Delhi District Court
Smt. Meena Widow Of Shri Kanahiya @ ... vs Balkar Singh S/O Shri Gulzar Singh ... on 15 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV JAIN
JUDGE: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT CASE No.124/07 (New No.5/10)
I.D. No. 02401C0636172007
1. Smt. Meena widow of Shri Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal
2. Master Guddu son of Shri Kanahiya
3. Master Rahul son of Shri Kanahiya
4. Baby Pooja D/o Shri Kanahiya
5. Master Moola son of Shri Kanahiya
Petitioners no.2 to 5 are minors under the natural guardianship of their
mother Smt. Meena
All residents of/care of Girja Persad, A745, Shyam Colony,
Budh Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi110041
2nd Address: Vill. Jamo, Teh. Iglas, Distt. Aligarh (U.P.)
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Balkar Singh S/o Shri Gulzar Singh (Driver)
2. M/s. Patiala Cargo Roadlines Ltd.
101/1922, Seed Farm Road, Alipur, Delhi110036 (Owner)
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
office at 201/201A, 2nd floor, ITL Twin Tower,
Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi88
(w.e.f. 28.02.2007 to 27.02.2008)
Policy no.0G071104180700010618
...Respondents
Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 1 of 23 MACT Case no.125/07 (New No.6/10) I.D. No.02401C0636212007
1. Smt. Angoori Devi widow of Shri Girraj,
2. Shri Prem Kumar @ Prem son of late Shri Girraj
3. Shri Sonu son of late Shri Girraj
4. Master Vikas Kumar son of late Shri Girraj
5. Master Pawan Kumar son of late Shri Girraj (Petitioners no.4 and 5 are minor and are under the natural guardian of their mother Smt. Angoori Devi petitioner no.1) All residents of A745, Shyam Colony, Budh Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi110041 ...Petitioners Versus
1. Balkar Singh S/o Shri Gulzar Singh (Driver) R/o C95, Ram Nagar, Karnal (Haryana)
2. M/s. Patiala Cargo Roadlines Ltd.
101/1922, Seed Farm Road, Alipur, Delhi110036 (Owner)
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., office at 201/201A, 2nd floor, ITL Twin Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi88 (w.e.f. 28.02.2007 to 27.02.2008) Policy no.0G071104180700010618 ...Respondents Date of institution : 02.06.2007 Arguments heard on :17.08.2010 Date of Judgment : 15.11.2010 Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 2 of 23 Appearance:
For claimants/petitioners : Shri S.K. Singh, Adv. for petitioner Smt. Angoori Devi Shri R.K. Yashwant Singh,Adv.
for petitiner Smt. Meena Devi
For respondent no.3 : Shri M. Avasthi, Adv.
Respondents no.1 & 2 were proceeded exparte
JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. By this common judgment/award, I propose to decide suit no.124/07 (new no.5/10) titled Meena Vs. Balkar Singh & Ors. and suit no.125/07 (new no.
6/10) titled Angoori Devi Vs. Balkar Singh & Ors. arising out from the said accident as there were common questions of law and facts in both the petitions. Vide order dated 18.01.2008 both the cases were consolidated. Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) was treated to be lead case.
2. Common Facts: The common facts of the case are that on 03.04.07 deceased Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal son of Shri Lala Ram (Driver) and deceased Shri Giriraj son of Shri Lala Ram (HelpercumCleaner) were going on Truck no.HR55B9612 to Madras Via Bhopal from Delhi with the goods loaded in the truck. When the truck reached in front of Ram Baksh Well (Kuan), Tehsil Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 3 of 23 Narsingh Garh, P.S. Kurawar, District Rajgarh (M.P.) at 2.30 PM, a truck bearing no.HR55E7249 came from the opposite side with a very high speed (which was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver Balkar Singh) and hit truck HR55B9612. The deceased Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal and Giriraj suffered serious injuries. They were taken to the nearest hospital by the public but were declared dead.
3. In case suit no.124/07 (new no.5/10), Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal was aged about 35 years. He was earning Rs.6000/ per month and was also getting lodging and boarding charges of Rs.100/ per day whenever he was out of Delhi. In petition no.125/07 (new no.6/10) deceased Shri Girraj, aged about 45 years, was working as a helper and was getting a monthly income of Rs.5000/ per month apart from lodging and boarding charges of Rs.100/ per day whenever he was out of Delhi. Respondents no.1, 2 and 3 are the driver, owner and insurer respectively of the offending vehicle. All the respondents were served. Respondents no.1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner were proceeded exparte.
4. WS was filed by respondent no.2 in both the suits. It was alleged that petition is without any cause of action; no basis for calculation of compensation amount has been given; no documents has been filed by petitioners in respect of their claim regarding employment and income of deceased; that answering respondent no.2 has no liability to pay the compensation; that petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands; that petition has been filed just to harass the respondent. On merits, it was stated that truck no. HR55E7249 was Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 4 of 23 insured with respondent no.3. Other material contents of both the petitions were denied.
5. On behalf of respondent no.3 i.e. Insurance Co., it was alleged in the WS filed in both the cases that petition is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. The main contention of respondent no.3 was that truck no.HR55E7249 was not insured with the respondent no.3 under the cover of insurance policy produced on record by petitioners. It was submitted in both the petitions that respondent no.2 made a proposal to the answering respondent for obtaining insurance cover in respect of the vehicle in question. Respondent no.2 instead of making the cash payment of requisite insurance premium, issued a cheque dated 11.01.07 drawn on HDFC Bank, Panchwati, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. On the assurance and bonafide belief, respondent no.3 issued insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, the cheque was presented for encashment but it was dishonoured by the bank vide memo dated 01.03.07. It was further stated by respondent no.3 that immediately respondent no.2 was intimated about the dishonour of the cheque and cancellation of insurance policy vide letter dated 08.03.07. It is stated that there was no contract of insurance under the insurance policy between respondents no.2 and 3 and therefore, respondent no.3 is not liable to pay the compensation.
6. Vide order dated 18.01.08, suit no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and 125/10 (new no.6/10) were consolidated and suit no.124/07 (new no.5/10) was treated as a lead case.
Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 5 of 23
7. Following issues were framed in both the petitions vide order dated 18.01.08:
1. Whether death of Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal and Gir Raj took place on account of rash and negligent driving by R1 of truck no.HR55E7249?
2. To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom?
3. Relief
8. Evidence In Suit no.124/07 (new no.5/10), PW1 Smt. Meena Devi wife of deceased Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal was examined. She stated that she is aged about 35 years. Her husband Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal was working as a driver under owner/proprietor Kewal Krishan Bhardwaj and was drawing salary of Rs. 6,000/ per month. She also stated that her husband used to go out of Delhi. He was being paid Rs.100/ as lodging and boarding charges. She supported her case in respect of the accident occurred on 03.04.07 and stated that her husband died at the spot. She stated that her husband Kanahiya was having a valid Driving Licence Ex.PW1/1. She further deposed that she has one daughter and three sons who are minors and were depended on the earning/salary of Rs. 6000/ per month being earned by her husband. She further deposed that her husband was used to contribute Rs.6000/ per month for the household expenses. It is further stated that at the time of accident, Kanahiya Lal was aged Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 6 of 23 about 39 years. Copy of ration card produced as Ex.PW1/2. She stated that she spent Rs.25,000/ for bringing the dead body of deceased from Madhya Pradesh and Rs.10,000/ on funeral ceremony. She claimed that in future, the income of Shri Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal would have been increased to Rs.12,000/ per month. She claimed the compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/ (Rupees fifty lacs only).
9. In suit no.125/07 (new no.6/10), PW1 Smt. Angoori Devi was examined. She stated that she is the wife of deceased Girraj who met with an accident on 03.04.07 at PS Kurawar, Distt. Rajgarh National Highway no.12 (MP) and expired on the way to hospital. She deposed that her husband was working as cleaner under owner/proprietor Kewal Krishan Bhardwaj and was drawing salary of Rs.5,000/ per month. She also stated that her husband used to go out of Delhi. He was being paid Rs.100/ as lodging and boarding charges. She stated that the age of her husband was 45 years on the date of accident. She produced the ration card Ex.PW3/1 and Election Card Ex.PW3/2. She further stated that her husband was also having learning driving licence of heavy vehicle and after 2/3 years his income would have increased to Rs.10,000/ per month. She stated that she spent Rs.20,000/ for bringing the body deceased from Madhya Pradesh and had spent Rs.15,000/ on the cremation/funeral ceremony. She claimed the compensation amount of Rs.40,00,000/ (Rupees forty lacs only).
10 PW2 Shri Kewal Kishan Bhardwaj was examined as common witness Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 7 of 23 in both the suits. He stated that Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal was working as driver on his truck whereas Shri Giriraj Prasad was working as cleaner. He further stated that he was paying Rs.6000/ per month to Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal and Rs.5,000/ to Shri Giriraj as salary. He stated that he was paying Rs.100/ per day to driver and cleaner as boarding and lodging charges when they were out of Delhi with the truck.
11. In Respondent's evidence Ms. Sunanda Nimisha, Sr. Executive (Legal) of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., appeared in the witness box. She supported the version of Respondent no.3 and stated that though insurance policy cover was issued in favour of offending truck but the insurance was cancelled as the cheque of the premium was dishonoured by the bank. In her testimony, she proved the original dishonoured cheque as Ex.R3W1/2. She also stated that Respondent no.3 issued a letter dated 08.03.07 to Respondent no.2 in respect of cancellation of insurance cover and dishonour of cheque and proved letter as Ex.R3W1/4 and courier receipt as mark 'A'.
12. I have heard the ld. counsels for the parties, carefully gone through the pleadings, documents proved on record and written submissions filed by the parties.
Issuewise discussion is as under:
13. Issue no.1 Whether death of Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal and Gir Raj took place on account of rash and negligent driving by R1 of truck no.HR55E7249?
Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 8 of 23 In suit no.124/07 (new no.5/10), PW1 Smt. Meena Devi, the wife of deceased reiterated the averments of her main petition. She testified that her husband Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal was aged about 39 years at the time of accident. He was driving truck no.HR55B9612 which was hit by truck no.HR55E7249. She deposed that her husband sustained fatal injuries which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent no.1 which caused the death of Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal. PW1 admitted that she was not the eye witness of the accident.
14. In suit no.125/07 (new no.6/10), PW1 Smt. Angoori Devi, the wife of deceased reiterated the averments of her main petition. She stated that her husband Girraj was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. He was engaged as cleaner in truck no.HR55B9612 which was hit by truck no.HR55 E7249. She deposed that her husband sustained fatal injuries which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent no.1 which caused the death of Girraj. PW1 admitted that she was not the eye witness of the accident.
15. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana & ors. reported in I(2008) ACC 637, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir held that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Also was held that where on record are the copies of the criminal case documents viz., the chargesheet, FIR, seizure memo, mechanical inspection reports pertaining to the involvement of the offending vehicle, then these Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 9 of 23 documents are sufficient proofs to reach conclusion that the driver was negligent.
16. On record, the certified copy of FIR, National Permit of the vehicle, application for postmortem of deceased persons, postmortem report have been filed. The authenticity of these documents has not been challenged during the crossexamination of the witnesses. On the basis of these documents pertaining to the investigation of case FIR no.92/07 u/s 279/337, 304A of IPC of PS Kurawar, Distt. Rajgarh (MP), it can be safely accepted that due to the rash and negligent driving by Respondent no.1 while driving truck bearing no.HR55 E7249, the accident occurred with truck no.HR55B9612 which resulted fatal injuries on Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal and Girraj which resulted in their death. The certified copy of postmortem reports and medical reports of the concerned hospital clearly established that several injuries and fractured were suffered by the deceased persons which were mainly due to the accident caused by the offending vehicle. All the injuries are stated to be antimortem and therefore, it can be inferred that death of Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal and Girraj was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent no.1.
17. Respondents no.1 & 2 were proceeded exparte and they have not entered into the witness box. On behalf of R3 only one witness R3W1 was examined who was admittedly not eyewitness and was not in position to contradict the statement of PWs and the documents pertaining to investigation. In preponderance of probabilities, in view of the testimony of witnesses and documents proved on record, in my opinion, petitioners have been able to prove Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 10 of 23 that the deceased Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal and Girraj sustained fatal injuries due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of Respondent no.1 which caused their death. Accordingly, Issue no.1 in both the suits is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
18. Issue no.2 To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom?
Ld. counsel for Respondent no.3 submitted that the insurance cover issued by Respondent no.3 in respect of the offending vehicle was cancelled as the cheque given on account of premium was dishonoured and a notice was also issued to Respondent no.2 i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle. Ld. counsel for Respondent no.3 submitted that Insurance Co. is not liable to pay the compensation. The contention was controverted by ld. counsel for petitioners.
19. I have carefully considered the respective contentions.
20. It is not in dispute that insurance cover was issued by Respondent no.3 in respect of the offending vehicle. The insurance cover was valid even on the day of accident except the objection taken by Respondent no.3 in respect of the dishonour of cheque given on account of premium. I do not find any substance in the contention of ld. counsel for Respondent no.3. The legal position has been clarified by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur and others, 1998 ACJ 123 wherein it was Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 11 of 23 held that...
"The policy of insurance that the insurance company issued was a representation upon which the authorities and third parties were entitled to act. The insurance company was not absolved of its obligations to third parties under the policy because it did not receive the premium. Its remedies in th is behalf lay against the insured. It was the insurance company itself who was responsible for its predicament. It had issued the policy of insurance upon receipt only of a cheque towards the premium in contravention of the provisions of section 64VB of the Insurance Act. The public interest that a policy of insurance serves must, clearly, prevail over the interest of the insurance company."
As Respondent no.3 is liable towards third parties, it is only the Respondent no.3 i.e. Insurance Co. which is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
21. The appropriate method of calculating the compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that in India the multiplier method is appropriate for calculation of compensation. It was so enunciated by their Lordship Wright in "Davies Vs. Powell Duffregn Associated Collieries Ltd." reported in 1942 AC601, that the appropriate method to calculate compensation is the multiplier method. In the cases of 'General Manager, Kerela State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendram Vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors', (1994) 2 SCC 176; (2) Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 12 of 23 'Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs K.I. Bindu & Ors'. (2005) 8SCC 473; (3) 'Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr Vs RMK Veluswami & Ors', AIR 1962 SC 1, (4) Syed Basheer Ahamad & Ors. V Mohd. Jameel and Anr'. in Civil Appeal No.10 of 2009, decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06/01/2009 and (5) Smt. Sarla Verma & ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC), decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/04/09, the payment of compensation in lumpsum to legal representatives of deceased by multiplier method has been approved.
22. Starting point for calculating amount of compensation to be paid to dependents of deceased in a motor accident is the amount of monthly income which the deceased was earning; then there is an estimate of what was required for his personal and living expenses. The balance will generally be turned into lump sum by taking certain number of years of purchase. The choice of multiplier is ascertained by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant whichever is higher.
23. The Multiplicand In suit no.124/07 (new no.5/10), the age of Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal is stated to be 39 years at the time of accident. As per Driving Licence, he was born in 1968 and as per Election I. Card, the age of Kanahiya Lal was 28 years as on 01.01.1995. From all these documents, I take the age of Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal at the time of accident as 39 years. Petitioner Smt. Meena Devi stated that at the time of accident she was 35 years old and her version is Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 13 of 23 supported from her Election Card where on 01.01.1995, her age has been given as 25 years. Therefore, in view of the Election Card, I take the age of petitioner Smt. Meena Devi about 37 years at the time of accident. PW1 Smt. Meena Devi stated that she had four minor children to support.
24. In suit no.125/07 (new no.6/10), the age of deceased Girraj is stated to be 45 years at the time of accident. From the Ration card, I accept the age of Girraj at the time of accident as 45 years. Petitioner Smt. Angoori Devi stated that at the time of accident she was 40 years old and her version is found supported from her Election I. Card where on 01.01.1995, her age has been given as 32 years. Therefore, in view of the Election I. Card, I take the age of petitioner Smt. Angoori Devi about 40 years at the time of accident.
25. PW2 Shri Kewal Kishan Bhardwaj clearly stated that he was the owner of the vehicle which met with an accident with the offending vehicle and was being driving by Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal on wich Shri Girraj was working as HelpercumCleaner. PW2 clearly stated that he was paying salary of Rs. 6000/ per month of Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal and salary of Rs.5000/ per month to Girraj. He stated that he was paying salary to driver and cleaner in cash, therefore, can not produce any record. From the record of investigation, it is not in dispute that Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal and Girraj were driver and cleaner of truck bearing no.HR55B9612 at the time of accident. From the testimony of PW2, it is established that PW2 was the owner of the truck which was insured in his name. During the crossexamination, his testimony could not be impeached Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 14 of 23 on the question of employment of Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal and Girraj and on the question of salary being paid to them. Therefore, in my opinion, it is established that the deceased Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal was getting the salary of Rs.6000/ per month and the deceased Girraj was getting a salary of Rs. 5000/ per month.
26. Noting that to neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, minimum wages are increased from time to time. Minimum wages also tend to increase by 100% every 10 years.
27. It is now well settled that while estimating future loss of income, the court has to take into account future prospects of the injured/deceased. [See (1) K. Narsimha Murthi V. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2004 ACJ 1109; (2) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal, reported in III (2007) ACC 676]
28. Therefore, Tribunal has to consider future increase in minimum wages while awarding compensation to the dependents of deceased. Therefore, average income of deceased is determined in accordance with the following formula for the purpose of computation of compensation in the case: (Salary at the time of accident+double of the salary divided by 2) Therefore, in suit no.124/07 (new no.5/10) titled Meena Devi Vs. Balkar Singh & Ors, the average income of deceased Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal is taken as: Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 15 of 23 Rs.6000/ + Rs.12000/ divided by 2 = Rs.9000/ per month. In suit no.125/07 (new no.6/10) titled Angoori Devi Vs. Balkar Singh & Ors., the average income of Girraj is taken as: Rs.5000/ + Rs.10000/ divided by 2 = Rs.7500/ per month
29. Compensation on account of loss of dependency In suit no.124/07 (new no.5/10), petitioner no.1 is the wife and petitioner no.2 to 5 are the minor children who are represented by petitioner no.1 being their natural guardian/mother. All the five petitioners were dependents upon the deceased Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal. As per testimony of PW1, Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal was used to spend Rs.6000/ per month of his salary on the expenses of his household.
30. In suit no.125/07 (new no.6/10) titled Angoori Devi Vs. Balkar Singh & Ors, petitioner no.1 is the wife and petitioners no.2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. Petitioner no.4 & 5 are the minors who are represented through petitioner no.1 being their mother and natural guardian. As per testimony of PW1, Girraj was used to spend Rs.5000/ per month of his salary on the expenses of his household.
31. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India and others Vs. M.K. Ghuman and others, 2010 ACJ 391, the personal expenses of deceased was deducted as 1/4th of his income. In the present case, the income of deceased Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal was being Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 16 of 23 spent on himself and his wife and five minor children. Taking into account that being a working man Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal would have more expenses in comparison to the other family members. I take it his personal expenses as 1/4th of his total salary. Out of average income of Rs.9000/, 1/4th income i.e. Rs. 2250/ would be deducted for the purpose of calculation of compensation. In view of the above findings, the age of deceased kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal was 39 years at the time of accident whereas the age of his wife petitioner was 37 years. Similarly, in suit no.125/07 (new no.6/10), personal expenses of 1/4th salary has to be deducted from the average income of Rs.7,500/ per month of Girraj. Out of average income of Rs.7,500/, 1/4th i.e. Rs.1875/ would be deducted for the purpose of compensation. The age of the deceased Girraj at the time of accident was 45 years whereas the age of his wife was 40 years.
30. In terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the multiplier of 15 (for the age group of 35 to 40 years) will be applicable as the age of the deceased was more than the petitioner at the time of accident. The multiplier has to be taken according to the age of the deceased Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal. Accordingly, in suit no.124/07 (new no. 5/10) the total loss of dependency would be Rs.12,15,000/ (Rs.6750/ x 12 x
15). In suit no.125/07 (new no.6/10), the multiplier of 14 (for the age group of 40 to 45 years) will be applicable as the age of deceased was more than the petitioner at the time of accident. Accordingly, in suit no.125/07 the total loss of dependency would be Rs.9,45,000/ (Rs.5625/ x 12 x 14). Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 17 of 23
31. Compensation for the loss of Estate In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/ under this head in both the suits.
32. Compensation for the loss of Love and Affection No amount would suffice to compensate the loss of love and affection to petitioners. Yet, relying upon the pronouncement of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of 'Rajesh Tyagi & Ors Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors as FAO no. 842/2003, orders dated 08/05/09, as there are five claimants, so the petitioners/claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/ each i.e. totalling sum of Rs. 50,000/ as loss of love and affection in both the suits.
33. Compensation towards funeral expenses In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/ under this head in both suits.
34. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled comes as under: In suit no.124/07 (new no.5/10) titled Meena Devi Vs. Balkar Singh & Ors.
Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 18 of 23
1. Compensation for loss of dependency Rs.12,15,000/
2. Compensation for the loss of estate Rs. 10,000/
3. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/
4. Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/ Total Rs.12,85,000/ In suit no.125/07 (new no.6/10) titled Angoori Devi Vs. Balkar Singh & Ors.
1. Compensation for loss of dependency Rs.9,45,000/
2. Compensation for the loss of estate Rs. 10,000/
3. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/
4. Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/ Total Rs.10,15,000/
35. In view of the above findings, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in both the suits. Accordingly, in suit no. 124/07 (new no.5/10), petitioners are entitled to Rs.12,85,000/ and in suit no. 125/07 (new no.6/10), petitioners are entitled to Rs.10,15,000/ as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit of compensation amount in favour of the petitioners by Respondent no.3/Insurance Co.
36. Relief In view of the findings of issues no.1 & 2, I am of the opinion that in suit no.124/07 (new no.5/10), petitioners are entitled to Rs.12,85,000/ and in suit no.125/07 (new no.6/10), petitioners are entitled to Rs.10,15,000/ as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 19 of 23 petition till the date of deposit of compensation amount in favour of the petitioners by Respondent no.3/Insurance Co.
37. Apportionment of Compensation In suit no.124/07 (new no.5/10) titled Meena Devi Vs. Balkar Singh & Ors
1. Smt. Meena Rs.5,14,000/ widow of Shri Kanahiya @ Kanahiya Lal (40%)
2. Master Guddu son of Shri Kanahiya (15%) Rs.1,92,750/
3. Master Rahul son of Shri Kanahiya (15%) Rs.1,92,750/
4. Baby Pooja D/o Shri Kanahiya (15%) Rs.1,92,750/
5. Master Moola son of Shri Kanahiya (15%) Rs.1,92,750/ In suit no.125/07 (new no.5/10) titled Angoori Devi Vs. Balkar Singh & Ors
1. Smt. Angoori Devi widow of Shri Girraj (40%) Rs.4,06,000/
2. Shri Prem Kumar @ Prem son of late Shri Girraj (15%) Rs.1,52,250/
3. Shri Sonu son of late Shri Girraj (15%) Rs.1,52,250/
4. Master Vikas Kumar son of late Shri Girraj (15%) Rs.1,52,250/
5. Master Pawan Kumar son of late Shri Girraj (15%) Rs.1,52,250/
38. Since the amount award should not be frittered away by beneficiaries owing to the ignorance, illiteracy etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled 'M.G. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas reported in 1994(2) SCC 176, has laid guidelines pronouncing that in a case of compensation for death, it is appropriate that Tribunals to keep in mind the principles enunciated by this court in Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India', 1991(4) SCC 584, in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 20 of 23 illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation Guidelines inter alia included of investment of share of the claimants in FDRs in nationalized banks with conditions that bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposits and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly/periodically directly to the claimant and such investment may be made in more than one fixed deposit. In case of any exigency, claimants are at liberty to apply to Tribunal for withdrawal of such investment.
39. In terms thereof, out of the award amount, 50% amount of all petitioners be invested in the shape of FDRs in the name of the respective claimants/petitioners for a period of seven years in State Bank of India, FDRs shall have no facility of loan or advance. Petitioners can withdraw the interest monthly. In case of exigency, petitioners can move application for premature withdrawal before this Tribunal, as per law.
40. Aforesaid fixed deposits are to be made by State Bank of India, Tis Hazari in the following manner: (1) The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari shall open separate Savings Accounts in the name of the claimants and the entire interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits be credited in the said account. The fixed deposits shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the court.
2. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving Account.
3. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 21 of 23 claimants after due verification and the bank shall issue photo identity card/pass book with attested photographs to claim to facilitate their identity.
4. No cheque book be issued to the claimant without the permission of this court.
5. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the bank in this court.
6. The original FDRs shall be retained by the bank in the safe custody. However, the original passbook shall be given to the claimants alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs.
7. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to the claimants at the end of the fixed deposit period.
8. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without the permission of this court.
9. On the request of the claimants, the bank shall transfer the Saving Account to any other branch of State Bank of India according to the convenience of the claimants.
41. In terms of directions contained in case of UOI Vs. Nanisiri, in MAC Appeal no.682/2005, order dated 13.01.2010, of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha, Respondent no.3 is directed to directly deposit the award sum with State Bank of India (SBI), Tis Hazari within 30 days through its nodal officer and the Manager concerned of SBI, Tis Hazari Court to keep the specified amount aforesaid in fixed deposit in terms of the award and release the balance amount by transferring the same to the Saving Account of the petitioners/claimants. Insurance Co. to also file proof of deposit of award sum, also within said period. Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 22 of 23 Manager SBI, Tis Hazari to also furnish compliance report within 15 days of deposit of award sum. Claimants to do the necessary formalities in respect of the bank account(s). Ahlmad to keep the copy of Award in a miscellaneous file for awaiting compliance report from all concerned which be put up on 15.12.10.
Inquiry file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(SANJEEV JAIN) JUDGE: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIS HAZARI, DELHI Announced in the Open Court Today : 15.11.10 Case no.124/07 (new no.5/10) and Case no.125/07 (new no.6/10) Page 23 of 23