Delhi District Court
Smt. Bimla Devi vs Mobin Kumar on 1 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA,
JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), DELHI.
Suit No.573/11
Unique Case ID No.02401C-0408702008
Smt. Bimla Devi
W/o Late Shri Jagdish Lal Bansal,
House No.16/43E, Street No.2,
Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005
........PETITIONER
Versus
1. Mobin Kumar
S/o Shri Sahab Singh,
VPO Palri Khurd, Dist. Sonepat, Haryana.
(.....driver of canter No.HR-69-7746)
2. Anil Kumar
S/o Shri Chander Bhan,
PO Pakrikalan, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana
(.....owner of canter No.HR-69-7746)
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Division-XV, Natioinal Insurance Building,
1st Floor, 8, India Exchange Place,
Kolkata-1.
(.....insurer of canter No.HR-69-7746)
4. Baldev Singh
S/o Shri Didar Singh,
C/o Pepsu Road Transport Corporation
Kapurthala Depot, Punjab.
(.....driver of bus No.PB-11Z-0715)
5. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation
Through its General Manager
Shri Surender Singh
Kapurthala Depot, Punjab.
(.....owner of bus No.PB-11Z-0715)
Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23
6. NOTE **
7. Subhash @ Surajbhan
C/o Shri Narinder Kumar
Village Jandli Khurd,
Tehsil & Distt. Hisar, Haryana. (Since expired on 17.06.07)
(.....driver of Tata 407 No.HR-39A-1551)
8. Narinder Kumar
S/o Shri Ram Avtar,
C/o Sachin Trading Co.,
Village Jandli Khurd,
Tehsil & Distt. Hisar, Haryana.
(.....owner of Tata 407 No.HR-39A-1551)
9. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
D.O. Hissar, Haryana.
(...insurer of Tata 407 No.HR-39A-1551)
** NOTE: It may be noticed that Respondent No.6/i.e. insurer
of Punjab Roadways bus was proposed to be impleaded on
behalf of the petitioner subject to disclosure of the same.
However, since the Punjab Roadways bus owned by Respondent
No.5 was not insured, Respondent No.6 does not stand
impleaded on record.
.......RESPONDENTS
Date of filing of Claim Petition : 10.03.2008
Arguments heard on : 28.07.2016
Date of passing of award : 01.08.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Present claim petition has been preferred under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 as 'the Act') claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Only) in respect of accidental death of Jagdish Lal Bansal in a motor vehicular accident.
2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the claim petition are that on 17.06.2007 at about 3.00AM Shri Jagdish Lal Bansal (since deceased) was travelling in bus bearing registration No. PB-11Z-0715 driven by Respondent No.4 Baldev Singh and owned by Respondent No.5 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. The bus rammed into a canter bearing registration No. HR-69-7746 which was parked in the middle of the road by Respondent No.1 Mobin Kumar (driver of canter No. HR-69-7746). The canter was owned by Respondent No.2 Anil Kumar and was insured with Respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Ltd. for the relevant period. The passengers from the bus deboarded the bus as it came to a halt. Thereafter, about 3.30AM, a Tata 407 bearing registration No. HR-39A- 1551 driven by Respondent No.7 Subhash in a rash and negligent manner hit the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation bus from behind. Due to the force and impact of the accident, the bus started moving and head of Jagdish Lal Bansal was crushed under the rear left tyre of the bus. Consequently, deceased expired at the spot and the postmortem was later on carried at Civil Hospital, Sonepat. FIR No.118/07 dated 17.06.2007 was registered at PS: Kundli, District Sonepat, Haryana regarding the accident.
Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23It is further the case of petitioner that deceased was an engineer and running an engineering firm in the name of Rohit Engineers which undertook construction and engineering contracts. Further, the deceased was survived by his wife Bimla Devi along with two married sons and a married daughter. It was further submitted that respondents were jointly and severally liable for the unfortunate death being the driver/owner and insurer of the respective three vehicles involved in the accident.
It may also be noticed at this stage itself that in the chargesheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. filed against Baldev Singh (Respondent No.4 I.e. driver of bus no. PB 11Z 0715) and Respondent No.1 Mobin Kumar (driver of canter no. HR-69- 7746) it was observed that Shri Surajbhan S/o Lakhi Ram (Respondent No.7/driver of Tata 407 No. HR-39A-1551) had expired on 17.06.2007. In the present proceedings, Respondent No.7 was served by way of publication and proceeded ex parte vide order dated 26.05.2009. Since the LRs of Respondent No.7 have not been brought on record who is revealed to have expired at the stage of final proceedings, the liability cannot be fastened on Respondent No.7.
3. In the joint Written Statement filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 Mobin Kumar and Respondent No.2 Anil Kumar (driver & owner of canter No. HR-69-7746), it was submitted that the loaded canter was parked as its tyre had Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 punctured and the driver was not at fault. It was further submitted that the Pepsu Road Corporation bus rammed into the canter from behind and was at fault as the bus was not parked on the side of the road after it hit the canter. It was further submitted that the deceased had expired on account of negligence on the part of Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.7 driver of Tata 407 as it had further hit the parked PRTC bus from behind which resulted in unfortunate death of the deceased as his head was crushed under the rear left tyre of the bus. It was further claimed that the canter was parked on the road with indicators.
In the written statement filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer of canter No. HR-69-7746), it was submitted that the accident appears to have been caused due to collision between PRTC bus and Tata 407 and the liability is accordingly to be borne by Respondent No.4,5,7,8&9 and Respondent No.1,2&3 could not be held liable for compensation. It was also submitted that the negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be ruled out as depicted from the facts alleged in the petition. The claim for compensation was further stated to be exaggerated and exorbitant. It was further submitted that the insurance company shall not be liable to indemnify in case the canter no. HR-69- 7746 was being used in violation of permit or terms and conditions of the insurance policy or in case the driver was not Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 holding a valid licence. However, it was admitted that the aforesaid canter was insured for the period 25.04.2007 to 24.04.2008 as per the details of the engine/chassis number as reflected in the written statement.
In the Written Statement filed on behalf of Respondent No.4 Baldev Singh and Respondent No.5 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (driver & owner of bus No. PB-11Z-0715) in which the deceased was travelling, it was submitted that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR-31A-155. It was denied that the deceased was travelling by bus No. PB-11Z- 0715. It was further claimed that bus No. PB-11Z-0715 had hit the canter from behind as it was wrongly parked in the centre of the road. The compensation claimed was further stated to be exaggerated and excessive.
Written statement was not filed on behalf of Respondent No.7 & 8 (i.e. driver & owner of Tata 407 bearing registration No. HR-39A-1551) and were proceeded ex parte after service by way of publication vide order dated 26.05.2009.
In the written statement filed on behalf of Respondent No.9 United India Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer of Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR-39A-1551) it was submitted that deceased himself was negligent. It was further submitted that the insurance company shall not be liable if the driver was not holding a valid licence. However, it was admitted that Tata 407 bearing No. HR-39A-1551 was insured Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 for the period 24.01.2007 to 23.01.2008 which covers the date of accident.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration vide order dated 30.08.2010 by ld. Predecessor :-
(i) Whether Shri Jagdish Lal Bansal son of Shri Onkar Nath suffered injuries which caused his death in an accident occurred on 17.06.07 at about 3.30 AM at Bahad Rakba Ka Shed Road (Near Parnami Hospital), G.T. Karnal Road, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana, due to rash and negligent driving of respondents I.e. drivers of offending vehicles nos. HR-69 7746, PB 11Z 0715 and HR 39A 1551? (OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
(iii) Relief.
5. In support of the claim, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner, namely, PW1 Shri Ishwar Singh, Record Clerk, General Hospital, Sonepat (who proved the Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 postmortem report of the deceased); PW2 HC Sunil Kumar, P.S. Kundli, Sonepat (who proved the FIR); PW3 Mohd. Ashraf, Tax Assistant, Income Tax Office, Delhi (who proved the Income Tax Returns of the deceased); PW4 Shri Sushil Bhatt, Manager (Legal), M/s Indure Private Limited (who proved the work contract); PW5 Dr. Suman Tanwar, Medical Officer, PHC Bahu, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana and PW6 Smt. Bimla Devi (wife of deceased/petitioner).
PW1 Shri Ishwar Singh, Record Clerk, General Hospital, Sonepat, Haryana proved the copy of postmortem report of deceased Jagdish Lal (Ex.PW1/1).
PW2 HC Sunil Kumar, P.S. Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana proved FIR No.118/07 dated 17.06.2007 u/s 283/279/337/304-A IPC registered at P.S. Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana (Ex.PW2/1).
On cross-examination, he clarified that challan had been submitted against Mobin Kumar and Baldev on 31.07.2007 before the court of ACJM, Sonepat, Haryana.
PW3 Mohd. Ashraf, Tax Assistant, Income Tax Office, ITO, Delhi proved the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 as Ex.PW3/1 (colly). He further stated that PAN card number of the deceased was AAHPB5030A.
On cross-examination, he clarified that Income Tax Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 Return was not filed by deceased for the Assessment Year 2007- 08 (i.e. Financial Year 2006-07).
PW4 Shri Sushil Bhatt, Manager (Legal), M/s The Indure Private Limited, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi testified that he had been authorised to depose on behalf of the company vide authority letter (Ex.PW4/A). He further proved the statement of account maintained by the company in relation to work carried by M/s Rohit Engineers (Ex.PW4/B) and stated that Jagdish Lal Bansal being the Proprietor of M/s Rohit Engineers dealt with M/s Indure Private Limited for the period 2003-05 and had been paid Rs.18,38,030/- against the work carried out by his firm during the said period. He further proved the work order dated 09.07.2004 executed by M/s Indure Private Limited in favour of M/s Rohit Engineers (Ex.PW4/C).
On cross-examination he deposed that he was appointed with M/s The Indure Private Limited on 16.01.2009 and was not associated with the company when the transactions of contract and payment etc. took place with M/s Rohit Engineers. Further, he was unaware of the TDS deducted from the amount paid to the deceased. He further clarified that there was no work contract between his company and M/s Rohit Engineers and no payment had been made after 2005. He denied the suggestion that he had submitted wrong details about the work contract and the payment made to M/s Rohit Engineers or the same did not reflect the true picture of the work done.
Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23PW5 Dr.Suman Tanwar, Medical Officer,PHC Bahu, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana proved the postmortem report (Ex.PW5/1) and deposed that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to injuries on face and head which were ante- mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in normal course of life.
PW6 Smt. Bimla Devi testified on the lines of the claim petition and proved copy of ration card (Ex.PW6/1), copy of death certificate of Jagdish Lal Bansal (Ex.P6/2) and copy of her Election I-card (Ex.CW1/A).
On cross-examination, she clarified that her two sons and daughter were married. Further, both of her sons were government servants and after the death of her husband, 'Rohit Engineers' was not in operation. She denied the suggestion that she had not suffered any financial loss as a result of the accident of her husband. She admitted that no documentary proof had been filed to show the loss of income to the tune of Rs.30 lakh as stated in the affidavit and denied the suggestion that documents filed in support of the claim were false and fabricated.
Evidence was not led on behalf of respondents. Respondent No. 1 & 2 and 7 & 8 were proceeded ex parte vide Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 order dated 17.07.2012 & 26.05.2009 respectively.
6. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner, counsel for respondents and perused the record.
My Issue-wise findings are as under :-
Issue No. (i) Whether Shri Jagdish Lal Bansal son of Shri Onkar Nath suffered injuries which caused his death in an accident occurred on 17.06.07 at about 3.30 AM at Bahad Rakba Ka Shed Road (Near Parnami Hospital), G.T. Karnal Road, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana, due to rash and negligent driving of respondents I.e. drivers of offending vehicles nos. HR-69 7746, PB 11Z 0715 and HR 39A 1551? (OPP) In Bimla Devi and Ors. V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, it was held that in a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Claim Tribunal has to decide the negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sakshi Bhutani & ors, MAC APP. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal (Delhi High Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 Court), it was observed that it has to be borne in mind that the Motor Vehicles Act does not envisage holding a trial for a petition preferred under Section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal is enjoined to hold an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just.
Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Further in State of Mysore Vs. S.S. Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and are not bound by strict rules of evidence. The relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder:
".......that tribunals exercising quasi- judicial functions are not courts and that therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can unlike courts, obtain all information for the points under the enquiry from all sources, and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts."Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23
Reference may also be made to observations in Ranu Bala Paul & Others vs. Bani Chakraborty 1999 ACJ 634 Gauhati wherein the claim was allowed after consideration of FIR before the Tribunal.
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary enquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society. In N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Marumai Ammal, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC), the Supreme Court pointed out that the Accidents Claims Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and persons liable do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 mystic maybes. The court is bound to take broad view of the whole matter."
7. It may also be observed that in case of 'composite negligence', each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the petitioner for payment of entire damages and the petitioner has the choice of proceeding against all or any of the tortfeasors. The petitioners need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is necessary for the court to de- termine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. Ob- servations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan, 2008 ACJ 1165 (SC) are apt to be noted.
"(6) 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is in-
jured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of composite negligence of those wrongdo- ers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and sev- erally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of pro- ceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand, where a person suffers injury, partly due to negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a re- sult of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for dam-
Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23ages is not defeated merely by reason of negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his con- tributory negligence."
In the instant case, the chargesheet in the criminal proceedings arising out of the accident was filed against Respondent No.4 Baldev Singh (i.e. driver of bus No. PB-11Z- 0715) as well as Respondent No.1 Mobin Kumar (i.e. driver of canter No. HR-69-7746). However, Respondent No.7 Subhash @ Surajbhan/driver of Tata 407 No. HR-39A-1551 was therein reflected to have expired.
Admittedly, none of the eyewitnesses to the accident has been examined on record. FIR was registered on statement of one Sandeep who was travelling in canter No. HR-69-7746. As per FIR the canter No. HR-69-7746 was parked on the road since it had suffered a break down and bus no. PB-11Z-0715 hit the canter from behind. As there were some arguments between the drivers of the bus and canter, some of the passengers from the bus including deceased deboarded the bus. In the meanwhile, the bus was hit from behind by Tata 407 No. HR- 39A-1551 driven by Respondent No.7 Subhash @ Surajbhan in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, the stationary bus moved and the head of the deceased was crushed under the wheel of the bus.
On the face of record, the accident between the Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 canter no. HR-69-7746 which was parked on the road and PB- 11Z-0715 is not the immediate cause of death of the deceased. At the best, the same gave cause of action with respect to damages to bus No. PB-11Z-0715. The unfortunate death of the deceased resulted as the bus No. PB-11Z-0715 was further hit from behind by Tata 407 no. HR-39A-1551 after some of the passengers had deboarded. As such, the immediate cause of the accident was collision between Tata 407 and stationary bus no. PB-11Z-0715. The negligence on the part of driver of Tata 407 is manifest as it hit the bus from behind. The accident could have been avoided in case the vehicle was driven at a reasonable speed. The contributory negligence on the part of driver of bus no. PB-11Z-0715 is also implicit as he did not bother to place some indicators after the accident with the canter and the bus remained parked in the middle of the road. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the accident took place due to composite negligence on the part of driver of bus No. PB-11Z-0715 as well as Tata 407 No. HR-39A-1551.
It may further be observed that Respondent No.4 Baldev Singh failed to enter the witness box and neither any complaint was filed by him regarding false implication. Since negligence is to be assessed on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and a holistic view is to be taken, it is held that the accident was caused due to composite negligence bus No.PB-11Z-0715 driven by Respondent No.4 Baldev Singh and Tata 407 No. HR-39A-1551 driven by deceased Subhash @ Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 Surajbhan. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
In view of the finding on Issue No.1, as the acci- dent was caused due to composite negligence of bus and Tata 407, the liability to pay compensation is further apportioned to 50% each on the part of the driver/owner of bus No. PB- 11Z-0715 AND insured/insurer of Tata 407 No. HR-39A- 1551. Further, Respondent No.1, 2 & 3 i.e. driver, owner & insurer of Canter No.HR-69-7746 are absolved of the liabil- ity.
8. Issue No. (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
(a) As per the case of petitioner, deceased Jagdish Lal Bansal was running his own business in the name of M/s Rohit Engineers and reliance has been placed upon Income Tax Returns filed by the deceased for the Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. After deposit of tax, the net income for AY 2004-05 is Rs.1,12,617/- (tax paid Rs.14,405/-); for the AY 2005-06 is Rs.1,19,759/- (tax paid NIL) and for the AY 2006-07 is Rs.1,11,588/- (tax paid NIL).
In the facts and circumstances, income of the Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 deceased is considered on the basis of average income as reflected in the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 for purpose of assessment of compensation at Rs.1,14,654.66 (rounded off to Rs.1,14,655/-) per annum [i.e. Rs.1,12,617/- (AY 2004-05) + Rs.1,19,759/- (AY 2005-06) + Rs.1,11,588/- (AY 2006-07) divided by 3].
(b) Addition of future prospects With regard to addition of income towards future prospects, in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 it has been held that there should be no addition towards future prospects where the age of deceased is more than 60 years. In view of above, since the deceased was aged about 61 years at the time of accident, he is not entitled to addition of future prospects.
(c) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
As per Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5 th where the number of dependent family member exceeds 6.
It has come up on record in the cross-examination of Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 PW1 Smt. Bimla Devi that both her sons were in government service and her daughter is married.
In view of above, considering the number of dependents as one (wife of deceased), the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased shall be 1/2 as held in Sarla Verma's case (supra).
(d) Selection of multiplier:
As per copy of Income Tax Returns (Ex.PW3/1 Colly) date of birth of the deceased is reflected as 28.02.1946.
As such, deceased was aged about 60 years 03 months 20 days approximately at the time of accident on 17.06.2007. Accordingly, as held in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 07 is to be adopted for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
(e) Loss of financial dependency In the light of aforesaid facts, loss of financial dependency of the petitioner comes to Rs.4,01,292.50/- [i.e. Rs.1,14,655/- (annual income of the deceased) X 07 (multiplier) X 1/2 (dependency)]. The same is rounded off to Rs.4,01,300/-.
9. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:
Though a wide discretion in determination of compensation is given but the amplitude of such powers has to Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 be exercised in consonance with settled principles and it needs to be borne in mind that compensation is neither expected to be windfall or bonanza or source of profit but at the same time should not be pittance.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 that the compensation is to be awarded for a sum of Rs.1 lakh each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate.
Hon'ble Apex Court further awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC).
Considering the facts and circumstances, petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.1 lakh each towards loss of consortium and loss of love & affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses of deceased.
10. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs.4,01,300/- Loss of Consortium to Wife Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/-
________________
Total Rs.6,36,300/-
________________
Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23
(Rupees Six Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Three Hundred Only) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition w.e.f. 10.03.2008 till realization.
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
11. It is further held that driver/owner of bus No.PB- 11Z-0715 and insured/insurer of Tata 407 No. HR-39A-1551 are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the petitioners/claimants.
12. On realization, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) shall be released to the petitioner and remaining amount shall be shall be kept in seven fixed deposits of equal amount in her name with a nationalized bank for a period of one year, two years, three years, four years, five years, six years and seven years respectively without the facility of advance, loan or premature withdrawal with release of quarterly periodical interest in her account.
13. Relief Since the liability to pay the compensation has been apportioned 50% each on the part of the driver/owner Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 of bus No. PB-11Z-0715 AND insured/insurer of Tata 407 No. HR-39A-1551 in Issue No.1, Respondent No. 5 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (owner of bus No.PB-11Z-0715) and Respondent No.9 United India Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer of Tata 407 No. HR-39A-1551) are directed to equally deposit the 50% share of award amount of Rs.6,36,300/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition w.e.f. 10.03.2008 till realization with Nazir of this Court within 30 days under intimation to the petitioner, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
Driver/owner of bus No. PB-11Z-0715 AND insured/insurer of Tata 407 No. HR-39A-1551 are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount with the Tribunal to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
14. Counsel for the insurance companies have also pointed out that the ld. Predecessor at the time of passing of interim award directed the amount of interim compensation to be paid in equal shares by Respondent No.3 & 9 (i.e. The National Insurance Company/insurer of canter no. HR-69-7746) and (United India Insurance Company Ltd./Respondent Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23 No.9/insurer of Tata 407 HR-39A-1551). However, against the interim award passed by the ld. Predecessor, MAC Appeal 51/2011 was preferred wherein vide order dated 28.01.2011 passed by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Reva Khetrapal, it was observed that in case the Tribunal holds it to be a case of composite negligence, the amount of interim award may eventually be held recoverable from Punjab Roadways in accordance with apportionment of liability by the Tribunal.
Since it has been held that the driver/owner of bus No. PB-11Z-0715 & insured/insurer of Tata 407 No. HR-39A- 1551 are liable to equally pay the compensation, Respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer of canter No. HR-67-7746) shall be entitled to recovery rights of the amount deposited towards interim compensation from Respondent No.5 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (owner of bus No. PB- 11Z-0715) in the execution proceedings.
A copy of this judgment be sent to Respondent No.5/Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (owner of bus No.PB-11Z-0715) as well as Respondent No.9 United India Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer of Tata 407 No. HR-39A- 1551) for compliance within the time granted.
Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23Announced in open court (Anoop Kumar Mendiratta) on 01st August, 2016 Judge MACT-1 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Suit No.573/11 - Smt. Bimla Devi vs. Mobin Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23