Delhi District Court
Anita & Ors. vs . Mansoor Alam & Ors. on 9 February, 2018
Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,
JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), DELHI.
In the matters:
Suit No. 302/12
MACT No. 357314/16
Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000926-2012
1. Smt. Anita
W/o Late Sh. Chitra Pal
2. Sh. Navtej
S/o Late Sh. Chitra Pal
3. Sh. Mohit
S/o Late Sh. Chitra Pal
4. Ms. Kalpana
D/o Late Sh. Chitra Pal
All Resident of:
A-35, PS Sarai Rohilla
Staff Quarter, Block-A,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
........Petitioners
VERSUS
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 1 of 66
357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16
Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
1. Sh. Mansoor Alam
S/o Sh. Khalil Ahmad
R/o Near Bazaar, Mohalla Noor,
Bypass, Jahangirabad,
Bulandshahar, U. P.
....... Respondent No.1
(Driver)
2. Sh. Fazul Rehman S/o Sh. Abdul Gaffoor R/o E-53, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
....... Respondent No.2 (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Regd. Office at:
Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.
....... Respondent No.3 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 303/12 MACT No. 357333/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000939-2012 Smt. Anita W/o Late Sh. Chitra Pal R/o A-35, PS Sarai Rohilla Staff Quarter, Block-A, MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 2 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
........Petitioner VERSUS
1. Sh. Mansoor Alam S/o Sh. Khalil Ahmad R/o Near Bazaar, Mohalla Noor, Bypass, Jahangirabad, Bulandshahar, U. P. ....... Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. Sh. Fazul Rehman S/o Sh. Abdul Gaffoor R/o E-53, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
....... Respondent No.2 (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Regd. Office at:
Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.
....... Respondent No.3 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 304/12 MACT No. 357307/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000914-2012 MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 3 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Sh. Mohit S/o Late Sh. Chitra Pal R/o A-35, PS Sarai Rohilla Staff Quarter, Block-A, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
........Petitioner VERSUS
1. Sh. Mansoor Alam S/o Sh. Khalil Ahmad R/o Near Bazaar, Mohalla Noor, Bypass, Jahangirabad, Bulandshahar, U. P. ....... Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. Sh. Fazul Rehman S/o Sh. Abdul Gaffoor R/o E-53, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
....... Respondent No.2 (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Regd. Office at:
Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.
....... Respondent No.3 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 305/12 MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 4 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.MACT No. 357309/16
Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000916-2012 Sh. Nav Tej S/o Late Sh. Chitra Pal R/o A-35, PS Sarai Rohilla Staff Quarter, Block-A, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
........Petitioner VERSUS
1. Sh. Mansoor Alam S/o Sh. Khalil Ahmad R/o Near Bazaar, Mohalla Noor, Bypass, Jahangirabad, Bulandshahar, U. P. ....... Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. Sh. Fazul Rehman S/o Sh. Abdul Gaffoor R/o E-53, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
....... Respondent No.2 (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Regd. Office at:
Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.
....... Respondent No.3 (Insurer) MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 5 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
AND Suit No. 306/12 MACT No. 357386/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000990-2012 Ms. Kalpana D/o Late Sh. Chitra Pal R/o A-35, PS Sarai Rohilla Staff Quarter, Block-A, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
........Petitioner VERSUS
1. Sh. Mansoor Alam S/o Sh. Khalil Ahmad R/o Near Bazaar, Mohalla Noor, Bypass, Jahangirabad, Bulandshahar, U. P. ....... Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. Sh. Fazul Rehman S/o Sh. Abdul Gaffoor R/o E-53, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
....... Respondent No.2 (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Regd. Office at:
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 6 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.
....... Respondent No.3 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 307/12 MACT No. 357387/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000991-2012 Mrs. Situ W/o Sh. Nav Tej R/o A-35, PS Sarai Rohilla Staff Quarter, Block-A, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
........Petitioner VERSUS
1. Sh. Mansoor Alam S/o Sh. Khalil Ahmad R/o Near Bazaar, Mohalla Noor, Bypass, Jahangirabad, Bulandshahar, U. P. ....... Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. Sh. Fazul Rehman S/o Sh. Abdul Gaffoor R/o E-53, Batla House, MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 7 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
....... Respondent No.2 (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Regd. Office at:
Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.
....... Respondent No.3 (Insurer) Date of filing of above claim petitions : 04.09.2012 Date of arguments heard : 12.01.2018 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.02.2018 Present: Ms. Nazneen & Sh. Manoj Kumar, Advocates, counsels for petitioners Sh. Harish Kumar, Advocate, counsel for respondent no. 1.
Respondent no. 2 is ex-parate Sh. S. P. Jain, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3 AWARD:
1. The above six claim suits are the subject matter of this award as all the cases have arisen from the same motor vehicular accident which took place on April 08, MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 8 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
2009. All the claim suits have been preferred under section 166 read with section 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short M.V Act).
(i) Though the accident had not taken place within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, yet the claim suits have been filed before this Tribunal as claimants were residing in Delhi at the time of accident. Besides that respondent no. 2 was also residing in Delhi at the time of accident.
(ii). MACT Suit No.357314/16 pertains to the fatal injuries caused to Mr. Chitra Pal Singh; MACT Suit No. 357333/16 pertains to injuries caused to claimant Anita; MACT Suit No. 357307/16 pertains to injuries caused to claimant Mohit; MACT Suit No. 357309/16 pertains to injuries caused to claimant Nav Tej; MACT Suit No. 357386/16 pertains to injuries caused to claimant Kalpna and MACT Suit No. 357387/16 pertains to injuries caused to claimant Situ.
(iii). In fatal case, claimants claimed a compensation of ` 50 lac whereas in remaining matters, claimants claimed ` 10 lac in each case.
2. Facts in brief as emerged from the claim suits are that on April 08, 2009 deceased Chitra Pal Singh alongwith MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 9 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
his wife Anita, sons Nav Tej & Mohit, daughter Kalpana and daughter-in-law Situ w/o Nav Tej was coming from his village Khandoi, PS Narsena to Delhi in his car bearing registration No. DL-7C-6412. The car was being driven by deceased Chitra Pal Singh. It was alleged that at about 4 PM when their car reached Shivali, Bulandshahar, offending ambassador car bearing registration No. DL-1CG-7497 came at very fast speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit in the car of deceased. Due to forceful impact of the collision, Chitra Pal Singh died at the spot whereas other occupants sustained injuries. In this regard, an FIR No. 96/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 279/337/338/304-A/427 IPC was got registered at PS Jahangirabad, Bulandshahar, U. P.
(i) It was alleged that the offending car was being driven by respondent No.1 and it belonged to respondent No.2 and it was insured with respondent No.3.
3. Respondent No.1 contested the claim suit by filing his written statement alleging that accident had not taken place due to his rashness or negligence. It was further submitted that since he had a valid driving licence and car was insured with respondent No.3, in case any liability is fixed, insurance is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
(i) Respondent No.3 in its written statement MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 10 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it, but took the plea that if during inquiry, it is found that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid licence or there was any willful breach of the terms and conditions of the Policy, insurance company would not be liable to pay any compensation.
(ii) Respondent No.2 did not file written statement and vide order dated April 07, 2014, respondent No.2 was proceeded ex-parate.
4. On the basis of pleadings, vide order dated April 07, 2014, following issues were framed in all the matters :
MACT Suit No. 357314/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Shri Chitra Pal had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 08.04.2009 at 4.00 PM within the jurisdiction of PS: Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar (UP) due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1-CG-7497 driven by respondent no. 1?
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 11 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
MACT Suit No. 357333/16:
(i) Whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 08.04.2009 within the jurisdiction of PS: Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar (UP) due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1-CG-7497 driven by respondent no. 1?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
MACT Suit No. 357307/16:
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 12 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(i) Whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 08.04.2009 within the jurisdiction of PS: Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar (UP) due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1-CG-7497 driven by respondent no. 1?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
MACT Suit No. 357309/16:
(i) Whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 08.04.2009 within the jurisdiction of PS: Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar (UP) due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1-CG-7497 driven by respondent no. 1?
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 13 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
MACT Suit No. 357386/16:
(i) Whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 08.04.2009 within the jurisdiction of PS: Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar (UP) due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1-CG-7497 driven by respondent no. 1?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
MACT Suit No. 357387/16:
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 14 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(i) Whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 08.04.2009 within the jurisdiction of PS: Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar (UP) due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1-CG-7497 driven by respondent no. 1?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
5. In support of their claim suits, petitioners examined following witnesses:
In MACT Suit No. 357314/16:
PW1 Smt. Anita, claimant/wife of deceased PW2 HC Jagdish, proved the salary of deceased In MACT Suit No. 357333/16:
PW1 Smt. Anita, claimant MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 15 of 66
357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
In MACT Suit No. 357307/16:
PW1 Sh. Mohit, petitioner/injured In MACT Suit No. 357309/16:
PW1 Sh. Navtej, petitioner/injured In MACT Suit No. 357386/16:
PW1 Ms. Kaplna, petitioner/injured In MACT Suit No. 357387/16:
PW1 Mrs. Situ, petitioner/injured
(i) In rebuttal, respondents did not examine any witness.
(ii) HC Jata Shanker was examined as court witness i.e. CW1 in MACT Suit No. 357314/16.
6. On completion of evidence led by both the parties, statement of petitioner Anita was recorded on March 01, 2017 whereas statement of Mohit, Kalpna & Situ were MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 16 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
recorded on July 19, 2017 and statement of Nav Tej was recorded on August 04, 2017 in compliance of clause 26 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & ors. vs. Jaivir Singh & ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014.
7. I have heard arguments advanced by counsel for petitioners and respondent No.1 & 3, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
8. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue No. 1 in all the cases:
FINDING:-
9. Learned counsel appearing for respondents contended that since it is a case on head of collision, this shows that accident had taken place due to negligence of both the vehicles. Accordingly, it was urged that since there was a contributory negligence on the part of deceased Chitra Pal Singh, 50% of the amount is required to be deducted from the claim of LRs of the deceased Chitra Pal Singh.
(i) Per contra, counsel appearing for petitioners MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 17 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
refuted the said contentions by arguing that from the statement of witnesses examined by the petitioners, it becomes crystal clear that the accident had taken place due to the sole rashness or negligence of the offending vehicle as the same was coming from wrong side.
(ii) In this regard, the testimony of petitioners are relevant. Petitioners in their examination-in-chief testified that they were returning from their village in their car, which was being driven by deceased Chitra Pal Singh. When at about 4 PM they reached Shivali, Bulandshahar, offending ambassador car hit their car and at the time of accident, offending car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. In her cross- examination, petitioner Anita, Kalpna and Situ testified that the accident had taken place due to the rashness and negligence of offending car as it was coming from wrong side at fast speed. Further PW Nav Tej in his cross-examination testified that there was no central verge at the spot and the accident had taken place at the left side of the road. This corroborates the testimony of other petitioners, who testified that the offending vehicle came from wrong side. Since the offending vehicle came from wrong side at fast speed without caring that car of petitioners was coming towards Delhi side, I am of the considered opinion that the accident had taken place due to rashness and negligence of respondent No.1.
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 18 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(iii) In view of above, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
10. Issue No. 2:
In MACT Suit No.357314/16:
11. Before proceeding further, I deem it appropriate to refer the judgment titled National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 decided by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court on October 30, 2017. Hon`ble Bench reconsidered all the previous judgments relating to just compensation under Motor Vehicle Act including Sarla Verma & ors. vs. DTC & another, 2009 (6) SCC 121; Reshma Kumari & others vs. Madan Mohan & anr (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh Tyagi & others vs. Rajbir Singh & ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54.
(i) After analyzing all the precedents, Hon`ble Bench held as under:-
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 19 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 20 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein- before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be ` 15,000/-, ` 40,000/- and ` 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
12. In the light of aforesaid case, facts of the case at hand shall be analysed to assess the just compensation.
13. Learned counsel appearing for insurance company contended that since petitioners are getting Family Pension after the death of deceased Chitra Pal Singh, amount of Family Pension is liable to be deducted. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment Oriental Company Ltd. vs. Anita Begum & ors 311/09 decided by High Court of Delhi on July 1, 2017. It was further contended MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 21 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
that since after the death of Chitra Pal Singh, petitioner No.2 Nav Tej got employment on compassionate ground, salary of petitioner No.2 is also liable to be deducted from the loss of income on account of death of deceased.
(i) Per contra, counsel appearing for petitioners refuted the said contentions by arguing that neither the Family Pension nor the employment got on compassionate ground is liable to be deducted. In support of their contentions, counsels placed reliance on the judgement Vimal Kanwar & others Vs. Kishore Dan & others ACJ 2013 Volume 3 Page No. 1441 decided by the Apex Court on May 3, 2013.
(ii). In the aforesaid judgment, following questions arose before the Apex Court:-
(i) Whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for deduction.
(ii) Whether the salary receivable by claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for deduction.
(iii) Whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act and MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 22 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(iii). Apex court dealt with the said issues in para 19, 20 and 21, same are reproduced as under:-
19. The first issue is "whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for deduction."
The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (1999) SCC 90. In the said case, this Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute of occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this Court:-
35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 23 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly, any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 24 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage " liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual."
20. The second issue is "whether the salary receivable by the claimant an compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage"
liable for deduction." "Compassionate appointment" can be one of the conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the employer. In MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 25 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
case, the employee dies in harness i.e while in service leaving behind the dependents, one of the dependents may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee dies in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death and have no correlation with the amount receivable under statute occasioned on account of accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have correlation with the accidental death. An employee dies in harness even in normal courses, due to illness and to maintain the family of deceased one of the dependents may be entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" that comes under the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and any amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
21. The third issue is "whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act " In the case of Sarla Verma & Anr. (Supra), this court held "generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation." This Court further observed that "where the annual income is in taxable range, the word "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary less tax". Therefore, it is clear that if the MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 26 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
annual income comes within the taxable range income tax is required to be deducted for determination of the actual salary. But while deducting income tax from salary, it is necessary to notice the nature of the income of the victim. If the victim is receiving income chargeable under the head "salaries" one should keep in mind that under Section 192 (1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head "salaries" shall at the time of payment, deduct income tax on estimated income of the employee from "salaries" for that financial year. Such deduction is commonly known as tax deducted at source ("TDS' for short). When the employer fails in default to deduct the TDS from employee salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for non-deduction of TDS is prescribed under Section 201(1A) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
Therefore, in case the income of the victim is only from "salary", the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee.
However, there can be cases where the victim is not a salaried person i.e his income is from sources other than salary, and the annual income falls within taxable range, in such cases, if any objection as MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 27 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
to deduction of tax is made by a party then the claimant is required to prove that the victim has already paid income tax and no further tax has to be deducted from the income.
(emphasis supplied)
14. In view of the aforesaid judgment, I do not find any force in the contention of respondents that either the amount of Family Pension is liable to be deducted or the salary of petitioner No.2 is liable to be deducted as he got the employment on compassionate ground after the death of his father.
(a). INCOME OF DECEASED:
(i) CW1 testified that Chitra Pal Singh had joined Delhi police on May 09, 1979 as constable and his date of birth is September 12, 1959. He further testified that he was promoted as HC on February 28, 1994. As per record, his retirement was due on September 30, 2019. He further testified that deceased was got regular increment and promotions in routine course as per rule and regulations of Delhi Police. He further testified that in March 2009, his gross salary was 18,968/- and his salary slip is Ex. CW1/1. He further testified that no TDS was deducted from his salary as his income was not within the taxable limit at the time of his death.
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 28 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
LOSS Of INCOME OF PETITIONE (Chitra Pal Singh):
(i) From the testimony of CW1, it becomes clear that just prior to death, monthly salary of deceased was ` 18,968/-. Accordingly, annual loss of income is assessed at ` 2,27,616/- (` 18,968/- X 12).
(b) Addition towards Future Prospects:-
(i) Since deceased was permanent employee of Delhi Police, petitioners are entitled for future prospects. Since date of birth of deceased was September 12, 1959 and accident had taken place on April 8, 2009, it means that he was 49 years 6 months and 26 days old at the time of his death.
(ii) Since deceased was above 40 years but less than 50 years old at time of his death, in view of the law laid down in Praney Sethi case (supra), petitioners are entitled for 30% addition towards future prospects. Accordingly, a sum of ` 68,284/- is added in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.
(c) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:-
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 29 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(i). As per claim petition, four persons were dependent upon the income of deceased. Accordingly, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma's case and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, 1/4th income of the de-
ceased is liable to be deducted towards personal & living ex- penses.
(d) Selection of multiplier:
(i) Since deceased was 49+ years old at the time of his death, in view of Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), multiplier of 13 shall be apply in this matter.
Loss of income:-
(i) In view of the above, loss of income is calculated as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT (IN `) Annual Income of deceased 2,27,616/- 30% addition of towards future prospects 68,284/- MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 30 of 66
357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Total 2,95,900/-
Less 1/4 deduction towards personal and 73,975
living expenses
Total 2,21,925
Selection of multiplier 13
Total loss of income 28,85,025
15. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-
(i) In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of ` 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate; ` 40,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and ` 15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. In total ` 70,000/- is awarded to the petitioners under the above said three heads.
(ii) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. September 04, 2012 till realization of the amount.
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 31 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(iii) Accordingly, claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT (IN ` )
Loss of Income 28,85,025
Loss of consortium 40,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Total 29,55,025
Round off: ` 29,56,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Nine Lac & Fifty Six Thousands Only)
(iv) The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. September 04, 2012 till realization of the amount.
Apportionment of Award:
16. Since petitioner No.1 is wife of deceased, 40% of award amount is given to her whereas petitioner no. 2, MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 32 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
3 & 4 shall get 20% each of the award amount being his children. Their individual share is tabulated as under :
Name of the Relation Percentage Amount claimant with of award (In ` ) deceased amount Smt. Anita Wife 40% 11,82,400 Sh. Nav Tej Son 20% 5,91,200 Sh. Mohit Son 20% 5,91,200 Ms. Kalpana Daughter 20% 5,91,200
(i) Statement of petitioner No.1 was recorded on March 01, 2017 in compliance of Clause 26 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014, but she did not depose about her monthly household expenses; rather she only testified that she is a housewife.
(ii) Accordingly, on realization of award amount, a sum of ` 82,400/- plus entire interest be released to petitioner No.1 (Smt. Anita) and the balance amount of her share i.e. ` 11 lac, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 33 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
11 fixed deposits in her name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 1 lac each for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year, two years and so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
(iii) From the share of petitioner No.2, 3 & 4 (Nav Tej, Mohit & Kalpana), a sum of ` 91,200/- each plus entire interest be released to them and the balance amount of their share i.e. ` 5 lac each, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 5 fixed deposits in their name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 1 lac each for a period of six months, one year, one and half year, two years and so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 34 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
their saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to them only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
17. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format-IV A is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 08.04.2009
(ii) Name of the Sh. Chitra Pal Singh deceased
(iii) Age of the injured 49+ years
(iv) Occupation of the Government servant deceased MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 35 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(v) Income of the ` 2,27,616/- per annum deceased
(vi) Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation 1. Smt. Anita 42 Yr. Wife 2. Sh. Nav Tej 24 Yr Son 3. Sh. Mohit 18 Yr Son 4. Ms. Kalpana 27 Yr Daughter
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal (IN `)
7. Income of the deceased (A) 2,27,616/- p.a
8. Less Personal expenses of the 73,975/-
deceased (C) (¼) 9. Monthly Loss of dependency NA MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 36 of 66
357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(A+B)-C= D
10. Annual Loss of dependency -
11. Multiplier (E) 1312. Total Loss of dependency 28,85,025
13. Medical Expenses (G) NA
14. Add-Future Prospects (B) 68,284/-
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) 40,000/-
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) 15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral 15,000/-
expenses (K) 19 TOTAL COMPENSATION 29,56,000 (F + G + H + I + J + K = L) (Rounded off)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9%
21. Interest amount upto to the date of 14,44,694 award (M) 5 yrs, 5 months & 5 days
22. Total amount including interest (L + M) 44,00694
23. Award amount released As mentioned para No. 16 MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 37 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
24. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned para No. 16
25. Mode of disbursement of the award In the form of amount to the claimant(s). (Clause 29) FDRs as mentioned in para No.16
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 16.03.2018 (Clause 31) IN MACT NO. 357333/16:
(a) MEDICAL EXPENSES:
(i) In this case, petitioner Anita sustained simple injuries. No medical document has been produced on record except medical bills of ` 9,485/- which is Ex. PW1/3.
Accordingly, a sum of ` 9,485/- is awarded to her towards medical expenses.
(b) CONVEYANCE CHARGES:
(i) Admittedly the accident had taken place within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangirabad, Bulandshahar, U. P whereas the petitioner was residing at Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. It means that she must be shifted to Delhi. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 1,000/- is awarded to her towards conveyance charges.
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 38 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(c) SPECIAL DIET: (i) Considering the fact that petitioner sustained
some injuries, it can safely be culled out that she must have taken some special diet for the purpose of fast recovery. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 1,000/- is awarded to her under this head.
(d) ATTENDANT CHARES: (i) Since petitioner sustained only simple injury, no
attendant charges is awarded to her.
(e) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS:-
Mental and Physical Shock:-
(i) As already discussed that in the accident, petitioner not only sustained injuries, but she also lost her husband. Accordingly, it can safely be culled out that she must have suffered acute mental and physical shock after seeing the outcome of accident. Though it is difficult to quantify the loss of mental and physical shock in monetary terms, yet considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 20,000/-
is awarded to her under this head.
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 39 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Pain and suffering:-
(i) Considering the facts that petitioner sustained simple injuries in the accident, a sum of ` 5,000/- is awarded to her under this head.
18. As discussed above, the overall compensation is tabulated as under:
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (In ` )
Medical Expenses 9,485
Conveyance charges 1,000
Special Diet 1,000
Attendant Charges 0
Mental & physical shock 20,000
Pain & suffering 5,000
Total 36,485
Round off :- ` 37,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Seven Thousands Only)
(i) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 40 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
i.e. September 04, 2012 till realization.
19. DISBURSEMENT:-
(i) In view of her statement recorded on July 19, 2017 regarding her financial status, in terms of clause 26 of Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs Jaibir Singh & others, FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014, on realization, award amount i.e. ` 37,000/- with entire interest shall be released to her. The above said amount shall automatically be transferred in her account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
20. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format- IV B is as under:-
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 41 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 08.04.2009
(ii) Name of the injured Smt. Anita
(iii) Age of the injured 42 years
(iv) Occupation of the injured House wife
(v) Income of the injured NA
(vi) Nature of injured Simple
(vii) Medical treatment taken by Dr. Mukesh, Bulandshahar the injured
(viii) Period of hospitalization NA
(ix) Whether any permanent NA disability? If yes, give details
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (IN `)
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment 9,485/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance 1,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet 1,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant 0
(v) Loss of earning capacity NA
(vi) Loss of income NA
(vii) Any other loss which may require any NA
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 42 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(i) Compensation for mental and physical 20,000/-
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering 5,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(iv) Disfiguration NA
(v) Loss of marriage prospects 0
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, NA
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NA expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity NA in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income-(Income x% NA Earning Capacity x Multiplier) 14 Total Compensation (Rounded off) 37,000
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 18,082 (for 5 yrs 5 months & 5 days)
17. Total amount including interest 55,082/-
18. Award amount release (37,000 + 55,082/-
18,082)
19. Award amount kept in FDRs -
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in amount to the claimants (s) (Clause para no. 19.
29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 16.03.2018 MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 43 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(Clause 31.) MACT NO. 357307/16:
(a) MEDICAL EXPENSES: (i) In this case, petitioner Mohit sustained simple
injuries. But during inquiry neither any medical record nor any medical bill was produced.
(i) Considering the fact that petitioner sustained simple injuries in the accident and no document has been placed on record, in lump-sum, a sum of ` 20,000/- is awarded to him.
(iii) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. September 04, 2012 till realization.
21. DISBURSEMENT:-
(i) In view of his statement recorded on July 19, 2017 regarding his financial status, in terms of clause 26 of Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs Jaibir Singh & others, FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014, on realization, award amount i.e. MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 44 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
` 20,000/- with entire interest shall be released to him. The above said amount shall automatically be transferred in his account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
22. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format- IV B is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 08.04.2009
(ii) Name of the injured Sh. Mohit
(iii) Age of the injured 18 years
(iv) Occupation of the injured NA
(v) Income of the injured NA
(vi) Nature of injured Simple
(vii) Medical treatment taken by Not proved MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 45 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
the injured
(viii) Period of hospitalization NA
(ix) Whether any permanent NA disability? If yes, give details
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (IN `)
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment -
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance -
(iii) Expenditure on special diet -
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant -
(v) Loss of earning capacity NA (vi) Loss of income NA (vii) Any other loss which may require any NA
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical NA shock
(ii) Pain and suffering NA
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(iv) Disfiguration NA (v) Loss of marriage prospects 0
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, NA hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and NA MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 46 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NA expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity NA in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income-(Income x% NA Earning Capacity x Multiplier) 14 Total Compensation (Rounded off) 20,000
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 9,774 (for 5 yrs 5 months & 5 days)
17. Total amount including interest 29,774
18. Award amount release (20,000 + 29,774/-
9,774)
19. Award amount kept in FDRs -
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in amount to the claimants (s) (Clause para no. 21.
29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 16.03.2018 (Clause 31.) IN MACT NO. 357309/16:
(a) MEDICAL EXPENSES: (i) In this case, petitioner Nav Tej sustained
simple injuries. But, during inquiry neither any medical record nor any medical bill was produced.
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 47 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(ii) Considering the fact that petitioner sustained simple injuries in the accident and no document has been placed on record, in lump-sum, a sum of ` 20,000/- is awarded to him.
(iii) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. September 04, 2012 till realization.
23. DISBURSEMENT:-
(i) In view of his statement recorded on August 04, 2017 regarding his financial status, in terms of clause 26 of Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs Jaibir Singh & others, FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014, on realization, award amount i.e. ` 20,000/- with entire interest shall be released to him. The above said amount shall automatically be transferred in his account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 48 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
24. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format- IV B is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 08.04.2009
(ii) Name of the injured Sh. Nav Tej
(iii) Age of the injured 24 years
(iv) Occupation of the injured NA
(v) Income of the injured NA
(vi) Nature of injured Simple
(vii) Medical treatment taken by Not proved the injured
(viii) Period of hospitalization NA
(ix) Whether any permanent NA disability? If yes, give details
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (IN `)
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment -
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 49 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance -
(iii) Expenditure on special diet -
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant -
(v) Loss of earning capacity NA (vi) Loss of income NA (vii) Any other loss which may require any NA
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical NA shock
(ii) Pain and suffering NA
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(iv) Disfiguration NA (v) Loss of marriage prospects 0
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, NA hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NA expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity NA in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income-(Income x% NA Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14 Total Compensation (Rounded off) 20,000
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 50 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 9,774 (for 5 yrs 5 months & 5 days)
17. Total amount including interest 29,774
18. Award amount release (20,000 + 29,774/-
9,774)
19. Award amount kept in FDRs -
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in amount to the claimants (s) (Clause para no. 23.
29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 16.03.2018 (Clause 31.) In MACT No. 357386/16:
(a) MEDICAL EXPENSES: (i) In this case petitioner Kalpna sustained
simple injuries and she had spent a sum of ` 3,680/- on her medical treatment. The bill is Ex. PW1/3. During inquiry, no contrary evidence has been adduced which may raise any suspicion over the said bills. Accordingly, a sum of ` 3,680/- is awarded to her towards medical bills.
(b) CONVEYANCE CHARGES:
(i) Admittedly the accident had taken place within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangirabad, Bulandshahar, U. P MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 51 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
whereas the petitioner was residing at Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. Accordingly, it can safely be culled out that she must have spent some amount on shifting from place of accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 1,000/- is awarded to her towards conveyance charges.
(c) SPECIAL DIET: (i) Considering the fact that petitioner sustained
some injuries, it can safely be culled out that she must have taken some special diet for the purpose of fast recovery. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 1,000/- is awarded to her under this head.
(d) ATTENDANT CHARES: (i) Since petitioner sustained only simple injury,
no attendant charges is awarded to her.
(e) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS:-
Mental and Physical Shock and pain and suffering:-
(i) As already discussed that in the accident, MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 52 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
petitioner Kalpna lost her father Chitra Pal Singh. Thus, it can safely be culled out that she not only suffered pain and suffering but also suffered acute mental and physical shock after seeing the outcome of accident. Though it is difficult to quantify the loss of pain and suffering & mental and physical shock in monetary terms, yet considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 20,000/- is awarded to her under these two heads
25. As discussed above, the overall compensation is tabulated as under:
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (In ` )
Medical Expenses 3,680
Conveyance charges 1,000
Special Diet 1,000
Attendant Charges 0
Mental & physical shock and pain & 20,000
suffering
Total 25,680
Round off :- ` 26,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Six Thousands Only)
(i) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 53 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. September 04, 2012 till realization.
26. DISBURSEMENT:-
(i) In view of her statement recorded on July 19, 2017 regarding her financial status, in terms of clause 26 of Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs Jaibir Singh & others, FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014, on realization, award amount i.e. ` 26,000/- with entire interest shall be released to her. The above said amount shall automatically be transferred in her account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
27. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format-
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 54 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
IV B is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 08.04.2009
(ii) Name of the injured Ms. Kalpana
(iii) Age of the injured 27 years
(iv) Occupation of the injured NA
(v) Income of the injured NA
(vi) Nature of injured Simple
(vii) Medical treatment taken by Dr. Mukesh, Bulandsahar the injured
(viii) Period of hospitalization NA
(ix) Whether any permanent NA disability? If yes, give details
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (IN `)
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment 3,680/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance 1,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet 1,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant 0
(v) Loss of earning capacity NA
(vi) Loss of income NA
(vii) Any other loss which may require any NA
special treatment or aid to the injured MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 55 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical 20,000 shock & Pain and suffering
(ii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(iv) Disfiguration NA (v) Loss of marriage prospects 0
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, NA hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NA expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity NA in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income-(Income x% NA Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14 Total Compensation (Rounded off) 26,000
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 12,707 (for 5 yrs 5 months & 5 days)
17. Total amount including interest 38,707
18. Award amount release (26,000 + 38,707/-
12,707)
19. Award amount kept in FDRs -
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 56 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
amount to the claimants (Clause 29) para no. 26.
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 16.03.2018 (Clause 31.) In MACT No. 357387/16:
(i) In this case petitioner Situ sustained simple injuries. Though no medical record has been placed on record, but she has placed medical bills of ` 30,000/-, which she spent on her medical treatment. The bills are Ex. PW1/3 & Ex.PW1/4.
During inquiry, no contrary evidence has been adduced which may raise any suspicion over the said bills. Accordingly, a sum of ` 30,000/- is awarded to her towards medical bills.
(b) CONVEYANCE CHARGES:
(i) Admittedly, the accident had taken place within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangirabad, Bulandshahar, U. P whereas the petitioner was residing at Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
Accordingly, it can safely be culled out that she must have spent some amount on shifting from place of accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 1,000/- is awarded to her towards conveyance charges.
(c) SPECIAL DIET: MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 57 of 66
357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(i) Considering the fact that petitioner sustained some injuries, it can safely be culled out that she must have taken some special diet for the purpose of fast recovery. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 1,000/- is awarded to her under this head.
(d) ATTENDANT CHARES: (i) Since petitioner sustained only simple injury,
no attendant charges is awarded to her.
(e) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS:-
Mental and Physical Shock and pain and suffering:-
(i) Admittedly, in the accident, Chitra Pal singh died at the spot and petitioner is his daughter-in-law. Besides that her husband and other relatives also sustained injuries.
Thus, it can safely be culled out that she not only suffered pain and suffering but also suffered acute mental and physical shock after seeing the outcome of accident. Though it is difficult to quantify the loss of pain and suffering & mental and physical shock in monetary terms, yet considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 25,000/- is awarded to her under these two heads MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 58 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
28. As discussed above, the overall compensation is tabulated as under:
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (In ` )
Medical Expenses 30,000
Conveyance charges 1,000
Special Diet 1,000
Attendant Charges 0
Mental & physical shock and pain & 25,000
suffering
Total 57,000
(Rupees Fifty Seven Thousands Only)
(i) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. September 04, 2012 till realization.
29. DISBURSEMENT:-
(i) In view of her statement recorded on July 19, 2017 regarding her financial status, in terms of clause 26 of Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs Jaibir Singh & others, FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014, on realization, award amount, a sum MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 59 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
of ` 7,000/- with entire interest shall be released to her and in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, balance amount of ` 50,000/- shall be kept in the form of FDR for a period of three months in a nationalized bank in her name. The above said amount shall automatically be transferred in her account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
30. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format- IV B is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 08.04.2009
(ii) Name of the injured Mrs. Situ MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 60 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(iii) Age of the injured 30 years (iv) Occupation of the injured House wife (v) Income of the injured NA (vi) Nature of injured Simple (vii) Medical treatment taken by Dr. Mukesh, Bulandsahar the injured (viii) Period of hospitalization NA (ix) Whether any permanent NA
disability? If yes, give details
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (IN `)
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment 30,000/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance 1,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet 1,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant 0
(v) Loss of earning capacity NA
(vi) Loss of income NA
(vii) Any other loss which may require any NA
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical 25,000 shock & Pain and suffering
(ii) Loss of amenities of life NA MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 61 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(iv) Disfiguration NA
(v) Loss of marriage prospects 0
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, NA
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NA expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity NA in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income-(Income x% NA Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14 Total Compensation (Rounded off) 57,000
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 27,857 (for 5 yrs 5 months & 5 days)
17. Total amount including interest 84,857
18. Award amount release (7,000 + 34,857/-
84,857)
19. Award amount kept in FDRs 50,000/ -
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in amount to the claimants (Clause 29) para no. 29.
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 16.03.2018 (Clause 31.)
31. The FDRs in above claim suits shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 62 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Hon`ble High Court in MAC Appeal No. 422/2009, titled Sobat Singh vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta & ors and FAO No. 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi & ors vs. Jaivir Singh & ors decided on December 15, 2017:-
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit account of the victims i.e. saving bank account(s) of the claimants shall be individual saving bank account and shall not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the claimants.
(iii) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System(ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimants near the place of their residence.
(iv) The maturity amount of the FDR be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimants near the place of their residence.
(v) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(vi) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 63 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
However, in case the debit card and/cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimants to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimants shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Tribunal for compliance.
LIABILITY TO PAY:-
32. Since the offending vehicle belonged to respondent no.2 (Fazul Rehman) and it was being driven by respondent No.1 (Mansoor Alam) and same was insured with respondent no.3 (Reliance General Insurance Ltd.), all are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 64 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors. Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
33. Since, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 (Reliance General Insurance Ltd.), respondent No.3 is directed to deposit:
(a) award of ` 29,56,000/- in MACT Suit No. 357314/16;
(b) award of ` 37,000/- in MACT Suit No. 357333/16;
(c) award of ` 20,000/- in MACT Suit No. 357307/16;
(d) award of ` 20,000/- in MACT Suit No. 357309/16;
(e) award of ` 26,000/- in MACT Suit No. 357386/16;
(f) award of ` 57,000/- in MACT Suit No. 357387/16 with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. September 04, 2012 till realization with Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioner failing which the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(i). Insurance company, driver and owner of the offending vehicle 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 to the petitioners/claimants and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days from today.
MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 65 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16 Anita & ors. vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Anita vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Mohit vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Nav Tej vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Kalpna vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
Situ vs. Mansoor Alam & ors.
(ii) A copy of this judgment be sent to Respondent No.3 (Reliance General Insurance Ltd.), for compliance within the time granted.
(iii) Nazir is directed to place a report on record on March 16, 2018 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(iv) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court on December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(v) Original award is signed and placed in MACT Suit No. 357314/16, copy thereof be placed in other matters.
(vi) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on this 9th day of February, 2018 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) PAWAN Digitally signed by Judge, MACT-1 (Central), THC, Delhi/sv PAWAN KUMAR KUMAR JAIN Date: 2018.02.09 JAIN 16:41:50 +0530 MACT No. 357314/16; 357333/16; 357307/16; Page No. 66 of 66 357309/16; 357386/16 & 357387/16