Delhi District Court
Ritu Sharma And Ors vs Shambhu Turi And Ors on 29 October, 2024
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 6841/16
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-010938-2016
Smt. Nisha Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Dharmendra Tripathi,
R/o H.No. D-1/296,
Gali No. 1, Main Road,
Near Yamuna Public School,
3rd Pusta Sonia Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
(Mother of deceased)
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Shambhu Turi,
S/o Sh. Bigan Turi,
R/o Village Bichi Bahiyar,
Taraiya, Belhar,
District Banka,
Bihar.
(Driver of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
2. Sh. Sushil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ganesh Turi,
R/o H.No. 179-B,
Village Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
Also at H.No. 286/71,
Dayanand Nagar,
Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar,
Haryana.
(Owner of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 1 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
At Regional Office - 1,
Legal Department,
F-14 and F-20,
United India Life Building,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi.
(Insurer of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
4. Sh. Deepak Yadav,
S/o Sh. Mera Lal Yadav,
R/o F-1/125, Gali No. 1A,
Band Gali, Mahavir Enclave,
Delhi.
(Owner of Car No. DL8C-AK-1655)
5. Liberty Videcon General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Agarwal Millenium Tower II,
Plot No. E-4, Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, New Delhi.
(Insurer of Car No. DL8C-AK-1655)
........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 6708/16
UID/CNR No.DLNT01-009676-2016
1. Smt. Ritu Sharma,
W/o Late Sh. Nishant Kumar Sharma,
(Widow of deceased)
2. Ms. Bhumi Sharma,
D/o Late Sh. Nishant Kumar Sharma,
(Minor daughter of deceased)
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 2 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
3. Harshit Sharma,
S/o Late Sh. Nishant Kumar Sharma,
(Minor son of deceased)
4. Smt. Veena Sharma,
W/o Sh. Satish Kumar,
(Mother of deceased)
5. Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma,
S/o Sh. Jai Prakash,
(Father of deceased)
All R/o. H.No. B-4,
Lal Bagh, Loni,
Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Shambhu Turi,
S/o Sh. Bigan Turi,
R/o Village Bichi Bahiyar,
Taraiya, Belhar,
District Banka,
Bihar.
(Driver of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
2. Sh. Sushil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ganesh Turi,
R/o H.No. 179-B,
Village Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
Also at H.No. 286/71,
Dayanand Nagar,
Bahadurgarh,
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 3 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
District Jhajjar,
Haryana.
(Owner of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
At Regional Office - 1,
Legal Department,
F-14 and F-20,
United India Life Building,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi.
(Insurer of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
4. Sh. Deepak Yadav,
S/o Sh. Mera Lal Yadav,
R/o F-1/125, Gali No. 1A,
Band Gali, Mahavir Enclave,
Delhi.
(Owner of Car No. DL8C-AK-1655)
5. Liberty Videcon General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Agarwal Millenium Tower II,
Plot No. E-4, Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, New Delhi.
(Insurer of Car No. DL8C-AK-1655)
........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 6750/16
UID/CNR No.DLNT01-010261-2016
1. Smt. Bharti Talwar,
W/o Late Sh. Ansar Ahmad,
(Widow of deceased)
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 4 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
2. Rehan,
S/o Late Sh. Ansar Ahmad,
(Minor son of deceased)
3. Falak,
D/o Late Sh. Ansar Ahmad,
(Minor daughter of deceased)
4. Smt. Noor Jahan,
W/o Sh. Akbaal,
(Mother of deceased)
5. Sh. Akbaal,
S/o Md. Idrish,
(Father of deceased)
All R/o. WZ 287-D,
Tihar Village,
Tilak Nagar,
Delhi.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Shambhu Turi,
S/o Sh. Bigan Turi,
R/o Village Bichi Bahiyar,
Taraiya, Belhar,
District Banka,
Bihar.
(Driver of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
2. Sh. Sushil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ganesh Turi,
R/o H.No. 179-B,
Village Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 5 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
Also at H.No. 286/71,
Dayanand Nagar,
Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar,
Haryana.
(Owner of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
At Regional Office - 1,
Legal Department,
F-14 and F-20,
United India Life Building,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi.
(Insurer of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
4. Sh. Deepak Yadav,
S/o Sh. Mera Lal Yadav,
R/o F-1/125, Gali No. 1A,
Band Gali, Mahavir Enclave,
Delhi.
(Owner of Car No. DL8C-AK-1655)
5. Liberty Videcon General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Agarwal Millenium Tower II,
Plot No. E-4, Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, New Delhi.
(Insurer of Car No. DL8C-AK-1655)
........Respondents
MAC Petition No. 6786/16
UID/CNR No.DLNT01-010441-2016
1. Smt. Neelam,
W/o Sh. Amar Bahadur,
(Mother of deceased)
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 6 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
2. Sh. Amar Bahadur,
S/o Sh. Adya Parshad Singh,
(Father of deceased)
Both R/o. H.No. D-1/296,
Gali No. 1, Main Road,
Near Yamuna Public School,
3rd Pusta, Sonia Vihar,
Karawal Nagar,
Delhi.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Shambhu Turi,
S/o Sh. Bigan Turi,
R/o Village Bichi Bahiyar,
Taraiya, Belhar,
District Banka,
Bihar.
(Driver of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
2. Sh. Sushil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ganesh Turi,
R/o H.No. 179-B,
Village Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
Also at H.No. 286/71,
Dayanand Nagar,
Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar,
Haryana.
(Owner of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
At Regional Office - 1,
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 7 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
Legal Department,
F-14 and F-20,
United India Life Building,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi.
(Insurer of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
4. Sh. Deepak Yadav,
S/o Sh. Mera Lal Yadav,
R/o F-1/125, Gali No. 1A,
Band Gali, Mahavir Enclave,
Delhi.
(Owner of Car No. DL8C-AK-1655)
5. Liberty Videcon General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Agarwal Millenium Tower II,
Plot No. E-4, Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, New Delhi.
(Insurer of Car No. DL8C-AK-1655)
........Respondents
MAC Petition No. 6787/16
UID/CNR No.DLNT01-010442-2016
1. Smt. Gunjan Singh,
W/o Late Sh. Amit Kumar Singh,
(Widow of deceased)
2. Smt. Vimla,
W/o Late Sh. Om Prakash,
(Mother of deceased)
Both R/o. H.No. D-1/296,
Gali No. 1, Main Road,
Near Yamuna Public School,
3rd Pusta, Sonia Vihar,
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 8 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
Karawal Nagar,
Delhi.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Shambhu Turi,
S/o Sh. Bigan Turi,
R/o Village Bichi Bahiyar,
Taraiya, Belhar,
District Banka,
Bihar.
(Driver of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
2. Sh. Sushil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ganesh Turi,
R/o H.No. 179-B,
Village Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
Also at H.No. 286/71,
Dayanand Nagar,
Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar,
Haryana.
(Owner of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
At Regional Office - 1,
Legal Department,
F-14 and F-20,
United India Life Building,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi.
(Insurer of Truck No. HR47B-1269)
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 9 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
4. Sh. Deepak Yadav,
S/o Sh. Mera Lal Yadav,
R/o F-1/125, Gali No. 1A,
Band Gali, Mahavir Enclave,
Delhi.
(Owner of Car No. DL8C-AK-1655)
5. Liberty Videcon General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Agarwal Millenium Tower II,
Plot No. E-4, Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, New Delhi.
(Insurer of Car No. DL8C-AK-1655)
........Respondents
Date of Institution : 27.09.2016(MACP No. 6841/16)
Date of Institution : 23.08.2016(MACP No. 6708/16)
Date of Institution : 06.09.2016(MACP No. 6750/16)
Date of Institution : 15.09.2016(MACP No. 6786/16 & 6787/16)
Date of Arguments : 26.10.2024
Date of Decision : 29.10.2024
APPEARENCES
Sh.Anoop Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for petitioners/Lrs of deceased.
Sh. H.S. Kumar, Ld. Counsel for driver and owner/R1 & R2.
Sh. S.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd/R3.
None for respondent no. 4(defence struck off vide order dated
10.01.2020).
Sh. M. Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for Liberty General Insurance Co.
Ltd/R5.
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 10 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD:-
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of all the five claim
petitions with regard to fatal injuries sustained by Vivekanand @ Vivek
Tiwari(deceased in MACP No. 6841/16), Nishant Kumar Sharma(deceased in
MACP No. 6708/16), Ansar Ahmad (deceased in MACP No. 6750/16),
Vikash Singh (deceased in MACP No. 6786/16) and Amit Kumar Singh
(deceased in MACP No. 6787/16) in a Motor Vehicular Accident which
occurred on 03.06.2016 at about 4:32 am in front of Jain Mandir School,
Budhpur, Delhi, involving Truck bearing registration no. HR47B-1269 being
driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver/respondent no.1 herein
and car bearing registration no. DL8C-AK-1665 being driven in a rash and
negligent manner by its driver.
2. All these claim petitions were consolidated for the purpose of
recording of evidence vide order dated 10.01.2020, passed by my Ld.
Predecessor and MACP No. 6841/16 titled as " Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs.
Shambhu Turi & Ors" was treated as the leading case. Accordingly, the
evidence was led on behalf of both the sides in the leading case for the
purpose of these matters.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. As per all the claim petitions on 03.06.2016, Sh. Vivekanand @ Vivek Tiwari, Vikas Singh, Amit Kumar Singh, Nishant Kumar Sharma, Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 11 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 Ansar Ahmad (all deceased herein) and Deepak, were going towards Singhu Border from Delhi by Ecosport Car bearing registration no. DL8C-AK-1655 which was being driven by Nishant Kumar Sharma at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. At about 4:32 AM, when they reached at upper G.T.K. Road, in front of Jain Mandir, School Budhpur, PS. Sameypur Badli, Delhi, where a truck bearing registration no. HR47B-1269 was lying parked at the wrong side i.e. extreme right side of the road, without any branch of tree or bricks, without any dipper light, parking light or blinking headlight and back light or any other indication or demarcation, without any proper safety of other passersby and rather in violation of the traffic rules, due to which the aforesaid car rammed into the said truck from its back side, as a result of which, all the occupants of the car received fatal injuries and died on the spot except Nishant Kumar Sharma. They were immediately taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where they declared 'brought dead'. Their postmortem were conducted at mortuary of BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. FIR No. 506/16 u/s. 279/304A IPC was registered at PS. S.P. Badli with regard to the said accident. The offending vehicle i.e. truck was owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd./respondent no. 3 during the period in question. The aforesaid car was owned by respondent no. 4 and insured with Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. Ltd.
4. In their identical but separate Written Statements filed in all the five cases, the respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner have Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 12 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 claimed that present claim petitions are based on suppressed statement of facts and does not disclose any cause of action against them and thus, the same are liable to be dismissed. They further claimed that offending truck was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident and thus, insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any to the petitioners. On merits, they simply denied the averments made in claim petitions and prayed for dismissal of all the claim petitions.
5. In its identical but separate Written Statements filed in all the five cases, the respondent no. 3 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited has not raised any statutory defence as provided in Section 149(2) of M.V. Act. It has been claimed that alleged accident took place due to sole rash and negligent driving of car bearing no. DL8C-AK-1655 as the same hit the truck from the back side and thus, there was no negligence on the part of driver of truck. However, it has been admitted that offending vehicle i.e. Truck was insured with it at the time of accident. On merits, it has denied the averments made in the claim petitions and prayed for their dismissal.
6. It is relevant to mention here that vide order dated 23.08.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, prayer of respondent no. 3 to make the owner and insurer of car bearing registration no. DL8C-AK-1665 party in the present matter was allowed. Accordingly, the owner and insurer of aforesaid car were made party in all the claim petitions.
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 13 of 61MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
7. It may be noted here that despite service, Lrs of deceased respondent no. 4 Sh. Deepak Yadav (owner of car no. DL8C-AK-1665) have failed to file their WS and consequently, their defence was struck off vide order dated 10.01.2020.
8. In its identical but separate Written Statements filed in all the five cases, the respondent no. 5 i.e. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited has not raised any statutory defence as provided in Section 149(2) of M.V. Act. It has been claimed that alleged accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 for parking the truck no. HR47B-1269 negligently on the road. It has been further claimed that the aforesaid truck was lying in a stationary condition in the middle of the road without any requisite indication, which resulted into the occurrence of the present accident. It has been also claimed that due to aforesaid reason, respondent no. 1 was chargesheeted in the criminal case as accused. Thus, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners in the present case and insurer of truck is liable to pay compensation, if any to the petitioners. However, it has been admitted that the car bearing registration no. DL8C- AK-1655 was insured with it at the time of accident. On merits, it has denied the averments made in the claim petitions and prayed for their dismissal.
9. From the pleading of the parties, the following consolidated issues were re-framed in all the five cases vide order dated 10.01.2020 :-
1) Whether the accident in question was caused due to negligence on the part of driver of truck for Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 14 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 parking the truck no. HR-47B-1269 negligently on the road?OPR-5
2) Whether the alleged accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car bearing no. DL-8CAK-1655? OPR-3
3) Whether the deceased persons Sh. Vikas Singh, Ansar Ahmad, Sh. Vivekanand @ Vivek Tiwari and Sh. Anil Kumar Singh suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 03.06.2016 at about 4:32 am, at GTK Road, in front of Jain Mandir School, Budhpur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. S.P. Badli due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver Shambhu Turi who was driving the truck bearing registration no. HR47B-1269, owned by Sushil Kumar and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP.
4) Whether the Lrs of deceased/petitioners are entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.
5) Relief.
10. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined ten witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Nisha Devi (mother of deceased Vivekanand @ Vivek), PW2 Smt. Bharti Talwar (widow of deceased Ansar Ahmad), PW3 Smt. Neelam (mother of deceased Vikas Singh), PW4 Smt. Vimla (mother of deceased Amit Kumar Singh), PW5 Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma (father of deceased Nishant Kumar Sharma), PW6 Sh. Johny (Official from Income Tax Department), PW7 Sh. Harsh Vardhan Chauhan (official from bank), PW8 SI Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 15 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 Shiv Ram, PW9 ASI Devender and PW10 Ms. Renu Rani (official from Income Tax Department) and closed their evidence on 02.02.2024. On the other hand, the respondent no. 1 had examined one witness i.e. himself as R1W1. The respondent no. 5 had examined one witness i.e. Sh. Surender Kumar Sharma, Junior Assistant, Licencing Authority, Ghaziabad, UP as R5W1. However, no evidence was adduced by remaining respondents.
11. This Tribunal has carefully perused the claim petition(s) and evidence led by petitioner(s) has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon & proved, considered. Arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner(s) considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable precedents, has been appreciated.
12. It is worth considering that all the victims of the road accident in question and respondent no. 1 & 5 have led consolidated evidence and the issues no. 1 to 3 in each of the five claim petitions involves same material determination as to which of the alleged vehicles i.e. Truck bearing registration no. HR47B-1269 and Car bearing registration no. DL-8CAK-
1655 was being driven rashly and negligently by their respective drivers or there was composite negligence of both the aforesaid vehicles, which caused injuries to the victims of the road accident under consideration. Hence, it shall be trite to avoid unnecessary repetition and give a common finding on issues no.1 to 3 as under:-
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 16 of 61MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 ISSUE NO. 1 to 3 ( IN ALL THE CASES)
13. For the purpose of issues no. 1 to 3, the testimony of PW-8 SI Shiv Ram is relevant being IO in the present case. He deposed in his evidence that on 03.06.2016, he had received DD No.11A from PS Samaipur Badli and thereafter he alongwith Constable Rakesh reached in front of Jain Mandir, upper GTK Road, towards Budhpur, Delhi to Sonepat Road, where he found Ford Ecosport Car bearing registration No. DL8CAK-1655 was lying in an accidental condition. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, night patrolling staff, ERV van, beat staff and senior officers also reached there. He further deposed that he found one car in an accidental condition and the same was badly damaged and six persons had died on the spot. He further deposed that out of six persons, two persons from the front seat were taken out and removed to hospital. The other four persons, who were sitting on the rear seat of said car could not be removed as they were trapped. He further deposed that thereafter, fire brigade was called by them and with the help of fire brigade personnels, the said four trapped persons were removed from the car with the help of cutter. The said persons were removed to hospital. He further deposed that all the occupants of the said car were declared brought dead by the doctor. He further deposed that Crime team was called at the spot which took photographs and inspected the place of accident.
He further deposed that he found two big tyres, out of which one tyre was lying in burst condition. He further deposed that the said tyres appeared to be of truck/dumper, in which one tyre was lying torn and a jack, which is used to Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 17 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 change the tyre of truck was also lying on the spot. He further deposed that besides that, one hammer, one iron rod and a wooden gutka were also found lying at the spot. He further deposed that he also found earthern soil lying at the spot. He deposed that the vehicle appeared to had collided with a truck/dumper or earth moving vehicle, which was filled with soil. He further deposed that to save himself, the driver of the offending vehicle/dumper immediately left the spot alongwith his vehicle. He further deposed that after seeing the accidental spot, he presumed that this accident could have happened with the truck/dumper. Thereafter, he went to hospital and got conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased persons and thereafter, he got the case FIR registered under Section 279/304-A IPC. He further deposed that thereafter, the further investigation was transferred to MACT Cell. During his cross-examination on behalf of respondent no. 3, he deposed that he had received DD No.11A at about 4.23 AM on 03.06.2016 from the Duty Officer of PS Samaipur Badli. He further deposed that he did not find any eyewitness at the spot of accident. He further deposed that he was not the eye witness of the accident. He further deposed that he had not prepared site plan in the matter. He further deposed that he found the Ecosport car standing on the left side of the road in second lane. He further deposed that no other vehicle was found standing there. He further deposed that the entire front portion of Ecosport car was found damaged and the rear portion had no damage. He further deposed that all the six occupants of Ecosport car were not appearing alive.
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 18 of 61MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
14. As already noted above, the respondent no. 1 i.e. driver of offending truck had examined himself as R1W1. He deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R1W1/A that on 03.06.2016 at about 4:32 AM, a car Ecosport No. DL8C-AL-1655(Black Colour) which was being driven by Sh. Nishant Kumar Sharma at a very high speed, rashly and negligently. He further deposed that when the aforesaid car reached at Upper GTK Road, in front of Jain Mandir, School Budhpur, PS. S.P. Badli, Delhi, it hit the truck bearing registration no. HR47B-1269 from the backside, which was lying parked in the extreme left side of the road due to tyre burst/puncture of said truck. He further deposed that he had taken necessary precaution with dipper light, parking light or blinking headlight and back light and other indication, with clear and proper demarcation and with proper safety of other passerby. He further deposed that he and owner of the offending truck were falsely implicated in the present case.
15. During his cross-examination on behalf of petitioners, he deposed that on 03.06.2016, he loaded his truck bearing registration no. HR47V-1269 at Camp, Delhi with soil and was deloading the same at Mittal Farm House, Palla Road, Budhpur, Delhi. He further deposed that at about 3:00 AM on 03.06.2016, when he reached upper G.T.K. Road, in front of Jain Mandir School, Budhpur, within the jurisdiction of PS. S.P. Badli, then the rear tyre of his truck got punctured and he parked his truck on the road to change the punctured tyre. He further deposed that he alongwith his helper Santosh and Pardeep started changing the punctured tyre and it took about 1 Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 19 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 ½ hours to change the said punctured tyre by them. He further deposed that he was in possession of necessary tools i.e. Jack, Stepny, iron rod and wooden block at that time. He admitted that there was no residential area where his truck was parked. He further admitted that there was no street light near the place where he parked his truck. He further deposed that his truck was parked on the third line of the road on the left side. He denied the suggestion that his truck was parked first line of the road near the divider. He further denied the suggestion that he had not placed any branch of tree near the parked truck. He deposed that he did not have any documentary proof like photographs, audio, video that he had put any branch of tree, bricks and stones without any dipper light, parking light or blinking head light and back light or any indication or demarcation, without any proper safety of other passersby. He further deposed that engine of his truck was OFF while he was changing the tyre. He admitted that on 03.06.2016 at about 4:30 AM, a car bearing registration no. DL8C-AL-1655 came from behind his truck and rammed into his truck, as a result of which, all the occupants of car sustained fatal injury. He admitted that during investigation, his truck and relevant documents pertaining to his truck and his driving licence were seized by the IO in the present case. He further admitted that a chargesheet has been filed against him before the court of concerned Ld. MM and he was facing trial in the said case. He admitted that he had not filed any application before any authority regarding his false implication in the present as well as criminal case. He denied the suggestion that the accident in question would not have taken place, if he had not parked his truck at the spot of accident. He Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 20 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 admitted that he had not helped the victims of the accident after the accident as he fled away from the spot. He denied the suggestion that after the accident, he alongwith his truck ran away from the spot or that he was arrested by the police on 06.06.2016. He admitted that he had no previous enmity or grudge with the IO of the case and the petitioners. He denied the suggestion that he had parked the truck at the extreme right side of the road near the divider that is why, the accident in question had taken place.
16. During his cross-examination on behalf of respondent no. 3, he deposed that he had parked his truck on the left side of the road after the tyre got punctured. He further deposed that all the parking lights of his truck were ON at that time. He further deposed that many vehicles had passed from the spot smoothly without causing any traffic at the spot while he was changing the punctured tyre of his truck. He admitted that the aforesaid car was being driven by its driver at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and as such, rammed into his truck from behind.
17. During his cross-examination on behalf of respondent no.5, he admitted that when he came to know during his journey that the tyre of his truck has been punctured, he stopped it at the same place. He volunteered that it was stopped at the left side of the road. He deposed that his truck was loaded with dust. He admitted that since his truck was loaded with dust and it got punctured, it was not in a position to move. He volunteered that it was stopped at the left side of the road. He deposed that the accident had taken Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 21 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 place within 30-45 minutes of stopping his vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he had parked his vehicle on the right side of the road negligently without taking any precaution like putting any indicator etc, which resulted into the accident.
18. The careful perusal of testimonies of aforesaid witnesses i.e. PW8 and R1W1 would go to show that the respondents more particularly respondent no. 3/Oriental Insurance Company has conducted the cross- examination at length. It is relevant to mention here that the respondent no. 3 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd had taken the defence that the accident had taken place due to sole negligence of driver of Ecosport Car bearing registration no. DL8CAK-1655 as he hit the offending truck from behind. During the course of arguments, it is vehemently argued by counsel for respondent no. 3 that all the occupants of the aforesaid car were under the influence of liquor at the time of accident and the driver Sh. Nishant Kumar Sharma of the said car was heavily drunk at the time of accident due to which he was not in his senses and hit his vehicle against the stationary truck which was lying stationary on the road. The said contention of the counsel for respondent no. 3 can be substantiated from the FSL report filed alongwith the DAR by the IO, wherein it is clearly mentioned that driver Sh. Nishant Kumar Sharma had consumed liquor measuring about 198.90 mg/100 ml which was much beyond the permissible limit.
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 22 of 61MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
19. It is an admitted fact that the car of the victims hit the stationary offending truck from behind. It is relevant to mention here that respondent no. 1 had not applied the sudden brakes of his vehicle due to which the accident had taken place. The accident had occurred while the offending truck was standing stationary on the road as the tyre of said already stationed truck got punctured meaning thereby, the speed of the Ecosport car was so high that the driver of the said car lost control over his vehicle when the offending stationary truck came in their way and hit the car against the said truck from behind. Even otherwise, the road where the accident had occurred was not a narrow road rather the same was a highway having two lanes, so it can be safely presumed that there would be sufficient space nearby the stationary offending truck for passing of any vehicle through the said road. In such circumstances when already stationed vehicle did not block the road for the passage of other vehicles, driver of Ecosport car instead of passing the road from the available huge space and rammed against the stationary truck in such a manner that all the occupants died on the spot. Further, it is not the case that visibility was low as it was a month of June and the time was early morning 4:32 AM.
20. Although, the chargesheet in the criminal case was filed against the respondent no. 1 Sh. Shambu Turi but mere filing of chargesheet against the respondent no. 1 does not mean that the accident in question had occurred due to his negligence. It is relevant to mention here that chargesheet was filed filed before the concerned criminal court as per the opinion of IO. However, Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 23 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 during the trial of the present case, it has been proved that the accident had occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving of Ecosport car by its driver under intoxication as he hit the offending truck from the back side.
21. Apart from this, mechanical inspection report dated 04.06.2016 (which is the part of criminal case record) of the offending vehicle would show fresh damages i.e. its rear side body middle/left lower side portion was scratched; its rear side chasis frame was bended; its rear left side tail light was damaged; its rear left side wheel mudguard was bended and damaged from rear side; its rear axle/wheel both side rod spring rear side portion broken and rod spring bracket was damaged and its rear side goods body fixing bracket was damaged. Likewise, copy of mechanical inspection report dated 04.06.2016 (which is also part of criminal case record) of Ecosport Car of victims would show fresh damages i.e., its front side body bumper and chasis frame were damaged; its front side both headlight fender damaged; its grill and bonnet were damaged; its A/c condenser Radiator was damaged; its engine gear box was damaged and dislocated; its engine electric wiring and external parts were damaged; its dashboard meter and electric wiring were damaged; its front side windscreen glass was broken and glass frame/roof was damaged; its right side both door window damaged; its clutch brake pedal bracket and system were damaged; its steering wheel and system damaged; its cabin front side and both side safety bags opened and dislocated. A bare perusal of both these reports clearly shows that the Ecosport Car of the victims hit the offending truck from behind. The damage Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 24 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 caused to the vehicle of victim also speaks volume that the same was being driven by its driver at a very high speed at the time of accident. The nature and manner of damage to the car of victims and the offending truck due to collision clearly points out to rash and negligent manner of driving of Ecospot Car by its driver, thereby causing fatality of the passengers of the car.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have failed to prove even on the principles of preponderence of probabilities that the deceased Vivekanand @ Vivek Tiwari, Nishant Kumar Sharma, Amit Kumar Singh, Ansar Ahmad and Vikas Singh suffered fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 03.06.2016 at about 4:32 am in front of Jain Mandir School, Budhpur, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of the Truck bearing registration no. HR- 47B-1269 by respondent no.1 Sh. Shambu Turi. However, it is held that all the deceased persons had sustained fatal injuries in road accident due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration no. DL8C-AL-1655 by its driver namely Sh. Nishant Kumar Sharma (deceased in MACP No. 6708/16). Since, no negligence of driver of alleged offending truck is proved, thus, the respondent no. 1 to 3 are not liable to pay any compensation in all the cases. Thus, issues no. 1 to 3 are decided accordingly.
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 25 of 61MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 ISSUE NO. 4
23. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" in fatal case has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: -
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, this Court has laid down as under:
"16."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 26 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
24. It has been duly established as per findings of issues no.1 to 3 that deceased Vivekanand @ Vivek Tiwari, Nishant Kumar Sharma, Amit Kumar Singh, Ansar Ahmad and Vikas Singh had sustained fatal injuries, due to rash and negligent driving of deceased Nishant Kumar Sharma. Accordingly, claimant(s) except claimants of deceased Nishant Kumar Sharma are entitled for just and fair compensation in the present case. Accordingly, it is hereby held that Lrs of deceased driver Sh. Nishant Kumar Sharma are not entitled for any compensation in the present matter as the accident in question had occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving of Ecosport Car by its deceased driver Sh. Nishant Kumar Sharma.
25. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon€ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held as under:
"16. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective.Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 27 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation..."
26. These guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been held:-
"10. The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages....."
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 28 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and adequate compensation to the victims of road accident is to be derived after assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter, assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the present case.
Compensation in MACP No. 6841/16 (Deceased Vivekanand @ Vivek Tiwari) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
28. The claimant/petitioner is the mother of deceased Vivekanand @ Vivek Tiwari. PW1 Smt. Nisha Devi (mother of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that deceased was aged about 21 years and was working as driver with Singh Steel and Traders, Delhi and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 15,500/- and other perks at the time of accident. She further deposed that deceased left behind her as the only LR as the father of deceased was predeceased. She further deposed that deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. She further deposed that she was dependent upon the income of deceased at the time of accident. She has relied upon the following documents:-
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 29 of 61MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of death certificate of Ex PW1/1(OSR) deceased
2. Copies of educational Ex. PW1/2(OSR) certificates of deceased Vivekanand @ Vivek Tiwari
3. Copy of DL of deceased Ex. PW1/3(OSR)
4. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/4(OSR) deceased
5. Copy of her PAN Card Ex. PW1/5(OSR)
6. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/6(OSR)
7. Copy of her Election I Card Ex. PW1/7(OSR)
8. DAR Ex. PW1/8(colly)
29. During cross-examination of PW1 (mother of deceased) on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2 on the aspect of dependency, she admitted that she had not placed on record any income and employment record of her deceased son. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not working as a driver with Singh Steel and Traders and was not getting salary of Rs. 15,500/- per month. She further denied the suggestion that she was not financially dependent upon deceased. During cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, she admitted that she was the permanent resident of District Basti, ,UP. She further admitted that deceased got his education from the schools of UP. She also admitted that Ex. PW1/3 was issued from the Licencing Authority, UP and it was issued for the category of private vehicle only. She deposed that she did not have any document pertaining to the employment and salary of deceased with M/s. Singh Steel and Traders. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not the resident of Delhi.
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 30 of 61MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
30. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for petitioners fairly conceded that for want of any cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners regarding monthly income of deceased, his income may be considered as per Minimum Wages Act in order to calculate the loss of dependency. It is contended that the deceased was working for gain at Delhi at the relevant time. He has further prayed that future prospects be also awarded to the petitioners as he had promising future.
31. As already noted above, PW1 Smt. Nisha Devi, who is mother of deceased deposed in her evidence that she has not placed on record any income and employment record of deceased. Hence, it is held that the petitioners have failed to prove that deceased was employed or earning any amount at the time of accident. However, petitioners have filed copies of educational documents (Ex. PW1/2 colly) in proof of educational qualification of deceased. As per the said document, deceased was 12 th class pass at the time of accident. However, for want of cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners with regard to actual monthly income of deceased, his notional monthly income is being taken as equivalent to that of a Matriculate person under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period. The minimum wages of a Matriculate person were Rs. 11,622/- per month as on the date of accident which is 03.06.2016.
32. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Sh. Vivekanand was aged about 21 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have filed copy of 10th class certificate (which is part of Ex.
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 31 of 61MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 PW1/2 colly) of deceased wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 12.04.1995. Also the Aadhaar Card of deceased shows his same date of birth i.e. 12.04.1995. These documents have not been disproved by the respondents. Thus, it stands proved that date of birth of deceased is 12.04.1995 and he was aged about 21 years old at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
33. Considering the age of deceased and the fact that he was not having permanent job at that time, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
34. PW1 has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that she was the only LR of deceased and she was fully dependent upon the income of deceased. It is relevant to note here that deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. Since, the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident, there has to be deduction of one half as held in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 32 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 Rs. 17,57,246.40 paise (Rs. 11,622/- X 1/2 X 140/100 X 12 X 18). Hence, a sum of Rs. 17,57,000/- (rounded off) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioner.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
35. Now considering the prayer of petitioners for grant of compensation on account of "Loss of Love & Affection" the binding legal position has been laid down by the celebrated judgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited V. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 of Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal titled as Pooja's case (supra), has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
36. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners i.e. parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 33 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) towards "loss of consortium".[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 03.06.2016] LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
37. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that the petitioner is also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 03.06.2016] Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 34 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
38. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 17,57,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 48,400/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses Total Rs. 18,41,700/-
Rounded off to Rs. 18,42,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 6750/16 (Deceased Ansar Ahmad) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
39. The claimants/petitioners are the widow, children and parents of deceased Ansar Ahmad. PW2 Smt. Bharti Talwar (widow of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A that deceased was aged about 31 years. She further deposed that deceased was running his business of scrap and was earning Rs. 2,96,783/- per annum as per his ITR for Assessment Year 2016-17. She further deposed that all the petitioners were dependent upon the income of deceased at the time of accident. She has relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of death certificate of Ex PW2/1(OSR)
deceased
2. Copy of driving licence of Ex. PW2/2(OSR)
deceased
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 35 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
3. Copy of PAN Card of deceased Ex. PW2/3(OSR)
4. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW2/4(OSR)
deceased
5. Copy of her PAN Card Ex. PW2/5(OSR)
6. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex. PW2/6(OSR)
7. Copy of School Identity Card Ex. PW2/7(OSR)
of petitioner no. 2
8. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW2/8(OSR)
petitioner no. 2
9. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW2/10(OSR)
petitioner no. 3
10. Copies of Income Tax Return Ex. PW2/12(Colly)
with computation sheet of
Assessment Year 2016-17 of
deceased Ansar Ahmad
40. During cross-examination of PW2 (widow of deceased) on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2, 3 & 5 on the aspect of dependency, she denied the suggestion that deceased was not working. She admitted that she had not filed any documents pertaining to the scrap business of his deceased husband. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not running business of scrap. She admitted that she had filed ITR of deceased for the Assessment Year 2016-17 on 24.06.2016. She further admitted that the verification of ITR has been done by her. She admitted that ITR was filed after the death of deceased i.e. on 30.06.2016. She denied the suggestion that ITR showing income of deceased has been deliberately filed by her to establish a fake income of deceased. She further denied the suggestion that deceased was not earning the amount which was shown in ITR for the Assessment Year 2016-17. She Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 36 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 deposed that deceased was doing the business for the last three years prior to his death. She further deposed that she was not aware about the address of the premises from where deceased ws doing his business. She deposed that she did not have any document pertaining to business of deceased. She admitted that all the documents pertaining to identity of herself and her children as well as their education were from the State of UP. She denied the suggestion that her parents in law were not dependent upon deceased. She further deposed that she had not re-married.
41. In order to prove the earnings of the deceased, the petitioners have examined PW6 Sh. Johny from the office of Income Tax Department who produced the certified copy of ITR for the Assessment Year 2016-17 in respect of Sh. Ansar Ahmad and exhibited the same as Ex. PW6/2(colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge in respect of ITR filed by Sh. Ansar Ahmad. He volunteered that he had deposed only on the basis of official record. During his cross-examination on behalf of respondent no. 3/Oriental Insurance company, he deposed that the ITR in question has been filed on 24.06.2016. He further deposed that the ITR had been verified by Smt. Bharti. During his cross-examination on behalf of respondent no. 5/Liberty General Insurance Co, he admitted that the return had been filed in the personal name of Sh. Ansar Ahmad. He further admitted that Ex. PW6/2(colly) was the computerized record of the return. He further deposed that the printout of the record was taken out by Sh. Arun Kumar, ITO and the Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 37 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 same was handed over to him for filing the same in the court record. He deposed that he had not brought the certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He admitted that the aforesaid Sh. Arun Kumar, ITO was still posted in the office. He denied the suggestion that the record brought by him were not correct, reflecting the income of assessee Sh. Ansar Ahmad.
42. After referring to the testimonies of PW2 & PW6 and the documents filed by the said witnesses, Ld. counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that annual income of deceased should be taken as per his ITR of the relevant year. He, therefore, urged that appropriate amount of compensation may be awarded on the basis of said ITR. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that the petitioners have failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the actual income of deceased at the time of accident and thus, income of deceased may be taken as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period.
43. The perusal of ITR (Ex. PW2/12) as available on record, would show that same was filed by the petitioners with Income Tax Department on 21.06.2016 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The date of accident is 03.06.2016. Thus, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners had filed the aforesaid ITR after the date of accident. It is pertinent to mention here that during cross-examination of PW2 (widow of deceased), she admitted that ITR of deceased has been filed on behalf of deceased after his death. She deposed that deceased was doing the business for last three years. She further deposed that she was not aware about the address of the premises from where Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 38 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 the deceased was doing his business. It may be noted here that even during cross-examination of PW6 i.e. official from income tax department, he admitted that the ITR had been filed in the personal name of Sh. Ansar Ahmad. In view of the aforesaid and the fact that the only ITR of deceased had been filed after his death, I find substance in the argument raised on behalf of insurance company that said ITR can not be considered to assess the income of deceased under this head. It is nowhere the case of petitioners that deceased had filed any other ITR for any other previous assessment year with IT Department. Thus, for want of any cogent evidence with regard to monthly income of deceased, his income has to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period in the State of UP. The petitioners have failed to file any educational qualification document of deceased. In these circumstances, the minimum wages of an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of UP, during the period in question, has to be taken into consideration. The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs. 7,107.64 per month as on the date of accident which is 03.06.2016.
44. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Sh. Ansar Ahmad was aged about 31 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have filed copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW2/4) of deceased wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 14.02.1988. As per said document, the age of petitioner would come out about 28 years. However, the petitioners themselves claimed that the age of deceased was 31 years as on the date of Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 39 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 accident. It is not out of place to mention here that petitioners have also relied upon driving licence and PAN card of deceased wherein year of birth of deceased is mentioned as 1985. Thus, considering the year of birth of deceased as 1985, his age would come out 31 years as on the date of accident. The said age of 31 years has not been disproved by the respondents. Accordingly, the age of deceased is taken as 31 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 16 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
45. Considering the age of deceased and the fact that he was not having permanent job at that time, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
46. PW1 has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that all the petitioners were financially dependent upon the income of deceased. It is stated that the deceased was survived by five dependents i.e. widow, two children and parents of deceased. No evidence to the contrary has been adduced by respondents. In view of aforesaid discussions it is held that the deceased was survived by five dependents and Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 40 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 hence one fourth is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs.83,47,603/- rounded off Rs.14,32,900.22p (Rs. 7,107.64 X 3/4 X 140/100 X 12 X 16). Hence, a sum of Rs. 14,33,000/-(rounded off) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
47. Now considering the prayer of petitioners for grant of compensation on account of "Loss of Love & Affection" the binding legal position has been laid down by the celebrated judgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited V. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 of Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal titled as Pooja's case (supra), has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
48. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 41 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 petitioners i.e. parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, all the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) towards "loss of consortium".[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 03.06.2016] LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
49. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that all the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 42 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 03.06.2016]
50. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 14,33,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,42,000/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses Total Rs. 14,69,300/-
Rounded off to Rs. 14,69,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 6786/16 (Deceased Vikas @ Vikash Singh ) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
51. The claimants/petitioners are the parents of deceased Vikas @ Vikash Singh. PW3 Smt. Neelam (mother of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/A that deceased was aged about 26 years and he was working as Wireman with A to Z Electricals & Engineers, MSEB Passing H.T & L.T. Installation Works, Transformer& Industrial Wiring Swami Industrial Centre, I/A Gauraipada, Near Telephone Exchange, Delhi and was earning Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month. She further deposed that both the petitioners were financially dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. She further deposed that deceased was Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 43 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 unmarried at the time of accident. She has relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of death certificate of Ex PW3/1(OSR)
deceased
2. Copies of educational Ex. PW3/2(OSR)
certificates with identity card
of deceased Vikas Singh
3. Copy of Experience Certificate Ex. PW3/3(OSR)
of deceased
4. Copy of passport of deceased Ex. PW3/4(OSR)
5. Copy of her PAN Card Ex. PW3/5(OSR)
6. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex. PW3/6(OSR)
7. Copy of her Election I Card Ex. PW3/7(OSR)
8. Copy of PAN Card of Ex. PW3/8(OSR)
petitioner no. 2
9. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW3/9(OSR)
petitioner no. 2
52. During cross-examination of PW3 (mother of deceased) on behalf of respondent no. 3 on the aspect of dependency, she admitted that she had not filed any document to show that deceased was working as a Wireman with A to Z Electricals and Engineers in Delhi. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not working with the aforesaid firm as Wireman. She deposed that she had not filed any document to prove that deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month. She admitted that she herself and her husband were the permanent resident of UP. She admitted that she had not Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 44 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 filed any document to show that deceased was working in Delhi. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not working in Delhi. During her cross- examination on behalf of respondent no. 5, she admitted that the entire documents pertaining to education and licence of deceased had been issued from UP and Maharashtra. She denied the suggestion that the Experience Certification Ex. PW3/3 was a false and fabricated document. She further denied the suggestion that petitioners were not financially dependent upon the deceased.
53. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for petitioners fairly conceded that for want of any cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners regarding monthly income of deceased, his income may be considered as per Minimum Wages Act in order to calculate the loss of dependency. It is contended that the deceased was working for gain at Delhi at the relevant time. He has further prayed that future prospects be also awarded to the petitioners as he had promising future. On the other hand, Ld. Counsels for respondents argued that deceased was not working in Delhi at the time of accident.
54. As already noted above, PW1 Smt. Neelam, who is mother of deceased deposed in her evidence that she has not placed on record any income and employment record of deceased. Hence, it is held that the petitioners have failed to prove that deceased was employed or earning any amount at the time of accident. However, petitioners have filed copies of educational documents (Ex. PW3/2 colly) in proof of educational Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 45 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 qualification of deceased. As per the Provisional National Trade Certificate (which is part of Ex. PW3/2 colly), deceased had completed the training programme in Electrician Trade. In view of the said document, it can be safely presume that deceased Vikas Singh was qualified Electrician at the time of accident. Even otherwise, the petitioners have also filed 12 th class marksheet of deceased. However, for want of cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners with regard to actual monthly income of deceased, his notional monthly income is being taken as equivalent to that of a skilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of UP during the relevant period as the petitioners have failed to file any document of deceased showing that he was working in Delhi at the time of accident. In the absence of any such document, I am inclined to take the minimum wages of a Skilled worker under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of UP during the relevant period for the assessment of income of deceased at the time of accident. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 8,757.85 per month in the State of UP as on the date of accident which is 03.06.2016.
55. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Sh. Vikas @ Vikash Singh was aged about 26 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have filed copy of 10th class marksheet (which is part of Ex. PW3/2 colly) of deceased wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 15.07.1990. Also the copy of Passport of deceased shows his same date of birth i.e. 15.07.1990. These documents have not been disproved by the respondents. Thus, it stands proved that date of birth of deceased is Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 46 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 15.07.1990 and he was aged about 26 years old at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
56. Considering the age of deceased and the fact that he was not having permanent job at that time, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
57. PW3 has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A) that both the petitioners were fully dependent upon the income of deceased at the time of accident. It is relevant to note here that deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. Since, the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident, there has to be deduction of one half as held in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 12,50,620.98 paise (Rs. 8,757.85 X 1/2 X 140/100 X 12 X 17). Hence, a sum of Rs. 12,51,000/- (rounded off) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioner.
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 47 of 61MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
58. Now considering the prayer of petitioners for grant of compensation on account of "Loss of Love & Affection" the binding legal position has been laid down by the celebrated judgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited V. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 of Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal titled as Pooja's case (supra), has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
59. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners i.e. parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 48 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, both the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) towards "loss of consortium".[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 03.06.2016] LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
60. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 03.06.2016]
61. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 49 of 61MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 12,51,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 96,800/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses Total Rs. 13,84,100/-
Rounded off to Rs. 13,84,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 6787/16 (Deceased Amit Kumar Singh ) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
62. The claimants/petitioners are the widow and mother of deceased Amit Kumar Singh. PW4 Smt. Vimla (mother of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW4/A that deceased was aged about 27 years. She further deposed that deceased was businessman and running his business under the name and style " Singh Steel and Traders", C2/135, Gali No. 1, Som Bazar Pusta, Sonia Vihar and was earning Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- per month. She further deposed that both the petitioners were financially dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. She has relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of PAN Card of Singh Ex PW4/1(OSR)
Steel and Traders
2. Copies of educational Ex. PW4/2(OSR)
certificates of deceased Amit
Kumar Singh
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 50 of 61
MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
3. Copy of driving licence of Ex. PW4/3(OSR)
deceased
4. Copy of PAN Card of deceased Ex. PW4/4(OSR)
5. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW4/5(OSR)
deceased
6. Copy of Election I Card of Ex. PW4/6(OSR)
deceased
7. Copy of PAN Card of Ex. PW4/7(OSR)
petitioner no. 1 Gunjan Singh
8. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW4/8(OSR)
petitioner no. 1 Gunjan Singh
9. Copy of her PAN Card Ex. PW4/9(OSR)
10. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex. PW4/10(OSR)
11. Copy of her Election I Card Ex. PW4/11(OSR)
63. During cross-examination of PW4 (mother of deceased) on behalf of respondent no. 3 on the aspect of dependency, she admitted that she had not filed any document to show that deceased was a businessman and running his business under the name and style of Singh Steel and Traders. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not a businessman and running his business under the name and style Singh Steel and Traders. She deposed that she had not filed any document to prove that deceased was working and earning Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- per month. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not earning Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- per month. She admitted that she had not filed any document with regard to ITR of deceased. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not an income tax assessee. She admitted that all the educational qualification record of deceased had been Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 51 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 issued from UP. She admitted that she was the permanent resident of UP. She denied the suggestion that all the petitioners were not financially dependent upon the income of deceased. During her cross-examination on behalf of respondent no. 5, she denied the suggestion that deceaed and his wife never resided with her after marriage. She further denied the suggestion that wife of deceased had remarried.
64. In order to prove the earnings of the deceased, the petitioners have examined PW7 Sh. Harsh Vardhan, Probationary Officer, Canara Bank who produced the certified copies of statement of account in respect of S/B A/c No. 3222101001026 in respect of Sh. Amit Kumar Singh and exhibited the same as Ex. PW7/2(colly) and statement of account in respect of RD A/c No. 3222186000494 in the name of Sh. Amit Kumar Singh and exhibited the same as Ex. PW7/3(colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge in respect of the aforesaid statement of account and he had merely brought the record from the bank.
65. After referring to the testimonies of PW4 & PW7 and the documents filed by the said witnesses, Ld. counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that monthly income of deceased should be taken as Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 90,000/-. He, therefore, urged that appropriate amount of compensation may be awarded on the basis of said income. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that the petitioners have failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the actual income of deceased at the time Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 52 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 of accident and thus, income of deceased may be taken as per Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of UP during the relevant period.
66. As already noted above, PW1 Smt. Vimla, who is mother of deceased deposed in her evidence that she has not placed on record any document to show that deceased was a businessman and was running his business under the name and style of Singh Steel and Traders. She further admitted that she had not filed any document to show that deceased was earning Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- per month. Hence, it is held that the petitioners have failed to prove that deceased was employed or earning any amount at the time of accident. However, petitioners have filed copies of educational documents (Ex. PW4/2 colly) in proof of educational qualification of deceased. As per the educational qualification documents of deceased, he was graduate at the time of accident. However, for want of cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners with regard to actual monthly income of deceased, his notional monthly income is being taken as equivalent to that of a graduate person under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Delhi during the relevant period as the petitioners have filed copy of Aadhaar Card of deceased in proof of residence of deceased in Delhi. The minimum wages of a graduate person were Rs. 12,662/- per month in the State of Delhi as on the date of accident which is 03.06.2016.
67. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Sh. Amit Kumar Singh was aged about 27 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have filed copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW4/5) of deceased Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 53 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 09.06.1989. This document has not been disproved by the respondents. Thus, it stands proved that date of birth of deceased is 09.06.1989 and he was aged about 27 years old at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
68. Considering the age of deceased and the fact that he was not having permanent job at that time, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
69. PW4 has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW4/A) that both the petitioners were fully dependent upon the income of deceased at the time of accident. It is stated that the deceased was survived by two dependents i.e. widow and mother of deceased. No evidence to the contrary has been adduced by respondents. In view of aforesaid discussions it is held that the deceased was survived by two dependents and hence one third is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs.83,47,603/- rounded off Rs. 24,10,844.80p (Rs. 12,662/- X 2/3 X 140/100 Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 54 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 X 12 X 17). Hence, a sum of Rs. 24,11,000/-(rounded off) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
70. Now considering the prayer of petitioners for grant of compensation on account of "Loss of Love & Affection" the binding legal position has been laid down by the celebrated judgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited V. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 of Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal titled as Pooja's case (supra), has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
71. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners i.e. parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 55 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, both the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) towards "loss of consortium".[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 03.06.2016] LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
72. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 03.06.2016] Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 56 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024
73. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 24,11,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 96,800/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses Total Rs. 25,44,100/-
Rounded off to Rs. 25,44,000/-
74. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. As already discussed above while deciding the issues no. 1 to 3 that accident in question had occurred due to sole negligence of deceased Sh. Nishant Kumar Sharma as he was driving the Ecosport Car bearing registration no. DL8C-AL-1655 under the influence of liquor and hit the alleged offending vehicle from its back. The said fact is duly substantiated by the FSL report filed alongwith the DAR. As per the FSL report, deceased driver of victim's vehicle was under
the influence of alcohol measuring 198.90mg/100ml which was much beyond the permissible limit i.e. 30mg/100ml.
75. In judgment passed in case tilted The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvinder Kaur Chawla & Anr, MAC App. 224/14, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 57 of 61MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 "Once a finding had been returned to the effect that the driver (third respondent) was under the influence of alcohol while driving the vehicle, such fact no only constituting a penal offence under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, the insurer should have been allowed to recover the amount paid as compensation to the claimants (third party) from the insured/the owner of the vehicle and the driver".
76. Coming back to the facts of the present case. Needless to mention here that the driver of victim's vehicle would not have struck the alleged offending vehicle from behind had he been in his driving senses. Since, Sh. Nishant Kumar Sharma, driver of victim's vehicle was heavily drunk, as such, he lost control over his vehicle which resulted into the accident in question. Therefore, the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in The New India Assurance Company Ltd.(supra) shall be applicable to the facts of the present case. To my mind, grant of recovery right to the concerned insurance company in such a situation, would reduce unhealthy practice on the part of driver and registered owner of motor vehicles either themselves to drive those vehicles under the influence of alcohol or allowing others to do so and still being go scot free and without being saddled with any liability whatsoever under the law. Same would also be termed as violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of insured. In view the existence of valid insurance policy of Ecosport Car bearing registration no. DL8C-AL-1655, respondent no. 5/insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Thus, Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 58 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 respondent no. 5/Liberty General Insurance Limited is entitled to recovery rights against the Lrs of deceased driver Sh. Nishant Kumar Sharma and Lrs of deceased registered owner/respondent no. 4 jointly and severally in the present case. It is ordered accordingly. Issue no. 4 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 5 RELIEF
77. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 to 4, following order is passed after relying upon judgment "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors. MAC APP. No. 36/2023 on 21.04.2023, on the point of interest.
a) A sum of Rs. 18,42,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs and Forty Two Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 6841/16 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 27.09.2016 till the date of its realization.
b) A sum of Rs. 14,69,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs and Sixty Nine Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 6750/16 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 06.09.2016 till the date of its realization.
c) A sum of Rs. 13,84,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Eighty Four Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 6786/16 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 59 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 15.09.2016 till the date of its realization.
d) A sum of Rs. 25,44,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs and Forty Four Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 6787/16 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 15.09.2016 till the date of its realization.
Issue no. 5 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
78. Statements of petitioner(s) in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP in MACP No. 6708/16 were recorded on 16.03.2024. It is pertinent to mention here that except the aforesaid case, statements in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP of any of the petitioners were not recorded in any of the remaining four cases. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that apportionment in all the four cases shall be done only after recording of statements of petitioners in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP. As far as the claim petition bearing MACP No. 6708/16 is concerned, the entitlement for the compensation of petitioners has already been declined while deciding the issues no. 1 to 4.
79. Respondent no. 5/Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. Ltd., being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 60 of 61 MACP Nos. 6841/16, 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16 ; FIR No. 506/16;PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 29.10.2024 with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. However, the concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioners without direction of this Court. He is further directed to keep the aforesaid amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this award be given dasti to claimants. Copy of this award be also given dasti to counsel for insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of both the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form XV & XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be placed on the judicial record of MAC Petition Nos. 6708/16, 6750/16, 6786/16 & 6787/16.
Digitally signed by RICHA MANCHANDARICHA MANCHANDA Date:
Announced in the open 2024.10.29
15:50:21
Court on 29.10.2024 +0545
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Nisha Devi & Ors., Ritu Sharma, Bharti Talwar & Ors., Gunjan Singh, Neelam Vs. Shambu Turi & Ors. Page 61 of 61