Delhi District Court
Naseeb Singh & Ors. vs . Atul Kumar & Ors. on 27 September, 2017
Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,
JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), DELHI.
Suit No. 322/2012
MACT No. 356452/16
Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000194-2012
1 Mr. Naseeb Singh
S/o Sh. Prem Singh
2 Mrs. Biro
W/o Sh. Naseeb Singh
Both R/o H.No. 160-A,
Nangloi Extension-II-D
Nangloi, Delhi.
........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Mr. Atul Kumar
S/o Mr. Jeet Ram Yadav
R/o Village Gajrolla
District Buland Shahar (UP).
............Respondent No.1
(Driver) MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 1 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
2. Mr. Sandeep, S/o Mr. Ramdhan Singh, R/o Pilani, Tehsil Chirawa District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) Also at:
C/o M/s Ram Dalal Bus Services, Saini Market, Delhi Road, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjhar, Haryana.
............Respondent No.2 (Owner)
3. M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., having its office at:
Branch Office No. 353802, Near Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
............Respondent No.3 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 323/2012 MACT No. 356446/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000192-2012 ........Petitioners VERSUS MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 2 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
1. Mr. Ishwar Singh S/o Mr. Pyare Lal
2. Mrs. Suresh Devi W/o Sh. Ishwar Singh Both R/o H.No. 160, Nangloi Extension-II-D, Nangloi, Delhi.
........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Mr. Atul Kumar S/o Mr. Jeet Ram Yadav R/o Village Gajrolla District Buland Shahar (UP).
............Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. Mr. Sandeep, S/o Mr. Ramdhan Singh, R/o Pilani, Tehsil Chirawa District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) Also at:
C/o M/s Ram Dalal Bus Services, Saini Market, Delhi Road, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjhar, Haryana.
............Respondent No.2 (Owner) MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 3 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
3. M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., having its office at:
Branch Office No. 353802, Near Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
............Respondent No.3
(Insurer)
Date of filing of Claim Petition : 11.09.2012
Arguments heard on : 01.09.2017
Date of passing of Award : 27.09.2017
Present: Mr. B. K. Sharma, Advocate, counsel for petitioners Mr. Sonu Kirar, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2 Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3 A W A R D:
1. The above two claim suits are the subject matter of this award as both the cases arose from the same motor vehicular accident, which took place on July 28, 2012.
Though the accident had not taken place within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, yet the claim suits have been filed before this Tribunal as claimants are residing in Delhi. In both the claim suits, petitioners claimed compensation to the sum of ` 50 lac MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 4 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
each.
2. Both claim suits have been preferred by the petitioners under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short MV Act) in respect of fatal injuries caused to the deceased Virender Singh and Amit in a motor vehicular accident that had taken place on July 28, 2012 within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar Bahadurgarh.
3. Facts in brief as emerged from the claim suits are that on July 28, 2012, deceased Virender and Amit were returning to Delhi from Rohtak on their motor cycle bearing registration No. DL-12S-3916. It was alleged that at about 12:40 PM when they reached near Diamond Factory after crossing Aausoda, offending bus bearing registration No. DL-1PA-5749 came from Bahadurgarh side (wrong side) at very fast speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit their motor cycle from front side. Consequently, both of them fell down and sustained multiple injuries. Both the injured were taken to Rohtak Institute of Medical Science where they succumbed to their injuries. In this regard, an FIR No. 283/12 PS Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar under Section 279/337/304-A IPC was registered.
(i) It was alleged that at the time of accident, the offending bus was being driven by respondent No.1 ( Atul Kumar) and the same belonged to respondent No.2 (Sandeep) whereas same was duly insured with respondent No.3 (The MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 5 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
New India Assurance Company Ltd.).
(ii) It was alleged that deceased Virender Singh was 20 years old at the time of accident and he was unmarried. He was doing private job and earning ` 7,020/- per month.
(iii) It was further alleged that deceased Amit was also 20 years and he was running his own business and earning ` 10,000/- per month.
(iv) Respondent No. 1 & 2 contested the claim suits by filing their joint written statement wherein they alleged that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the deceased. It was further submitted that the bus was duly insured with respondent No.3 and driver was having a valid licence.
(v) Respondent No.3 also contested the claim suits by filing its written statement wherein it was admitted that the offending bus was insured with it. However, it was submitted that insurance company shall be entitled to take all statutory pleas during inquiry.
4. On the basis of pleadings, vide order dated March 12, 2014, following issues were framed:-
In MACT No. 356452/16:
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 6 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Virender Singh had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 28.07.2012 at 12:30 PM within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PA-5749 by respondent No.1 ?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation, if yes, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356446/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Amit had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 28.07.2012 at 12:30 PM within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PA-5749 by respondent No.1 ?
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 7 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation, if yes, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
5. In support of their claim petitions, claimants examined following witnesses:-
In MACT No. 356452/16:
PW1 Mr. Naseeb Singh, father of
deceased
PW2 Mr. Ram Phal, employer of deceased
PW3 Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Ahlmad of
Criminal Court
PW4 Mr. Tasveer Singh, eye witness
In MACT No. 356446/16:
PW1 Mr. Ishwar Singh, father of
deceased
PW2 Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Ahlmad of
Criminal Court
PW3 Mr. Tasveer Singh, eye witness
(i) In both matters, respondent No.2 examined
himself R2W1.
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 8 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
(ii) In both matters, respondent No.3 examined the following witnesses:
In MACT No. 356446/16:
R3W1 Mr. Ashok Gond, Administrative Officer R3W2 Ms Seema, Additional Ahlmad of the Criminal Court In MACT No. 356452/16:
R3W1 Mr. N.K.Saxena, Assistant from insurance company R3W2 Ms Seema, Additional Ahlmad of the Criminal Court
(iii) Vide order dated May 20, 2015, respondent No.1 was proceeded ex-parate.
6. On completion of evidence led by both the parties, on April 7, 2017, statement of Sh. Naseeb Singh and Ishwar Singh (petitioner No.1) was recorded regarding the financial status in terms of clause 26 of Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs Jaibir Singh & others, FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014.
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 9 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
7. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of petitioners and respondent No. 2 & 3, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
8. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue No. 1:
In MACT No. 356452/16:
Whether the deceased Sh. Virender Singh had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 28.07.2012 at 12:30 PM within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PA-5749 by respondent No.1 ?
In MACT No. 356446/16:
Whether the deceased Sh. Amit had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 28.07.2012 at 12:30 PM within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PA-5749 by respondent No.1 ?
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 10 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
FINDING:-
9. Though counsel appearing for respondents did not raise any dispute about the rashness or negligence of respondent No.1, yet I deem it appropriate to deal with the testimony of sole eye witness i.e PW Tasveer Singh. PW Tasveer Singh in his examination-in-chief categorically deposed that he is working as driver in Haryana Roadways and on the day of accident, he was standing outside his bus near Diamond Factory Crossing Aausoda as his bus had broken down. He testified that he saw that the offending bus bearing registration No. DL-1PA-5749 came from Bahadurgarh side from wrong side and it was being driven at fast speed. He further testified that the said bus hit the motor cycle from front side, which was coming at normal speed and was being driven at its correct side. He further deposed that due to collusion, both the riders fell down and sustained injuries. After the accident, driver of the offending bus fled away from the spot with his bus. Though the witness was cross-examined at length, yet nothing could be extracted during his cross- examination, which may help the respondents in any manner. From the testimony of PW Tasveer Singh, it can safely be culled out that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 11 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
10. Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation, if yes, to what amount and from whom?
11. INCOME OF DECEASED VIRENDER SINGH:
(i). PW1 Sh. Naseeb Singh, father of deceased testified that his deceased son Virender was working with M/s R.P. Management Service, Chankyapuri, New Delhi and was drawing salary of ` 7,020/- per month. His salary certificate is exhibited as Ex. PW1/1. He further testified that deceased passed senior secondary school and his educational qualificaion certificates are Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/5.
(ii). PW2 Sh. Ram Phal is the proprietor of M/s R. P. Management Service and he corroborated the testimony of PW1. Though PW2 was cross-examined at length, yet nothing could be extracted during his cross-examination which may cast any dent in the deposition of PW1 and PW2. Accordingly, salary of the deceased Virender is assessed at ` 7,020/- per month. Accordingly, his annual salary is assessed at ` 84,240/-.
INCOME OF DECEASED AMIT:
(i). PW1 Sh. Ishwar Singh, father of deceased MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 12 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
deposed that after completing Senior Secondary School examination, deceased got training from M/s Sarvotech Power System Pvt. Ltd. He further testified that Amit was operating his business from house and was earning ` 10,000/- per month. But he failed to produce any document in this regard. His educational qualification certificates are Ex. PW1/1 & Ex. PW1/2.
(ii). Since no corroborative evidence has been adduced to establish that he was earning ` 10,000/- per month, learned counsel appearing for petitioner fairly conceded that income of deceased shall be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to skilled matriculate workers. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is assessed at ` 8,528/- per month. Accordingly, his annual salary is assessed at ` 1,02,336/-.
12. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:-
(i) It is admitted fact that both the deceased were aged about 20 years and unmarried at the time of accident.
Both the petitions have been filed by their parents. In both the matters, age of father of both deceased was about 50 years old. It means that the father of deceased must be earning and they were not financially dependent on the income of deceased. Since, both deceased were unmarried, 50% of the amount is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses.
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 13 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
13. Selection of multiplier:
(i) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in terms of the judgment Amrit Bhom Shali & ors. vs. National Insurance Company VIII 2012 SLT 2128, multiplier should be selected on the basis of age of the deceased and not on the basis of age of the mother of the deceased.
(ii) Per contra, counsel appearing for insurance company submitted that the selection of multiplier should be as per age of claimants. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment Smt. Lata Devi & anr. vs. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. & ors., MAC. APP.
189/2014 decided by High Court of Delhi on January 15, 2015.
(iii) In case Smt. Lata Devi (supra), Hon`ble High Court discussed all the precedents on the issue raised before the Hon`ble Bench; whether the selection of multiplier should be on the basis of age of deceased or as per the age of claimants. The relevant paras are reproduced as under:-
23. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Claimants that multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased and not as per the age of the Claimants. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Claimants places reliance on Sarla Verma MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 14 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
(Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65; wherein it was held that the multiplier has to be taken as per the age of the deceased.
24. This issue was gone into detail by this Court wherein the history of awarding reasonable compensation was gone into. This Court referred to a three Judge Bench decision in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362; General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176; another three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1, Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shyam Singh & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 65, and in paras 4 to 8 observed as under:-
"4. As far as the selection of multiplier is concerned, the law is settled that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is higher. There is a three Judges Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362, where the Supreme Court relied on G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 and reiterated that the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is more. Para 12 of the report is extracted hereunder:-
"12. For concluding the analysis it is necessary now to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport, v. Susamma Thomas: (1994) 2 SCC 176. In that case MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 15 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
this Court culled out the basic principles governing the assessment of compensation emerging from the legal authorities cited above and reiterated that the multiplier method is the sound method of assessing compensation. The Court observed:
"The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants, whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.
The principle was explained and illustrated by a mathematical example:
"The multiplier represents the number of Years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. Take for instance a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,000. If a sum of Rs.1,00,000 is invested at 10% annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency, perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5% per annum and not 10% then the multiplier needed to capitalise the loss of the annual dependency at Rs.10,000 would be 20. Then the multiplier i.e., the number of Years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 16 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last etc. Usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependents, whichever is higher) goes up."
5. There is another three Judges‟ decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1, where in the case of the death of a bachelor, who was aged only 25 years, the multiplier of 5 was applied according to the age of the mother of the deceased, who was about 65 years at the time of the accident. Para 6 of the report is extracted hereunder:-
"6. Considering the income that was taken, the foundation for working out the compensation cannot be faulted. The monthly contribution was fixed at Rs.3,500/-. In the normal course we would have remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on the materials placed before it. But considering the fact that the matter is pending since long, it would be appropriate to take the multiplier of 5 considering the fact that the mother of the deceased is about 65 years at the time of the accident and age of the father is more than 65 years.Taking into account the monthly contribution at Rs.3,500/- as held by the Tribunal and the High Court, the entitlement of the claim would be Rs.2,10,000/-. The same shall bear interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the application for compensation. Payment already made shall be adjusted from the amount due."
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 17 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant referred to Sarla Verma (supra) in support of the proposition that age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration for selection of the multiplier. As an example the multiplier taken in various cases such as in Susamma Thomas (supra), U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362 as clarified in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and the multiplier as mentioned in Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act were compared and it was held that the multiplier as per Column No.4 in the said table was appropriate for application. Sarla Verma (supra) related to the death of one Rajinder Prakash who had left behind his widow, three minor children apart from his parents and the grandfather. Obviously, the age of the deceased was taken into consideration for the purpose of selection of the multiplier as the deceased left behind a widow younger to him, apart from three minor children. It was not laid down as a proposition of law that irrespective of the age of the claimants, the age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration for selection of the multiplier for calculation of the loss of dependency. It is true that in Mohd. Ameeruddin (supra 2) and P.S. Somanathan (supra 3) and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Azad Singh (supra 5), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court applied the multiplier according to the age of the deceased, yet in view of Trilok Chandra (supra) and Shanti Pathak (supra) decided by the three Judges of the Supreme Court, the judgment in Mohd. Ameeruddin (supra 2), P.S. Somanathan (supra 3) and Azad Singh (supra 5) cannot be taken as a precedent for selection of the multiplier.
7. In the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shyam Singh & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 65, decided on 04.07.2011, the Supreme Court referred to Ramesh Singh & Anr. v. Satbir Singh & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 667 and held that the multiplier as per the age of the deceased or the claimant whichever is higher would be MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 18 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
applicable. Para 9 and 10 of the report are apposite:-
"9. This Court in the case of Ramesh Singh & Anr. v. Satbir Singh & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 667, after referring to the earlier judgments of this Court, in detail, dealt with the law with regard to determination of the multiplier in a similar situation as in the present case. The said findings of this Court are as under:-
"6. We have given anxious consideration to these contentions and are of the opinion that the same are devoid of any merits. Considering the law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, AIR 2005 SC 2157, it is clear that the. Admittedly, the age of the father choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or claimants whichever is higher was 55 years. The question of mother's age never cropped up because that was not the contention raised even before the Trial Court or before us. Taking the age to be 55 years, in our opinion, the courts below have not committed any illegality in applying the multiplier of 8 since the father was running 56th year of his life."
10. In our view, the dictum laid down in Ramesh Singh (supra) is applicable to the present case on all fours.
Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal had rightfully applied the multiplier of 8 by taking the average of the parents of the deceased who were 55 and 56 years."
8. Similarly in Manam Saraswathi Sampoorna Kalavathi & Ors., v. The Manager, APSRTC, Tadepalligudem A.P. & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 785, decided on 26.03.2010, the multiplier of 13 was applied in case of death of a young bachelor where the mother was 47 years of age."
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 19 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
25. There is no manner of doubt that the appropriate multiplier while awarding compensation for death of an unmarried boy, the multiplier will be selected on the basis of age of the mother of the deceased.
26. In the instant case, the Claims Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 14 as the Claimant Lalta Devi (mother of the deceased Aditya) was aged 41 years which is accepted and affirmed.
(emphasis supplied)
(iv) In view of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the considered opinion that in the instant case, the selection of multiplier is liable to be selected as per the age of claimants as their age is higher than the age of deceased. Since in both the matters, there are two claimants i.e father and mother of deceased, accordingly, mother's age is considered to select the multiplier.
(v) In MACT No. 356452/16, as per claim suit, the age of mother of deceased Virender Singh was 46 years at the time of filing of suit, accordingly, in terms of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 13 shall be applicable.
(vi) In MACT No. 356446/16 as per claim suit, the age of mother of deceased Amit was 40 years at the time of filing of suit, accordingly, in terms of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 20 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
121, multiplier of 15 shall be applicable.
14. Loss of income:-
(i) In view of the above, loss of income is calculated as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT IN (`)
VIRENDER AMIT
SINGH
Annual Income of deceased 84,240 1,02,336
Less 50% deduction towards 42,120 51,168
personal and living expenses
Total 42,120 51,168
Selection of multiplier 5,47,560 7,67,520
(42,120 X 13) (511,168 X 15)
Rounded off: 5,48,000/-
Rounded off: 7,68,000/-
15. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-
(i) In view of the law laid down in Rajesh & Ors.
v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, a sum of ` 1 lakh each towards loss of love and affection and ` 25,000/- & ` 10,000/- are awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively.
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 21 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
(ii) Further, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded on the award amount by the Hon`ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). Accordingly, it is held that claimants are also entitled to 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. September 11, 2012 till realization of the amount.
(iii) Accordingly, claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT IN (`)
VIRENDER AMIT
SINGH
Loss of Income 5,48,000/- 7,68,000/-
Loss of love & affection 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses 25,000/- 25,000/-
Loss of Estate 10,000/- 10,000/-
Total 6,83,000/- 9,03,000/-
(Rupees Six Lac Eighty Three Thousands Only) (Rupees Nine Lac Three Thousands Only)
(iv) The claimants shall also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. September 11, 2012 till realization of the amount. Interim award, if any, shall be deducted from the above said amount.
16. Liability to pay:
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 22 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
(i) Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that though the offending bus was being driven by respondent No.1 Atul Kumar, but owner of the offending bus produced the driving licence of one Munish Chand. It was further submitted that though the bus had a valid permit, yet it was only for Rajasthan whereas the accident had taken place in Haryana. Accordingly, it was urged that insurance company is entitled for recovery right.
(ii) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 refuted the said contentions by arguing that Atul and Munish Chand is one and the same person and respondent No.1 was arrested by the police and is also facing criminal trial. It was further submitted that bus was having valid permit at the time of accident.
(iii) In this regard, the testimony of R2W1, R3W1 and R3W2 are relevant.
(iv) R2W1 Sandeep (respondent No.2) testified in his cross-examination that Atul and Munish Chand is one and same person as Atul also known as Munish Chand and he was driving the bus at the time of accident. He further testified that he was having a valid driving licence. R3W1 in his examination-in-chief deposed that as per the chargesheet, the vehicle was being driven by Atul, but the driving licence of Munish Chand was impounded. However, in his cross-
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 23 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
examination, he deposed that he is not aware whether police had impounded the driving licence of Munish Chand. He testified that he deposed so in his examination-in-chief on the basis of report of investigator of insurance company and he has no personal knowledge about the same. He further testified that he did not know from where the investigator obtained the copy of driving licence of Munish Chand. However, he admitted that father's name of Atul and Munish Chand is same i.e. Jeet Ram.
(v) R3W2 testified that as per the challan filed by the police, no driving licence of Atul was seized. He admitted that Atul appeared before the Court and charge was framed against him to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(vi) In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that insurance company failed to establish that Atul and Munish Chand are two different persons. Even insurance company failed to establish that the driving licence of Munish Chand was impounded by the police. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that insurance company failed to establish that respondent No.1 was having no driving licence at the time of accident.
(vii) R2W1 in his examination-in-chief deposed that the bus was having valid permit. However, in his cross- examination, he clarified that valid permit was issued by Transport Authority Sikar, Rajasthan. Perusal of the permit MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 24 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
reveals that the permit was issued for the route Chirava- Basavata via Bamanwas, Kirva, Gharrana, Rampura More, present 21 kilometer Rulal Area Palas Road. Admittedly, the permit was issued by the Transport Authority Sikar, Rajasthan. This establishes that the bus was having permit only for Rajasthan for specific route and not for Haryana where the accident had taken place. It means that the offending bus was being plied in Haryana without valid permit. Accordingly, insurance company is entitled to get recovery right without filing separate civil suit.
(viii) Since the offending bus was being driven by respondent No.1 (Atul) and it belonged to respondent No.2 (Sandeep) and insured with respondent No.3 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.), all are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. However, insurance company shall have a right to recover the amount from respondent No.1 & 2 without filing separate civil suit after satisfying the award.
17. In both the matters, petitioners shall be entitled 50% each of the award amount in their respective case.
18. DISBURSEMENT:-
(i) On realization, ` 1,41,500/- each be released to both the petitioners in MACT No. 356452/16 and the balance amount of their share shall be kept in 20 fixed deposits of equal MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 25 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
amount in their name in a Nationalized bank for a period of 1 month to 20 months.
(ii) On realization, ` 1,51,500/- each be released to both the petitioners in MACT No. 356446/16 and the balance amount of their share shall be kept in 30 fixed deposits of equal amount in their name in a Nationalized bank for a period of 1 month to 30 months.
(iii) The above FDRs shall be subject to the following conditions as enumerated by the High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/03 Rajesh Tyagi & others vs. Jaibir Singh & others decided on February 13, 2017 case:-
(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity of FDR and maturity amount of the FDRs be given to the claimants.
(ii)The maturity amount of the FDR be credited in the saving account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to the claimants in their savings bank accounts without permission of the court.
(iv) No loan, advance or pre-mature withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(v) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposits accounts of the victims.
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 26 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors. Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
(iv). In view of the above, Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
19. RELIEF:
(i) Since, the offending vehicle was duly insured, Respondent no. 3 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) is directed to deposit the award amount of ` 6,83,000/- in MACT No. 356452/16 after adjusting the interim award, if any, already paid, with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. September 11, 2012 till realization and is further directed to deposit the award amount of ` 9,03,000/- in MACT No. 356446/16 after adjusting the interim award, if any, already paid, with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. September 11, 2012 till realization. Insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount with Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners failing which the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days in both the matters.
(ii) Respondent No.1 to 3 are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount with the MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 27 of 28 Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
Tribunal to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today in both the matters.
(iii) A copy of this judgment be sent to Respondent No. 3 for compliance within the time granted.
(iv) Nazir is directed to place a report on record on October 30, 2017 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(v) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the FAO No. 842/03 Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. order dated December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(vi) The original award is signed and placed in the MACT No. 356452/16. Copy of the same be placed in MACT No. 356446/16.
(vii) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on this 27th day of September, 2017 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) Judge, MACT-1 (Central), THC, Delhi/sv MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12) MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 28 of 28