Wife of deceased/ petitioner No. 1 filed her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW 2/1 and examined herself as PW2. Witness has relied upon the documents as mentioned in the affidavit.
Wife of deceased/ petitioner No. 1 examined the witness i.e. Irfan as PW3 by way of affidavit Ex. PW 3/ A. Witness has relied upon the documents i.e. vouchers, attendance register etc Ex. PW 3/ 1. PE was thereafter closed.
10. Respondent No. 3 examined the witness i.e. Ms. Neelam Rani, Asstt., The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd as R3W1 appeared with the computerized attested certified copy of the insurance policy bearing no. 233603/31/2016/4726 for the period 28.10.2015 to 27.10.2016, insuring vehicle bearing no. PB23H9397 Truck in the name of Harbhajan Singh. The certified copy of the policy Ex.R3W1/1 (collectively 3 pages). The abovesaid policy contains the permit's clause Mark - A to A on MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 9 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Ex.R3W1/1.
A notice to produce under order 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued by counsel for production of the documents the copy Ex.R3W1/2. The original postal registration slip Ex.R3W1/3.
The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured Harbhajan Singh.
Respondent No. 3 examined the witness i.e. Vijay Kumar / respondent No. 1 as R3W2 deposed that on 22.10.2016, he was driving his truck bearing registration no. PB23H9397 and going from Mandi Govindgarh to Ludhiana, he was carrying woods in truck. At around 7.15 7.30 a.m., before the flyover near Barmali Pur, his truck had developed some faults whereby he had stopped the truck on the side of the road with the parking lights and blinker on and had gone to fetch a mechanic. He had reached 200 - 300 meters from the spot where he had parked the vehicle, when he came to know from the people an accident had occurred on the road. He came back to the spot and remained there till evening. The copy of newspaper report relating to the accident Ex.R3W2/1. His truck had been properly parked on the road and the Scorpio had struck the truck from back side at a high speed. It is correct that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Scorpio. Copy of permit of truck Ex.R3W2/2 (OSR). RE was thereafter closed.
Evidence in Petition No. 576/16
11. Petitioners examined eyewitness i.e. Harsimran jeet Singh @ Richi as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex. PW 1/ 1.
Wife of deceased/ petitioner No. 1 filed her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW 2/1 and examined herself as PW2. Witness has relied upon the documents as mentioned in the affidavit.
MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 10 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Wife of deceased/ petitioner No. 1 summoned and examined the witness i.e. Ms. Rajni, Inspector, Income Tax ward, New Delhi as PW3 appeared with the copies of computerized ITRs for assessment year 201314; 201415 and 20152016 of the assessee of Mohd. Imran Ex. PW 3/1. PE was thereafter closed.
12. Respondent No. 3 examined the witness i.e. Ms. Neelam Rani, Asstt., The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd as R3W1 appeared with the computerized attested certified copy of the insurance policy bearing no. 233603/31/2016/4726 for the period 28.10.2015 to 27.10.2016, insuring vehicle bearing no. PB23H9397 Truck in the name of Harbhajan Singh. The certified copy of the policy Ex.R3W1/1 (collectively 3 pages). The abovesaid policy contains the permit's clause Mark - A to A on Ex.R3W1/1.
A notice to produce under order 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued by counsel for production of the documents the copy Ex.R3W1/2. The original postal registration slip Ex.R3W1/3.
The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured Harbhajan Singh.
Respondent No. 3 examined the witness i.e. Vijay Kumar / respondent No. 1 as R3W2 deposed that on 22.10.2016, he was driving his truck bearing registration no. PB23H9397 and going from Mandi Govindgarh to Ludhiana, he was carrying woods in truck. At around 7.15 7.30 a.m., before the flyover near Barmali Pur, his truck had developed some faults whereby he had stopped the truck on the side of the road with the parking lights and blinker on and had gone to fetch a mechanic. He had reached 200 - 300 meters from the spot where he had parked the vehicle, when he came to know from the people an accident had occurred on the MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 11 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
road. He came back to the spot and remained there till evening. The copy of newspaper report relating to the accident Ex.R3W2/1. His truck had been properly parked on the road and the Scorpio had struck the truck from back side at a high speed. It is correct that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Scorpio. Copy of permit of truck Ex.R3W2/2 (OSR). RE was thereafter closed.
13. I have heard Ld. Counsel for petitioner, ld. counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 and ld. Counsel for insurance company and considered the relevant materials on record. My issue wise findings are as below :
14. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows : Issue No. 1 in petition No. 574/16:
1. Whether deceased Rashid S/o Mr. Rafiq Ahmed died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 22.10.2016 at about 7:30 AM at Barmali Pull, Doraha, Distt. Khanna within the jurisdiction of PS Doraha, Punjab due to illegal parking of Truck No. PB 23 H 9397 without parking light in the middle of the road by defendant No. 1 ?OPP Issue No. 1 in petition No. 575/16:
1. Whether deceased Mohd. Islam Ansari S/o Mr. Ali Mohammad died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 22.10.2016 at about 7:30 AM at Barmali Pull, Doraha, Distt. Khanna within the jurisdiction of PS Doraha, Punjab due to illegal parking of Truck No. PB 23 H 9397 without parking light in the middle of the road by defendant No. 1 ?OPP Issue No. 1 in petition No. 576/16:
1. Whether deceased Mohd. Imran S/o Mr. Nizamuddin died MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 12 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 22.10.2016 at about 7:30 AM at Barmali Pull, Doraha, Distt. Khanna within the jurisdiction of PS Doraha, Punjab due to illegal parking of Truck No. PB 23 H 9397 without parking light in the middle of the road by defendant No. 1 ?OPP
15. To succeed in the claim petitions in view of Section 166 of the MV Act, it is for the claimant to prove that vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Issue No. 1 in all three cases is taken up together. Petitioner Salma, Reshma and Saba were examined and deposed about the facts of the case. They were cross examined by ld. Counsel for respondents and during crossexamination nothing has come forward in their testimony to disbelieve the version of PWs. On the other hand, the testimony of RWs did not rebut the testimony of PW to deny the claim of the petitioner and mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the claim of the petitioner. No witness was produced or examined by respondents as well to prove as to how accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased/ injured; the respondent No. 2 was not at fault and was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of witnesses. I have gone through the record and documents in respect of the accident caused to the petitioner which is prima facie suggestive of negligence of respondent No. 2 in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
Relied judgment in (Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530 and the judgment in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC 646).
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Ors. V/s Himachal Road MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 13 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
16. In judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel & Ors., 2014 (2), T.A.C. 846 (Del.), it was held that in a case, where FIR is lodged, chargesheet is filed, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the vehicle in question was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side. In case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the Claimant had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.
17. I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana to examine the aspect of negligence wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that: In case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 14 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo and the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
Further the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 15 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit.
18. Therefore, in view of the criminal case record and statement of PWs, it is proved that the deceased Rashid, Mohd. Islam Ansari and Mohd. Imran sustained fatal injuries on 22.10.2016 by the offending vehicle bearing No. PB 23 H 9397. The issue is decided accordingly. Issue No. ii in claim petition No. 574/16 :
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa V/s Gurdayal Singh reported as 2003(2) SCC 274 ruled that the main guiding principle for determining the compensation is that it must be just and further that it must be reasonable. As observed in UP State Road Transport corporation V/s Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the compensation awarded in such cases has primarily two elements; the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident and the pecuniary loss sustained by members of his family on account of his death in addition to the conventional award under non pecuniary heads of damages( e.g. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc).
20. The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation on pecuniary benefit or benefits reduceable to money value. In General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V/s Susamma Thomas reported as (1994) 2 SCC 176, the court ruled that in fatal accident action, the measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered or likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of death and that : "9.The assessment of damages to compensate the MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 16 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that that deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether".
21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma V/s DTC reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 held as under:
16. ... "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profits.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While, it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation same or similar facts should lead to award in MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 17 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
the same range. When the factors/ inputs are the same, and the formula/ legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation.
22. No amount of compensation can restore, eliminate or ameliorate the loss suffered on account of death ( or injury with lasting effect) the endeavor by such award is to repair the damage done so as to restore the victim( which includes the dependent) to the extent possible to the preaccidental position. The pecuniary damages are meant to take care of the prospective pecuniary loss of future income and the non pecuniary damages to compensate, to an extent, for pain and suffering , loss of love, companionship, expectation of life etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K Malik V/s Kiran Pal reported as 2009 (14) SCC 1 observed as under:
22. It is extremely difficult to quantify the non pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But, the same could not be a ground for non payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy.
23. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualised and understood. Perhaps , the only mechanism known to law in this kind of situation is to compensate a person who has suffered non pecuniary loss or damages as a consequence of the wrong done to him by way of damages / MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 18 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
monetary compensation. Undoubtedly, when a victim of a wrong suffers injuries he is entitled to compensation including compensation for the prospective life, pain and suffering, happiness, etc., which is sometimes described as compensation paid for "loss of expectation of life".
23. The challenge in determining the ' just and reasonable' compensation in such cases is mainly due to the fact that there is virtually no evidence in actual loss of earning of the deceased child. Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K. Malik(supra) noted:
25. That being the position, the crucial problem arises with regard to the quantification of such compensation. The injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of a child is extremely difficult to quantify. In view of the uncertainties and contingencies of human life, what would be an appropriate figure, an adequate solatium is difficult to specify. The courts have therefore used the expression "standard compensation" and conventional amount/ sum"
to get over the difficulty that arises in quantifying a figure as the same ensures consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation."
24. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete records. The petitioners have prayed amount towards compensation from respondents. It is argued by Ld counsel for respondents that petitioners have not suffered any monetary loss on account of the fatal accident and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation.
There is no dispute at all regarding the offending vehicle nor there is dispute that deceased Rashid received fatal injuries due to the accident. The factum of accident as well as death is not denied. The testimony of PW2/ MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 19 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
wife of deceased remained unimpeached / uncontroverted and witness proved the relevant documents. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the respondents.
25. PW2 i.e. wife of the deceased deposed that at the time of accident, her husband was doing embroidery work and earned Rs. 2,48,930/ per annum. No documents has filed/ proved by the petitioner regarding income of the deceased. In the absence of any records, the income of the deceased has to be considered on the basis of minimum wages applicable to the unskilled workman on the date of accident i.e. 22.10.2016. Therefore, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 9,724/ per month. As per Election ID card of deceased, the age of the deceased was 28 years on 01.01.2004. The accident took place on 22.10.2016. His age is taken as about 41 years on the date of accident i.e. 22.10.2016. In the judgment Munna Lal Jain and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others reported as MANU/SC/0640/2015 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/05/2015 and National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, it has been held that multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased.
26. In the present case, there are 8 petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is wife of deceased, petitioner No. 2 to 5 are children of the deceased, petitioner No. 6 and 7 are mother and father of deceased and petitioner No. 8 is unmarried sister of deceased. Petitioner No. 7 and 8 were not dependent upon the deceased in view of the records so, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be calculated as follows : Rs. 9,724/ X 12 (annual) X 14 (Multiplier) = Rs. 16,33,632/ Rs. 16,33,632/ - Rs. 4,08,408/ (1/4th personal expenses) = Rs.
MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 20 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
12,25,224/.
The total amount towards loss of dependency is accordingly Rs. 12,25,224/.
27. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, the petitioners are entitled for the loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively.
Therefore, petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the following heads: Loss of dependency Rs. 12,25,224/ Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/ Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ Total Rs. 12,95,224/
28. Ld. counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that due to the contributory negligence of the deceased, petitioners are not entitled for the compensation. In support of contentions, ld. Counsel for insurance company has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Superme Court of India in 2009 ACJ 2003 title Raj Rani & Ors. V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors. & Civil Appeal No. 10145 of 2016 title Nishan Singh & ors. V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd through Regional Manager & Ors. of Supereme Court of India. The contributory negligence of deceased is proved in view testimony of PW1 who categorically deposed during cross examination that scorpio hit the truck from behind and front side driver's portion of the Scorpio entered in the back side of the truck upto half. Keeping in view of circumstances of the case and in view of judgment MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 21 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
relied by ld. Counsel for insurance company title as Raj Rani & Ors. V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the 50 % of the total compensation amount is deducted towards contributory negligence. The petitioner is accordingly entitled for compensation of Rs. 6,47,612/ from the respondents.
I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 6,47,612/ in favour of the Claimant and against Respondents. Issue No. ii in MACT No. 575/16: ii. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa V/s Gurdayal Singh reported as 2003(2) SCC 274 ruled that the main guiding principle for determining the compensation is that it must be just and further that it must be reasonable. As observed in UP State Road Transport corporation V/s Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the compensation awarded in such cases has primarily two elements; the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident and the pecuniary loss sustained by members of his family on account of his death in addition to the conventional award under non pecuniary heads of damages( e.g. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc).
30. The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation on pecuniary benefit or benefits reduceable to money value. In General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V/s Susamma Thomas reported as (1994) 2 SCC 176, the court ruled that in fatal accident action, the measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered or likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of death and that : "9.The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 22 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that that deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether".
31. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma V/s DTC reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 held as under:
16. ... "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profits.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While, it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation same or similar facts should lead to award in the same range. When the factors/ inputs are the same, and MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 23 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
the formula/ legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation.
32. No amount of compensation can restore, eliminate or ameliorate the loss suffered on account of death ( or injury with lasting effect) the endeavor by such award is to repair the damage done so as to restore the victim( which includes the dependent) to the extent possible to the preaccidental position. The pecuniary damages are meant to take care of the prospective pecuniary loss of future income and the non pecuniary damages to compensate, to an extent, for pain and suffering , loss of love, companionship, expectation of life etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K Malik V/s Kiran Pal reported as 2009 (14) SCC 1 observed as under:
22. It is extremely difficult to quantify the non pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But, the same could not be a ground for non payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy.
23. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualised and understood. Perhaps , the only mechanism known to law in this kind of situation is to compensate a person who has suffered non pecuniary loss or damages as a consequence of the wrong done to him by way of damages / monetary compensation. Undoubtedly, when a victim of a MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 24 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
wrong suffers injuries he is entitled to compensation including compensation for the prospective life, pain and suffering, happiness, etc., which is sometimes described as compensation paid for "loss of expectation of life".
33. The challenge in determining the ' just and reasonable' compensation in such cases is mainly due to the fact that there is virtually no evidence in actual loss of earning of the deceased child. Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K. Malik(supra) noted:
25. That being the position, the crucial problem arises with regard to the quantification of such compensation. The injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of a child is extremely difficult to quantify. In view of the uncertainties and contingencies of human life, what would be an appropriate figure, an adequate solatium is difficult to specify. The courts have therefore used the expression "standard compensation" and conventional amount/ sum"
to get over the difficulty that arises in quantifying a figure as the same ensures consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation."
34. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete records. The petitioners have prayed amount towards compensation from respondents. It is argued by Ld counsel for respondents that petitioners have not suffered any monetary loss on account of the fatal accident and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation.
There is no dispute at all regarding the offending vehicle nor there is dispute that deceased Mohd. Islam Ansari received fatal injuries due to the accident. The factum of accident as well as death is not denied. The testimony of PW2/ wife of deceased remained unimpeached / MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 25 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
uncontroverted and witness proved the relevant documents. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the respondents.
35. PW2 i.e. wife of the deceased deposed that at the time of accident, her husband was doing the private job under the employment of Mohd. Imran and earned Rs. 18,000/ per month and in support of contentions, petitioner has examined the witness i.e. Irfan as PW3. Witness has relied upon the documents i.e. Ex. PW 3/1. The testimony of witness is totally shattered during cross examination as he has not brought any document to show that he is proprietor of Shagun Suit Dupatta; except the document brought by him, he has no other document regarding employment/ income / salary of the deceased. Witness further stated that the salary was paid in cash. In the absence of any records, the income of the deceased has to be considered on the basis of minimum wages applicable to the unskilled workman on the date of accident i.e. 22.10.2016. Therefore, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 9,724/ per month. As per Adhar card of deceased, the year of birth of deceased is 1988. The accident took place on 22.10.2016. His age is taken as about 29 years on the date of accident i.e. 22.10.2016. In the judgment Munna Lal Jain and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others reported as MANU/SC/0640/2015 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/05/2015 and National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, it has been held that multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased.
36. In the present case, there are 5 petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is wife of deceased, petitioner No. 2 to 3 are children of the deceased and petitioner No. 4 and 5 are mother and father of deceased. Petitioner No. 5 was not dependent upon the deceased in view of the records so, 1/4th is to be MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 26 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be calculated as follows : Rs. 9,724/ X 12 (annual) X 17 (Multiplier) = Rs. 19,83,696/ Rs. 19,83,696/ - Rs. 4,95,924/ (1/4th personal expenses) = Rs. 14,87,772/.
The total amount towards loss of dependency is accordingly Rs. 14,87,772/.
37. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, the petitioners are entitled for the loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively.
Therefore, petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the following heads: Loss of dependency Rs. 14,87,772/ Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/ Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ Total Rs. 15,57,772/ I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 15,57,772/ in favour of the Claimant and against respondents. Issue No. ii in MACT No. 576/16: ii. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa V/s Gurdayal Singh reported as 2003(2) SCC 274 ruled that the main guiding principle for determining the compensation is that it must be just and further that it must MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 27 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
be reasonable. As observed in UP State Road Transport corporation V/s Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the compensation awarded in such cases has primarily two elements; the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident and the pecuniary loss sustained by members of his family on account of his death in addition to the conventional award under non pecuniary heads of damages( e.g. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc).
39. The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation on pecuniary benefit or benefits reduceable to money value. In General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V/s Susamma Thomas reported as (1994) 2 SCC 176, the court ruled that in fatal accident action, the measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered or likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of death and that : "9.The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that that deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether".
40. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma V/s DTC reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 held as under: MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 28 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
16. ... "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profits.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While, it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation same or similar facts should lead to award in the same range. When the factors/ inputs are the same, and the formula/ legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation.
41. No amount of compensation can restore, eliminate or ameliorate the loss suffered on account of death ( or injury with lasting effect) the endeavor by such award is to repair the damage done so as to restore the victim( which includes the dependent) to the extent possible to the preaccidental position. The pecuniary damages are meant to take care of the prospective pecuniary loss of future income and the non pecuniary damages to compensate, to an extent, for pain and suffering , loss of love, companionship, expectation of life etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K Malik V/s Kiran Pal reported as 2009 (14) SCC 1 observed as under: MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 29 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
22. It is extremely difficult to quantify the non pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But, the same could not be a ground for non payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy.
23. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualised and understood. Perhaps , the only mechanism known to law in this kind of situation is to compensate a person who has suffered non pecuniary loss or damages as a consequence of the wrong done to him by way of damages / monetary compensation. Undoubtedly, when a victim of a wrong suffers injuries he is entitled to compensation including compensation for the prospective life, pain and suffering, happiness, etc., which is sometimes described as compensation paid for "loss of expectation of life".
42. The challenge in determining the ' just and reasonable' compensation in such cases is mainly due to the fact that there is virtually no evidence in actual loss of earning of the deceased child. Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K. Malik(supra) noted:
25. That being the position, the crucial problem arises with regard to the quantification of such compensation. The injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of a child is extremely difficult to quantify. In view of the uncertainties and contingencies of human life, what would be an MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 30 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
appropriate figure, an adequate solatium is difficult to specify. The courts have therefore used the expression "standard compensation" and conventional amount/ sum"
to get over the difficulty that arises in quantifying a figure as the same ensures consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation."
43. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete records. The petitioners have prayed amount towards compensation from respondents. It is argued by Ld counsel for respondents that petitioners have not suffered any monetary loss on account of the fatal accident and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation.
There is no dispute at all regarding the offending vehicle nor there is dispute that deceased Mohd. Imran received fatal injuries due to the accident. The factum of accident as well as death is not denied. The testimony of PW2/ wife of deceased remained unimpeached / uncontroverted and witness proved the relevant documents. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the respondents.
44. PW2 i.e. wife of the deceased deposed that at the time of accident, her husband was having the business of clothing as well as garments and was earning Rs. 4,64,260/ per annum and in support of contentions, petitioner has summoned and examined the witness i.e. Rajni, Inspector, Income Tax as PW3 appeared with the Ex. PW 3/1. As per Ex. PW 3/1, the total income of the deceased for the assessment year 20152016 was Rs. 3,38,410/ per annum therefore the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 28,200/ per month ( 3,38,410/ / 12).
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma & Ors V/s Bachitar Singh & Ors ( 2011) 11 SCC 425 has reiterated that gross salary minus income tax is to be considered as actual income and not net salary. The ld. Counsel MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 31 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
for petitioners argue that as no tax was deducted at source from the salary of the deceased therefore no amount can be deducted as tax. This arguments of ld. counsel for petitioners appears to be without any merits in view of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MAC App. 855/14 titled National Insurance Company Limited V/s Sheela Devi & Ors wherein it is noted that when the gross income is known to the tribunal, the income tax liability can be properly calculated and there is no reason why the deduction on the said account should not be made in accordance with the dictum in Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. ( 2009) 6 SCC 121. Therefore, the gross salary of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 28,200/ per month. No contradictory evidence is produced by the insurance company regarding the income of the deceased.
45. In the judgment Munna Lal Jain and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others reported as MANU/SC/0640/2015 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/05/2015 and National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, it has been held that multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. As per DL of deceased, the date of birth of deceased is 10.04.1983. The accident took place on 22.10.2016 therefore the age of the deceased is taken as about 34 years on the date of accident i.e. 22.10.2016. As the age of the deceased was 34 years, he is entitled for an addition of 40 % of income towards future prospects. Thus, the total monthly amount is assessed as Rs. 39,480/ ( Rs. 28,200/ + Rs. 11,280/ ) ( 40% ). As per the income of deceased, the tax liability is payable and therefore the lowest tax bracket i.e. 10 % is deducted towards tax from the total salary of the deceased from monthly income. As per the income records, the gross salary was Rs. 39,480/ per month and after deducting 10 MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 32 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
% income tax of Rs.3,948/, it comes to Rs. 35,532/ per month. The annual actual income is therefore calculated as Rs. 35,532/ x 12 = 4,26,384/.
46. It is argued that in this case, there are seven petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is wife of deceased, petitioner No. 2 to 4 are children of deceased, petitioner No. 5 and 6 are mother and father of deceased and petitioner No. 7 is sister of deceased. Petitioner No. 6 and 7 were not dependent upon the deceased in view of the records. As there are five dependents of the deceased, the deduction on account of personal living expenses had to be made to the extent of 1/4th. In the judgment as per dictum laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, multiplier to be applied is 16. 1/4th is deducted towards personal and living expenses and after such deduction, the contribution of the family comes to Rs. 3,19,788/ per annum ( Rs. 4,26,384/ - Rs. 1,06,596/) ( 1/4 th ). Thus, the compensation under the head Loss of Dependency would be Rs. 51,16,608/( Rs. 3,19,788/ x 16).
The total amount towards loss of dependency is accordingly Rs. 51,16,608/.
47. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, the petitioners are entitled for the loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively.
Therefore, petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the following heads: Loss of dependency Rs. 51,16,608/ Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/ Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ Total Rs. 51,86,608/ MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 33 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 51,86,608/ in favour of the Claimant and against respondents. Liability:
48. Respondent No. 3 is the insurance company which admittedly has issued a valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle. There is no evidence on behalf of respondent No. 3 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondent No. 1 & 2. Hence, I am of the opinion that respondent No. 3 being insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of respondent No. 1 & 2. Interim award if any paid to injured/ petitioner be adjusted in the award amount.
Award in MACT No. 574/16:
49. Resultantly, the Claim petition stands allowed. Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 6,47,612/ within one month to the Claimants. Claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC).
50. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.
51. Out of the total award amount of Rs. 6,47,612/, UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to keep the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ in 2 FDRs of Rs. 50,000/ each for the maturity period of six month to one year respectively ( at the interval of six month each) with cumulative interest in the name of MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 34 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
petitioner No. 1.
52. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ each in favour of petitioner No. 2 to 5 shall be deposited in form of four FDRs till they attain the age of maturity.
53. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to release the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ in favour of petitioner No. 6 in her saving bank account after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).
54. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to release the remaining amount alongwith interest in favour of petitioner No. 1 in her saving bank account after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).
55. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to the petitioner after due verification.
56. All the original FDRs shall be retained by the UCO bank, KKD Courts. However, the statement containing the FDRs number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the UCO Bank to the petitioner/ beneficiary. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiary. The beneficiary shall intimate regarding his bank and account number for automatic credit of the maturity amount.
57. No loan, advance or premature discharge of the FDRs shall be permitted without permission of this court.
58. The maturity amount of the FDRs alongwith interest thereon be transferred to the saving bank accounts of the beneficiary.
59. The liberty is given to the petitioner/ injured to approach this court for release of further amount in event of any financial exigency.
MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 35 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
60. On request of Claimant, bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch in the name of petitioner and the bank of the petitioner are directed not to issue any cheque book or Debit Card to the account holder.
61. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.
62. FormV shall be read as a part of the judgment. Award in MACT No. 575/16:
63. Resultantly, the Claim petition stands allowed. Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 15,57,772/ within one month to the Claimants. Claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC).
64. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.
65. Out of the total award amount of Rs. 15,57,772/, UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to keep the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ in 6 FDRs of Rs. 50,000/ each for the maturity period of six month to three year respectively ( at the interval of six month each) with cumulative interest in the name of petitioner No. 1.
MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 36 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
66. An amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ each in favour of petitioner No. 2 and 3 shall be deposited in form of two FDRs till they attain the age of maturity.
67. UCO Bank KKD Court is directed to release the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ in favour of mother of deceased i.e. petitioner No. 4. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is further directed to keep the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ in 4 FDRs of Rs. 50,000/ each for the maturity period of six month to two years ( at the interval of six month each) with cumulative interest in the name of petitioner No. 4. The interest of the FDRs be transferred to the bank account of the petitioner No. 4 near the place of the residence after producing the passbook with the endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued against the said account.
68. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to release the remaining amount alongwith interest in favour of petitioner No. 1 in her saving bank account after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).
69. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to the petitioner after due verification.
70. All the original FDRs shall be retained by the UCO bank, KKD Courts. However, the statement containing the FDRs number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the UCO Bank to the petitioner/ beneficiary. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiary. The beneficiary shall intimate regarding his bank and account number for automatic credit of the maturity amount.
71. No loan, advance or premature discharge of the FDRs shall be permitted without permission of this court.
72. The maturity amount of the FDRs alongwith interest thereon be MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 37 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
transferred to the saving bank accounts of the beneficiary.
73. The liberty is given to the petitioner/ injured to approach this court for release of further amount in event of any financial exigency.
74. On request of Claimant, bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch in the name of petitioner and the bank of the petitioner are directed not to issue any cheque book or Debit Card to the account holder.
75. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.
76. FormV shall be read as a part of the judgment. Award in MACT No. 576/16:
77. Resultantly, the Claim petition stands allowed. Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 51,86,608/ within one month to the Claimants. Claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC).
78. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.
79. Out of the total award amount of Rs. 51,86,608/, UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to keep the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/ in 10 FDRs of Rs.
MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 38 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
1,00,000/ each for the maturity period of one year to ten years respectively ( at the interval of one year each) with cumulative interest in the name of petitioner No. 1.
80. An amount of Rs. 10,00,000/ each in favour of petitioner No. 2 to 4 shall be deposited in form of three FDRs till they attain the age of maturity.
81. UCO Bank KKD Court is directed to release the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ in favour of mother of deceased i.e. petitioner No. 5. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is further directed to keep the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ in 5 FDRs of Rs. 1,00,000/ each for the maturity period of one year to five years respectively ( at the interval of one year each) with cumulative interest in the name of petitioner No. 5. The interest of the FDRs be transferred to the bank account of the petitioner No. 5 near the place of the residence after producing the passbook with the endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued against the said account.
82. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to release the remaining amount alongwith interest in favour of petitioner No. 1 in her saving bank account after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).
83. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to the petitioner after due verification.
84. All the original FDRs shall be retained by the UCO bank, KKD Courts. However, the statement containing the FDRs number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the UCO Bank to the petitioner/ beneficiary. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiary. The beneficiary shall intimate regarding his bank and account number for automatic credit of the maturity amount.
MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 39 of 40 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
85. No loan, advance or premature discharge of the FDRs shall be permitted without permission of this court.
86. The maturity amount of the FDRs alongwith interest thereon be transferred to the saving bank accounts of the beneficiary.
87. The liberty is given to the petitioner/ injured to approach this court for release of further amount in event of any financial exigency.
88. On request of Claimant, bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch in the name of petitioner and the bank of the petitioner are directed not to issue any cheque book or Debit Card to the account holder.
89. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.
90. FormV shall be read as a part of the judgment.
91. Copy of this judgment be placed in the claim petitions bearing Digitally signed by MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16. GORAKH NATH GORAKH PANDEY Location: Court Announced in open Court NATH No.69, North East District, on this day of 17th July, 2018 PANDEY Karkardooma Court, Delhi Date: 2018.07.17 16:46:45 +0530 G. N. Pandey Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
MACT Nos. 574/16, 575/16 & 576/16 40 of 40