Delhi District Court
Shri Vnod Kumar vs Shri Nooruddin on 7 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________________
In the matters of:
(I) MACT no. 702/2018 (Attached DAR-MACT no.764/2018)
Savita Verma & Ors. v. Nooruddin & Ors.
(II) MACT no.696/2018 (Attached DAR- MACT no.763/2018)
Seema v. Nooruddin & Ors.
(III) MACT no. 747/2018 (Attached DAR-MACT no.760/2018)
Narender Kumar v. Nooruddin & Ors.
(IV) MACT 722/2018 (Attached DAR-MACT no.759/2018)
Vinod Kumar v. Nooruddin & Ors.
(I) MACT no. 702/2018 (Attached DAR-MACT no.764/2018)
(In Re: deceased Satish Kumar)
1). Savita Verma (wife of deceased)
W/o late Sh. Satish Kumar
2). Priyanka (unmarried daughter of deceased)
D/o late Sh. Satish Kumar
3). Megha (unmarried daughter of deceased)
late Sh. Satish Kumar
4). Lakshit (son of deceased)
late Sh. Satish Kumar
5). Akshit (son of deceased)
late Sh. Satish Kumar
6). Bhagwat Prasad (father of deceased)
S/o late Sh. Sohan Lal
All R/o 1/4281, Street no.8, Ram Nagar Extn.,
Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. ..............Petitioners
____________________________________________________________
MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 1 of 57
Versus
1). Nooruddin (Driver)
S/o Sh. Raisuddin
R/o Hamdard Nagar, Aligarh, U.P.
2). Sudhir Awana (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o 8-B, Molarbandh Extn., Badarpur,
New Delhi-110044.
3). Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Branch Office: Flat no.408-412A, 4th Floor,
Plot no.21, Metro Plex East (Old Radhu Cinema),
District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110032. ......Respondents
(II) MACT no.696/2018 (Attached DAR- MACT no.763/2018)
(In Re: deceased Rupendra Kumar)
1). Seema (wife of deceased)
W/o late Sh. Rupendra Kumar
2). Shivani Panwar (daughter of deceased)
D/o late Sh. Rupendra Kumar
3). Mayank Panwar (son of deceased)
S/o late Sh. Rupendra Kumar
4). Jasbiri Devi (mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Jagpal Singh
5). Jagpal Singh (father of deceased)
S/o late Sh. Nar Singh
Petitioner no.2 and 3 being minors, represented through
their mother/ natural guardian petitioner no.1.
All R/o A-1/67/7, Street no.1, near Hari Chand Petrol Pump,
East Gokalpur, Sabhapur, Delhi-110094. .....Petitioners
Versus
1). Nooruddin (Driver)
S/o Sh. Raisuddin
R/o Hamdard Nagar, Aligarh, U.P.
____________________________________________________________
MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 2 of 57
2). Sudhir Awana (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o 8-B, Molarbandh Extn., Badarpur,
New Delhi-110044.
3). Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Branch Office: Flat no.408-412A, 4th Floor,
Plot no.21, Metro Plex East (Old Radhu Cinema),
District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110032. ......Respondents
(III) MACT no. 747/2018 (Attached DAR-MACT no.760/2018)
(In Re: injured Narender Kumar)
Narender Kumar (Injured)
S/o Sh. Ram Khelavan
R/o 3/7, Jwala Ghat-3, Bela Road, Yamuna Bazar,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006. .......Petitioner
Versus
1). Nooruddin (Driver)
S/o Sh. Raisuddin
R/o Hamdard Nagar, Aligarh, U.P.
2). Sudhir Awana (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o 8-B, Molarbandh Extn., Badarpur,
New Delhi-110044.
3). Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Branch Office: Flat no.408-412A, 4th Floor,
Plot no.21, Metro Plex East (Old Radhu Cinema),
District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110032. ......Respondents
(IV) MACT 722/2018 (Attached DAR-MACT no.759/2018)
(In Re: injured Vinod Kumar)
Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Mohan Lal (Injured)
R/o 411, near Ravi Das Mandir,
Nand Nagri, Mandoli, Delhi-110093. ...........Petitioner
Versus
____________________________________________________________
MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 3 of 57
1). Nooruddin (Driver)
S/o Sh. Raisuddin
R/o Hamdard Nagar, Aligarh, U.P.
2). Sudhir Awana (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o 8-B, Molarbandh Extn., Badarpur,
New Delhi-110044.
3). Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Branch Office: Flat no.408-412A, 4th Floor,
Plot no.21, Metro Plex East (Old Radhu Cinema),
District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110032. .......Respondents
Date of Institution of Claim Petitions : 24.11.2018
Date of Institution of concerned DARs : 15.12.2018
Date of Arguments : 31.01.2025
Date of pronouncement : 07.02.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall decide the instant four claim petitions filed separately under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, on behalf of the claimants seeking compensation on account of the death of Satish Kumar (in MACT no.700/2018) and Rupendra Kumar (in MACT no.696/2018) and injuries caused to petitioner Narender Kumar (in MACT no.747/2018) and petitioner Vinod Kumar (in MACT no.722/2018) in the same motor vehicular accident. Subsequently, the DARs (Detailed Accident Reports) were also filed by the Investigating Agency, which were registered separately and were clubbed/ attached with the concerned claim petitions.
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 4 of 57
2. The important facts of the case as per claim petitions/ DARs are that on 22.10.2018 at about 03:00 p.m., a bus bearing registration no. DL1PB-7416 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending bus/vehicle'), being driven by its driver at a high speed and carelessly, came from Anand Vihar side and it hit many vehicles at Red Light Signal, Ramprastha Crossing Bus Stop, Road no.56, Delhi, which were waiting there for the said red light signal to turn green. The offending bus hit the vehicles at Red Light with such a great force that two persons sitting on a motorcycle, namely Satish Kumar and Rupendra Kumar (deceased persons in MACT nos.700/2018 and 696/2018, respectively) died on the spot, and other persons, including petitioners Narender Kumar and Vinod Kumar (petitioners in MACT nos.747/2018 and 722/2018, respectively) got injured. The deceased/ injured were removed to GTB Hospital, Delhi, where their MLCs were prepared and postmortem of both the deceased were conducted.
3. In connection with the accident, FIR no. 534/2018, under sections 279/337/304-A IPC, was registered at PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi. During investigation, it was found out that at the time of the accident, the offending bus was being driven by respondent no.1 Nooruddin, owned by respondent no.2 Sudhir Awana and insured with respondent no.3/ Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for commission of offences under sections 279/337/304-A IPC and 56/192 of Motor Vehicle Act was filed against the respondent no.1 before the court concerned and DARs were filed before this Tribunal.
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 5 of 57
4. In response to DARs/ claim petitions, all the respondents put their appearance and filed identical written statements in all the cases.
5. In joint written statement filed on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2, it is stated that no such accident as alleged took place by the vehicle of answering respondents, who have been falsely implicated in this case. Further, it is stated that the offending bus was insured by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through a valid insurance policy and the driver/ respondent no.1 was having an effective driving license and other required documents. On merits, the allegations in the claim petitions have also been denied.
6. Respondent no.3, the insurance company in its written statement, has inter-alia submitted that the claimants with collusion of police officials filed a false FIR against the driver of the bus no. DL1PB-7416 and have planted the said vehicle to grab the compensation by misusing the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Further, it is stated that the accident, if any, caused due to self- negligence of the deceased/ injured person(s), who were driving their vehicle(s) carelessly and negligently. It is also contended that at the time of the accident, the driver/ respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the alleged offending vehicle and said vehicle was not holding a valid and effective Registration Certificate, Insurance Policy, Fitness Certificate and Route Permit and therefore, the claim petitions are liable to be dismissed against the answering respondents.
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 6 of 57
7. On the basis of pleadings and supporting documents, on 23.01.2020, issues in the matters were framed, as under:
In MACT no. 702/2018 (Savita Verma & Ors. v. Nooruddin & Ors.) (In Re: deceased Satish Kumar)
1) Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.
DL1PB-7416 on 22.10.2018 at about 03:15 p.m., near Ramprastha Crossing, Bus Stand Red Light, Road no. 56, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar, in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh. Satish Kumar? OPP
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
3) Relief.
In MACT no. 696/2018 (Seema & Ors. v. Nooruddin & Ors.) (In Re: deceased Rupendra Kumar)
1) Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no. DL1PB-7416 on 22.10.2018 at about 03:15 p.m., near Ramprastha Crossing, Bus Stand Red Light, Road no. 56, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar, in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh. Rupendra Kumar? OPP
4) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
5) Relief.
In MACT 747/2018 (Narender Kumar v. Nooruddin & Ors.) (In Re: injured Narender Kumar)
1) Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 22.10.2018 at about 03:15 p.m., near Ramprastha Crossing, Bus Stand Red Light, Road no. 56, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL1PB-7416, being driven ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 7 of 57 by respondent no.1/ driver? OPP
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? (OPP)
3) Relief?
In MACT 722/2018 (Vinod Kumar v. Nooruddin & Ors.) (In Re: injured Vinod Kumar)
1) Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 22.10.2018 at about 03:15 p.m., near Ramprastha Crossing, Bus Stand Red Light, Road no. 56, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL1PB-7416, being driven by respondent no.1/ driver? OPP
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? (OPP)
3) Relief?
8. Vide order dated 28.02.2022, for the purpose of inquiry into the matters, all the present cases arising out of the same accident were consolidated with the direction that claim case bearing MACT no. 702/2018 would be considered as the main case and common evidence would be recorded and shall be kept in the main case file.
9. In order to establish their claims, the claimants got examined the following common witnesses in all the cases:
i) PW1 Savita Verma, wife of deceased Satish Kumar (in MACT no.702/2018) deposed on the strength of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A regarding the age, income, occupation of the deceased and the losses suffered as a result of the death of the deceased and relied upon the following documents:
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 8 of 57
(i). DAR/ criminal case record as Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
(ii). Copy of death-certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
(iii). Copy of salary certificate of deceased as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) (objected to mode of proof by learned counsel for the insurance company).
(iv). Copy of Aadhaar Cards of all the petitioners, namely Savita Verma, Priyanka, Megha, Lakshit, Akshit and Bhagwat Prasad and deceased Satish Kumar as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR).
(v). Copy of PAN Cards of all the petitioners and that of the deceased as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
ii) PW2 Narender Kumar, the injured/ petitioner (in MACT no.747/2018) deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW2/A regarding the injuries sustained by him in the accident, expenses incurred on treatment and other losses suffered as a result of the accident. He relied upon the following documents:
(i). DAR as Ex.PW2/1 (colly) (running into 40 pages).
(ii). Original medical documents and bills are Ex.PW2/2 (colly) (running into 4 to 23 pages).
(iii). Copy of Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and Driving License are Ex.PW2/3 (colly).
iii) PW3 Sh. Shankar Kumar, posted as Contact Basis Conductor at Kalkaji Depot, Delhi, produced the service and salary record of deceased Rupendra Kumar (sic Rupesh Kumar), Employee Code 13255/64774 w.e.f. 30.01.2009 to 22.10.2018 as Ex.PW2/A.
iv) PW3 Vinod Kumar (ought to have been examined as PW4), the injured/ petitioner in MACT no.722/2018 deposed on the ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 9 of 57 strength of his affidavit Ex.PW3/A regarding the injuries sustained by him in the accident, expenses incurred on treatment and other losses suffered as a result of the accident. He relied upon the following documents:
a) DAR as Ex.PW3/1 (colly).
b) Original medical documents and medical bills as
Ex.PW3/2 (colly).
c) Copy of Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Driving License and
Registration Certificate as Ex.PW3/3 (colly) (OSR).
d) Salary Certificate as Ex.PW3/4.
v) PW4 Sh. Yogesh Kumar (ought to have been examined as PW5), the Contract Conductor authorized by Manager, Kalkaji Depot, DTC, Delhi, produced his authority letter as Ex.PW4/1 and office Identity Card as Ex.PW4/2 (OSR). He proved the attested photocopies of the service record of employee Satish Kumar (deceased in MACT no.702/18) as Ex.PW4/3 (colly.12 sheets).
vi) PW1 Seema (ought to have been examined as PW6), wife of the deceased Rupendra (though all the cases were consolidated and common evidence was directed to be recorded in the main case only, however, in MACT no.696/2018, this witness was examined separately as PW1) deposed on the strength of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A regarding the age, income, occupation of deceased and about the losses suffered as a result of the death of the deceased and relied upon the following documents:
a) Copy of her Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR). ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 10 of 57
b) Copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner Shivani Panwar as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
c) Copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner Mayank Panwar as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
d) Copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner Jasbiri Devi as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR).
e) Copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner Jagpal Singh as Ex.PW1/5 as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
f) Copy of Aadhaar Card of the deceased as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR).
g) Salary slip of deceased as Ex.PW1/7 (objected to mode of proof by learned counsel for insurance company).
h) Copy of educational documents as Ex.PW1/8 (colly).
i) DAR/ criminal case record as Ex.PW1/9 (colly).
10. On the other hand, respondents got examined the following witnesses:
i) R1W1 Nooruddin, the driver/ respondent no.1 deposed in all the four cases by way of his affidavits Ex.R1W1/A to Ex.R1W1/D, respectively, and relied upon the Bus GPS record as Ex.R1W1/1 (colly.-3 pages) (objected to by counsels for the insurance company and petitioners without supporting 65-B certificate).
ii) R2W1 Sudhir Awana, the respondent no.2/ registered owner of the offending bus deposed in all the four cases by way of his affidavits Ex.R2W1/A to Ex.R2W1/D, respectively, and relied upon the Bus GPS record as Ex.R1W1/1 (already exhibited) and certificate under section 63 BSA 2003 as Ex.R2W1/2.
iii) R3W1 Sh. Rajat Nanda, Support Officer (Legal Claims) of ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 11 of 57 respondent no.3/ Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. by way of his affidavit, Ex.R3W1/1 deposed that the offending vehicle was not having an effective Fitness Certificate and Route Permit at the time of the alleged accident and thereby violated the relevant terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. In support of his deposition, R3W1 relied upon the following documents:
a) Authority Letter as Ex.R3W1/2.
b) Notice under order 12 Rule 8 CPC sent to the driver and
owner of the offending vehicle to produce Fitness Certificate and Route Permit, as R3W1/3.
c) Speed Postal Receipts as Ex.R3W1/4 to Ex.R3W1/6.
d) Insurance Policy as Ex.R3W1/7.
11. The evidence in the matters concluded and thereafter, I heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence and other materials placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 (in all 4 cases):
12. Issue no.1, being interlinked in all the cases, shall be decided here together by my common findings.
13. It is the settled proposition of law that, in an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 12 of 57 tested on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities. A holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
14. With respect to the present accident, FIR no. 534/2018, under sections 279/337/304A IPC, was registered at PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi on the date of the accident itself, i.e. on 22.10.2018 at about 11:00 p.m. on the basis of the statement/ complaint of Prem Kumar, who was one of the injured in the accident. Prem Kumar stated in his statement that for the last 8-10 years, he was doing the work of driving auto-rickshaw. On the date of accident, i.e., 22.10.2018, in his auto-rickshaw bearing registration no. DL1RN-2176, after taking three passengers from Anand Vihar Railway Station, he was going to ISBT, Kashmiri Gate. At about 03:00-03:15 p.m., he reached before the Ramprastha Red Light Crossing, where the red light was on. In front of his auto-rickshaw, there were car, motor-cycle and other vehicles. On his right-hand side, there was one TSR in which one lady passenger was sitting. After some distance ahead of his auto-
rickshaw, there was one U.P. Roadways bus in front of which there were many of the vehicle standing. Then at that time, one bus from ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 13 of 57 Anand Vihar, being driven at a great speed, rashly and negligently, came from behind and the auto-rickshaw and the U.P. Roadways bus, which were at the side of his auto-rickshaw were hit with a forceful impact, due to which the bus and the TSR and the U.P. Roadways bus moved far ahead. The auto-rickshaw of the complainant because of the impact also moved a little bit towards one side. Meanwhile, the driver of the bus, which had caused the accident, alighted from the bus and after seeing the complainant ran away. Because of the impact, the TSR driver and its passenger received injuries and the motorcyclists and other vehicle occupants in between two buses, which were standing in front of the vehicle of the complainant were also hit. In between the two buses, there was one motorcycle on which two people died at the spot itself. The complainant extracted the driver and passenger from the auto-rickshaw at its side and asked for help from unknown auto-rickshaw driver for taking them to the Hospital. The bus which had caused the accident was bearing registration no. DL1PB-7416 on which 'Awana' was written. At the spot of the accident, a lot of crowds collected, police vehicles and ambulances also came on which the auto-rickshaw driver and the lady passenger were taken to GTB Hospital along with the complainant. The complainant, after admitting the injured in the GTB Hospital, came to the Police Station to lodge the complaint regarding the bus bearing registration no. DL1PB-7416, the driver of which because of rash and negligence and high-speed driving caused injury to all people and killed two persons. The complainant also stated that he could recognize the driver of the offending bus.
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 14 of 57
15. In the FIR no. 534/2018, it has been further stated that the Investigating Officer ASI Kadeer Ahmed after the receipt of the DD no. 66-B regarding accident, along with Constable Dharamveer, went at the spot of the accident at Ramprastha Crossing, Road no. 56, Anand Vihar, the way going towards the Seema Puri, Delhi, where bus bearing registration no. DL1PD-2337, orange-coloured cluster bus bearing registration no. DL1PC-0700, roadways bus no. UP14BT- 0287, bus bearing registration no. DL1PB-7416, TSR bearing registration no. DL1RL-0036, and at the TSR bearing registration no. DL1RN-2176, black colour Pulser motorcycle bearing registration no. DL5SBK-4954, Passion motorcycle bearing registration no. DL14SD-3989, car bearing registration no. DL5CJ-6919 in accidental condition were found on the road. The driver of the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL5SDK-4954 and the pillion rider on it were both found badly trapped between buses bearing registration no. DL1PD-2337 and DL1PC-0700 and a lot of blood with pieces of flesh were lying on the spot of the accident and both of them died on the spot. The police staff, CATS ambulance and the PCR van had come. With the help of the public and the police staff, both of the dead persons and their motorcycle were extracted from between the two buses and the bodies of both of them were sent to GTB Hospital. One black colour motorcycle, make- Passion and bearing registration no. DL14SP-3989 was entangled from the conductor side of the bus bearing registration no. DL1 PB-7416. At the spot of the accident, the Crime Team was called, the scene of the accident was inspected and the photographs were clicked. With the ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 15 of 57 help of the public and police staff, from under the bus the passion motorcycle was extracted. On inquiry from the public, it was found that the drivers of the auto-rickshaw, their passengers and many other people were injured, who were taken to the Hospital. The Investigating Officer ASI Kadeer Ahmed left Constable Dharamveer and other police officials at the spot of the accident and proceeded towards GTB Hospital, where he received the MLC of various injured as well as that of the two deceased persons. The MLC bearing no. P-3219/26/18 was that of the Narender son of Ram Khilawan . The MLC bearing no. C-7627/23/18 was that of Vinod son of Mohan Lal.
16. It is further stated in the FIR that all the accidental vehicles except the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL1PB-7416 with the help of the police staff were moved to the Police Station. The offending vehicle could not be moved from the spot because of technical defect/ reasons and for want of large crane. The Investigating Officer came to the Police Station, where he met the complainant/ informant Prem Kumar and recorded his statement on the basis of which, the FIR was lodged.
17. Seizure memos of the vehicles involved in the accident have been placed on record along with the DARs. As per which, the offending bus bearing no. DL1PB-7416, U.P. Roadways Bus bearing no. UP14BT-0287, Cluster bus no. DL1PD-2337 (make- Ashoka Leyland), bus no. DL1PC-0700 (chartered bus), car no. DL5CJ- 6919 (make-Maruti Zen Estilo), TSR no. DL1RL-0036, TSR no.
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 16 of 57 DL1RN-2176, motorcycle no. DL5SBK-4954 (make- Pulsar) and motorcycle no. DL14SB-3989 (make- Passion) were seized from the spot i.e. Ramprastha Crossing in the accidental condition. Further, the record shows that mechanical inspection of these vehicles were conducted and as per mechanical inspection reports, which are part of the DARs, though all these vehicles were found to have suffered accidental damage, The TSR no. DL1RL-0036 was found completely damaged and front body of TSR no. DL1RN-2176 was observed to have been completely pushed to rear side and motorcycle no. DL14SB-3989 was also found not fit to road due to the damages suffered by it.
18. The petitioners, to prove the rashness and negligence of the respondent no.1 in driving the offending vehicle and thereby causing the accident of the injured/ deceased persons, which gave cause of actions to the petitioners for the filing of the present claim petitions, PW1 Savita Verma has been examined. In her examination-in-chief affidavit Ex.PW1/A, PW1 has deposed about the manner in which the accident was caused. However, as in the cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that she was not an eye-witness; therefore, the deposition of facts regarding the accident being hearsay would be of no consequence. From the suggestions given to PW1 by the learned counsel for the insurer, it appears that the insurance company was building up the defence that the accident was caused because of the fact that the injured/ deceased along with their vehicles were in the wrong lane and that the offending vehicle was not involved or caused the accident; rather the offending vehicle was planted. ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 17 of 57
19. The DAR (Detailed Accident Report) filed by the Investigating Officer has been exhibited by PW1, PW2 and PW3. The respondents have not examined the Investigating Officer to impeach or contradict the DAR and/ or any of the documents filed along with the DAR. Inter-alia, the DAR contains the seizure memo of all the accidental vehicles and their mechanical inspection reports, from which it is crystal clear that the offending bus was not planted and could not have been planted because, in the FIR (which is also part of the DAR), there is a recitation of the facts that because of the technical reasons and the lack of big crane, the offending vehicle could not be moved to the Police Station. In the deposition of the respondent no.1 as well as respondent no.2 or that of the witness of the respondent no.3/ insurance company, there is no indication or deposition of fact how, with such mechanical defects as described in the mechanical inspection report of the offending bus, the offending bus came to be found at the spot of the accident. The defence that the offending vehicle was planted is merely a faux pas.
20. If there is any dedicated bus lane or any stretch of road and other vehicles, e.g., cars, scooters light motor vehicles, etc. are driven on the bus lane, in such a situation, no license is given to the driver of the bus to cause the accident or to kill the persons who were driving the other vehicles in the bus lane. There is no presumption of any kind that if any vehicle, which is not authorized to ply in the bus lane, is playing in the bus lane for the said very reason itself (without adding or subtracting any fact), is rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. Moreover, judicial notice of the fact could be taken that the ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 18 of 57 traffic situation in Delhi is so haphazard that, most of the time, because of various reasons, the bus lanes are not available for the buses to ply.
21. PW2 Narender Kumar with respect to the accident which happened on 22.10.2018 has deposed by way of his affidavit Ex.PW2/A that on 22.10.2018, he was going to Dilsahd Garden from Mother Dairy, Pandav Nagar, Delhi via Ramprastha Crossing for dropping a lady passenger by his TSR bearing no. DL1RL-0036 and when he reached near Ramprastha Crossing, he stopped his TSR due to traffic red light. PW2 stated that all of a sudden, the respondent no.1 drove the offending bus bearing no. DL1PB-7416 in rash and negligent manner as well as at a high speed came from the side of Anand Vihar Bus Stand and his TSR and other vehicles from the back side, due to which he and many persons sustained serious injuries. PW2 deposed that his TSR was badly crushed between the offending bus and U.P. Roadways bus, which was standing ahead of his TSR and out of the injured persons, two persons died on spot. PW2 was cross-examined at length by learned counsel for the respondents.
22. In the cross-examination of PW2, there is no denial to the fact that PW2 immediately after the accident, which happened on 22.10.2018 at the Red Light of the Ramprastha Crossing, was taken to GTB Hospital, where his MLC was prepared, wherein he gave the history of road traffic accident having occurred at about 03:30 p.m. at the Red Light of Ramprastha Crossing. There was no delay in taking the PW2 to the GTB Hospital and therefore, it cannot be said that there ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 19 of 57 was any kind of possibility of embellishment in giving the history of accident by PW2 to the examining doctor, who prepared his MLC. The TSR bearing registration no. DL1RL-0036 was seized from the spot of the accident and was mechanically inspected and the seizure memo as well as the mechanical inspection report of the said TSR are part of the DAR. Not only that, even in the FIR, which was registered at 11:00 p.m. on the date of the accident, in the description of the property in the FIR, the said TSR has been mentioned.
23. As per PW2, he was driving the rented auto-rickshaw for the past 10 years. And simply because PW2 did not have a commercial license (which, as such, is not required to drive a light motor vehicle/ TSR), he cannot be doubted that he was not driving the said TSR even if he did not know Balbir Singh, the registered owner of the said TSR. Like 360 degree CCTV cameras, human beings do not observe everything every time. If PW2 was standing on the Red Light at the time of the accident, it is quite obvious that PW2 would see the offending bus after it had hit his TSR from behind. Everybody does not have a photographic memory and the people waiting at the Red Light hardly pay any attention to the other vehicles which are around them; therefore, even if PW2 could or could not correctly depose as to which vehicle was in front, back, right or left side of him is hardly of any consequence.
24. The essential fact is that PW2 was present at the spot of accident in his auto-rickshaw/ TSR at the time of the accident. In the accident, the TSR of PW2 was damaged and he also received injuries.
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 20 of 57 Immediately after the accident, he was taken to GTB Hospital. None of the respondents have been able to impeach the MLC of PW2 in any manner. The quality of the cross-examination of PW2 as done by the learned counsel for the respondents is not of such quality on the basis of which it could be said that any doubt has been created in the mind of the Tribunal to the fact that PW2 is untruthful on any aspect. The cross-examination of PW2 has only touched the peripheral aspects regarding the accident, which was caused on 22.10.2018 as the essential facts as had been stated by him in his examination-in- chief and are part of the DAR remained unshaken. In the cross- examination of PW2, there appears to be a minor contradiction regarding their being no divider on the road but that is of no consequence. The lady passenger who was travelling in the TSR of PW2 was Ms. Poonam, who had also received injuries in the accident. A separate DAR/ claim petition (bearing MACT no.761/2018, titled as 'Poonam v. Noorudeen & Ors.') on behalf of Ms. Poonam is pending, which was initially clubbed with all of the DARs/ claim petitions, but was subsequently separated.
25. PW3 Vinod Kumar is in the same shoes as that of PW2. PW3 is also one of the injured who received injuries in the accident, which happened on 22.10.2018. PW2 at the time of the accident was driving the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL14SP-3989, which is mentioned in the FIR, was seized from the spot of the accident and was mechanically inspected. The cross-examination, as done on behalf of the respondents, has failed to shake or create doubt in the mind of the Tribunal as to the fact that PW3 was not present at the ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 21 of 57 spot at the time of the accident and did not receive the injuries or was not taken to GTB Hospital or that MLC of PW3 was not prepared.
26. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 went to ask a very tricky question in the cross-examination of PW3 conducted on 04.11.2023 that the offending bus had come from the back side from Anand Vihar in a rash and negligent manner, in high speed and forcefully hit and that PW3 in his cross-examination on 15.07.2023 stated that he was standing in a stationary condition on red light and seeing towards the front side, so PW3 could not tell the speed of the offending vehicle, then how he came to know that the offending bus came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. PW3 gave an answer, which was natural in the facts and circumstances of the case that the offending bus had hit PW3 from the backside in a forceful manner while he was standing in a stationary condition on his motorcycle on the red light and then he came to know that the offending vehicle had come from backside in a rash and negligent manner and at a high-speed. Human beings do not have eyes at the back of their head but as a human being is endowed with many sensory abilities to perceive the stimuli. Even a blind person would come to know when he is touched on his cheeks and when he is slapped. In the same manner, if a person is standing on a motorcycle and is hit from the back, such a person would be able to perceive if the vehicle which had hit him from the back was being driven at a high-speed. If a person on red light standing stationary waiting for the red light to turn green is hit from the back, it would be on the other person who had hit, to explain that he was not rash and ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 22 of 57 negligent in driving his vehicle in the light of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW3 which would indicate in any manner that the credit worthiness of PW3 in deposing the facts has been shaken or that PW3 is not telling the truth before this Tribunal.
27. On the other hand, in defence, the respondent no.1 has examined himself as R1W1. In his examination-in-chief/ affidavit of evidence Ex.R1W1/A with respect to the accident, R1W1 has deposed that no such accident took place by the offending vehicle as alleged by the petitioners, and that the respondents have been falsely implicated in the present case. R1W1 has also deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has been falsely implicated in the FIR no.534/18 under sections 279/37/304A, PS Vivek Vihar and that the offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident. As per R1W1, he was driving the offending vehicle at average speed as prescribed under the law as per the GPS record and that on 22.10.2018, initially, one DTC bus bearing registration no. DL1PD-2337 took sudden and instant brake and due to that one motorcycle rider also applied sudden brakes and was crushed between the two buses, i.e. DTC and a chartered private bus bearing registration no. DL1PC-0700 as the said chartered bus could not take sudden brakes and hit the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL5SBK-4954 and thereafter, behind the said chartered bus, there was one U.P. Roadways bus bearing registration no. UP14BT-0287 which also took sudden brakes and hit the third chartered bus from behind. Behind the chartered bus, there was one auto-rickshaw which also took sudden ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 23 of 57 brakes and was rammed at the backside of U.P. Roadways bus bearing registration no. UP14BT-0287 and thereafter, one motorcycle and chartered bus bearing registration no. DL1PB-7416 i.e. the offending vehicle also took certain brakes and the offending vehicle splashed with the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL14SD- 3989, auto-rickshaw and U.P. Roadways bus bearing registration no. UP14BT- 0287. From this deposition/ admission of the respondent no.1, one thing is very clear and stands proved that on 22.10.2018, there had been an accident in which the vehicles, as mentioned in the FIR, were involved and that the veracity of deposition of PW3 and PW4 stands affirmed and corroborated. It may also be observed that the respondents no.1 and 2 could not have taken the defence that the offending vehicle was planted and that no accident in question had taken place involving the offending vehicle.
28. As per the respondent no.1/ driver (R1W1), in the accident so happened on 22.10.2018, he was at no fault, as the accident happened because of the sudden initiating brakes by the cluster DTC bus leading to a chain reaction and ultimately applying brakes by R1W1. R1W1 has further deposed that all the vehicles involved in the accident were in moving condition and the version of the petitioners that the vehicles were standing at Red Light Crossing of Ramprastha is false.
29. R1W1 has further deposed that the deceased/ injureds were moving in a bus lane which was exclusively meant for heavy vehicles, because of which the driver/ owner of the said vehicles and their ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 24 of 57 insurers, all are jointly and severally liable for their own negligence.
30. R1W1 has also relied upon GPS record of the offending bus, which has been exhibited as DW1/1. The deposition of Sudhir Awana, the owner of the offending bus is relevant only so far as it relates to the non-receipt of notice which might have been issued by the insurance company and regarding the GPS record of the bus which has again exhibited as DW2/1 as Sudhir Awana was not an eye-witness to the accident.
31. One of the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 is that, as the injured/ deceased were in the bus lane, they were also liable for the accident and therefore, the proportionate reduction in the compensation amount on the basis of their contributory negligence is required to be made while passing the award. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 has referred to Press Release of Delhi Traffic Police dated 02.06.2015 with respect to the extreme left lane i.e., the bus lane for plying of light four-wheel transport vehicles, such as omni cargo, Mahindra pickup, tourist taxi, motor- cabs, RTV etc. on all roads, having six lanes with or without a provision of central median. The learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CWP no. 13029/85 titled as 'M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others', in which it was directed that the above referred vehicles would be confined in the bus lane and that no other motorized vehicle was to be permitted to enter in the bus lane as a part of the lane driving of Delhi roads by other transport vehicles and ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 25 of 57 that the Delhi Traffic Police under the provisions of Rule 22 of the Rules of the Road Regulations 1989 read with Rule 111 of Delhi MACT Rules 1993. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of 'Darshan Lal v. Sunny & Others'.
32. Assuming that there was the dedicated bus lane on the road where the accident in question happened and that the injured and the deceased along with their vehicles were in the bus lane, that does not lead to any inference that the injured and the deceased were rash or negligent or contributed to the accident in question. As per the case of the petitioner, their vehicles were in the stationary condition, as the red light at the Ramprastha Red Light Crossing was on and the offending bus had knocked the vehicles from behind and the speed of the offending vehicle and impact of the accident by the offending vehicle was such that many vehicles moved quite a distance forward, few of the vehicles were badly damaged and crushed and even the offending vehicle because of the impact of the accident became immobilized. Maximum, if the deceased/ injured along with the vehicles were in the dedicated bus lane, there would be infraction of the Rules, which would be punishable under section 177 of M.V. Act but the explanation has to be given by the respondent no.1 as to how the fact that the injured/ deceased along with the vehicles were in the bus lane contributed to the happening of the accident. Again no explanation from the respondent no.1 and 2 has been put forth as to how the fact that one of the injured, namely Narender Kumar did not have a commercial driving license and badge for driving an auto- ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 26 of 57 rickshaw and that, as per the medical documents filed by him, he was undergoing treatment for chronic substance abuse, i.e., ganja, contributed to the happening of the accident. The Tribunal does not find any force in the submissions/ arguments on the basis of materials which are on the record that the deceased/ injured contributed in any manner to the happening of the accident on 22.10.2018 at Ramprastha Red Light Crossing in any manner. It may also be noted that when respondents no.1 and 2 are putting forth the theory of the deceased/ injured being responsible for the accident in question, it is an indirect admission that respondent no.1 was also responsible for the accident. Thus, it may be clarified here that it was the respondent no.1, who was 100% responsible for the accident and the injured/ deceased had no contributory negligence in the accident.
33. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 that, to falsely implicate the respondent no.1 and 2, the police officials and the petitioners made the incident of Ramprastha Red Light, whereas, as per the statement of one of the witnesses, namely Gautam, whose statement has been recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, Ramprastha Crossing was about half a kilometre far from Ramprastha Red light. The said witness has not been examined before the Tribunal and the opposite side, i.e. the petitioners did not have the opportunity to cross- examine him and therefore, simply because one of the witnesses who was examined by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of the criminal case stated something which is not in consonance with the deposition of other witnesses, who have been examined ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 27 of 57 before this Tribunal, cannot be taken as a gospel truth and on the basis of such a statement, the fate of the claim petition cannot be decided by the Tribunal. It may be reiterated that both the injured i.e. PW2 and PW3 have deposed that they were waiting at the red light of the Ramprastha Crossing and it may be noted that between Sarita Vihar Bus Stand and Ramprastha Red Light Crossing, there was only one red light, which was there on the Road no. 56 and that was Ramprastha Red Light Crossing.
34. Further, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 that the time of the accident was 03:00 p.m. and not 03:15 p.m. and as per the GPS record of the offending bus, the offending bus was in motion and therefore, the accident in question happened in the manner as deposed to by the respondent no.1 in his affidavit Ex.R1W1/A and not in the manner in which witnesses PW2 and PW3 have deposed to. In the normal situation, people do not expect the accident to happen and people do not keep looking at their watches in the expectation that as and when any accident happens they would report the exact time of the accident. The FIR no. 534/2018 was registered at 11:00 p.m. in which the complainant Prem Kumar gave the approximate time of the accident at about 03:00-03:15 p.m. In the FIR itself, the time of the accident has been mentioned to be 03:00 p.m. Just because in the FIR the time of the accident has been mentioned as 03:00 p.m. or that one of the witnesses, namely Gautam, stated that the accident happened at 03:00 p.m. it does not mean that the accident in question happened exactly and 03:00 p.m. It may also be noted that after the accident in ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 28 of 57 question happened the offending bus would have come to a standstill position and the GPS would have recorded the speed of the offending bus as zero at a particular time. However, with malafide intention and knowingly, neither the respondent no.1 nor the respondent no.2 gave the complete GPS record of the offending bus.
35. The GPS record Ex.R1W1/1 has the last entry that of 03:03 p.m. at which time the speed of the offending vehicle was 18 kmph, indicating that by that time the accident in question had not happened.
36. As the respondents did not give the GPS instrument to the Investigating Officer during the investigation of the criminal case, the Investigating Officer has not examined any officials from the GPS installing company to indicate that the data is that of the offending bus and more than that the data of GPS as exhibited by the respondent is not appearing to be complete and, therefore, the submissions that the occurrence of accident being mentioned at 03:00 p.m. in the FIR, which is so stated by one of the witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of the case does not bolster the theory of learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 that the place of accident is prior to the Red Light of Ramprastha.
37. It may also be pointed out that the site plan of the place of accident so prepared by the Investigating Officer, which is part of the DAR, shows the place of accident in between Sarita Vihar bus stop and Ramprastha Red Light Crossing and as the said site plan has not ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 29 of 57 been made on scale, the Tribunal is not inclined to give undeserved preference to the site plan in comparison to the deposition of the witnesses, who have stated that the accident happened before the red light of the Ramprastha Red Light Crossing.
38. There is neither any rule of law nor that of prudence that if in a claim petition filed under section 166 of M.V. Act, no independent eye- witnesses examined to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the case has to be treated as a claim based on no-fault liability. A fact in issue or disputed fact may be proved directly or inferentially/circumstantially.
39. When the injured/ deceased were waiting at the red light and the offending vehicle had hit them from behind, on the basis of the doctrine of res-ipsa-loquitur, if the respondent wants to avoid the liability, then explanation has to be given by the respondents that because of innocuous reasons and not because of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1, the accident in question happened. In the entire record, including that of the deposition of the respondents no.1 and 2, no explanation is coming capable of exonerating the respondent no.1 or indicating that the accident in question happened because of any Act of God or reason beyond the control of the respondent no.1.
40. The fact that PW3 Vinod Kumar at the time of deposition before the Court Commissioner did not know the number of the buses in between them two persons had died and was not able to tell the names of the deceased indicates that PW3 was deposing the facts ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 30 of 57 unvarnished. It may also be noted that the deposition before the Tribunal is not the memory test. The witness is supposed to tell the truth so far as the witness remembers and that depends upon the dexterity of the opposite counsel to demolish the facts/ truth so stated by the witness in the cross-examination. And it may be said that both the injured/ witnesses, i.e. PW2 and PW3 from the cross- examination, have come unscathed to the extent that their testimonies are believable regarding the rashness and negligence of the respondent no.1 in driving the offending bus and the causing of accident.
41. The postmortem report of the deceased Satish Kumar (deceased in MACT no.702/18), which is part of the DAR, clearly shows the alleged history of RTA (Road Traffic Accident) on 22.10.2018 at around 03:00 p.m., near Ramprastha, following which the deceased was brought to GTB Hospital on 22.10.2018 at 03:55 p.m. and after examination, was declared brought dead on 22.10.2018 at 04:05 p.m. vide MLC no. BD-4083/03/18. Multiple antemortem injuries were observed on the dead body of the deceased and the cause of death was opined to be shock as a result of antemortem injury to the head, chest and abdomen produced by blunt force impact.
42. Likewise, the postmortem report of deceased Rupendra Kumar (deceased in MACT no.696/18), makes it clear that he was brought to GTB Hospital on 22.10.2018 at around 04:20 p.m, consequent upon RTA near Ramprastha on 22.10.2018 at around 03:00 p.m, and after examination, was declared brought dead on 22.10.2018 at 04:06 ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 31 of 57 p.m. vide MLC no. BD-4084/03/18. The deceased was observed to have sustained multiple antemortem injuries. The cause of death was opined to be shock as a result of antemortem injury to the head and chest produced by blunt force impact.
43. The MLC of petitioner Narender Kumar (injured in MACT no.747/18) and that of petitioner Vinod Kumar (injured in MACT no. 722/18) also show that they were brought to GTB Hospital with alleged history of RTA and the injuries sustained by them were opined to be simple in nature.
44. In view of discussion herein above, this Tribunal has reached the conclusion that, on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the respondent no.1 Nooruddin, which resulted into fatal injuries to Satish Kumar and Rupendra Kumar and simple injuries to Narender Kumar and Vinod Kumar. Issue no.1 in all the cases is, accordingly, decided in favour of the petitioner(s).
ISSUE NO. 2 (In all the cases)
45. In view of common finding on issue no.1, the petitioners in all the cases are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, enjoins the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 32 of 57 bonanza nor it should be pittances. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss, which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) AC 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION :
46. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be a pittance.
47. In Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the relevant guidelines for compensation were laid down in death cases, which have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
These issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 33 of 57
iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income, a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step-3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
In view of the aforesaid judgment, compensation in both the cases of fatal ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 34 of 57 injuries, has to be ascertained as under:MACT no.702/2018
(Attached DAR-MACT no.764/2018) (Savita Verma & Ors. v. Nooruddin & Ors.) PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Age of deceased
48. The copy of PAN Card of the deceased Satish Kumar, which is part of the documents Ex.PW1/4 (colly), reflect his date of birth as 02.02.1968. Accordingly, on the date of accident (22.10.2018), the age of deceased was 50 years, 08 months and 20 days.
Assessment of Income of deceased
49. PW4 Sh. Yogesh Kumar, the Contract Conductor authorized by Manager, Kalkaji Depot, DTC, Delhi proved the service record of employee Satish Kumar as Ex.PW4/3 (colly), which includes the list of appointees dated 09.12.1998 reflecting the name of deceased Satish Kumar at serial no. 22/242 at point A to A1 at page no.8. Page no.9 is the order dated 28.11.2008, which shows that Satish Kumar was regularized as Conductor with DTC. Page no.10 to 12 reflect the attendance record of the deceased and page no. 3 to 7 show the pay slips of the deceased for the months of May-2018 and July to October-2018. The accident happened on 22.10.2018 and therefore, the pay slip of September 2018 is relevant here to ascertain the income of the deceased at the time of accident/ death. The pay slip of September 2018 shows the gross salary of the deceased as Rs.40,757/-. Since Form-16 to show the income tax deductions have not been placed on record, the net income of deceased has to be ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 35 of 57 taken after deduction of the income tax as per applicable income tax slab of the assessment year 2019-20. Accordingly, the income tax payable on the deceased's annual salary of Rs.4,89,084 (40,757x12), as per income tax slab of the assessment year 2019-20, is computed as under:
Income Slab Income Tax Rates Applicable Income Tax on Annual Income of Rs.4,89,084/-
Upto Rs.2,50,000 Nil Nil Rs.2,50,000 to 5,00,000 5% of total income minus Rs.11,954/-
Rs.2,50,000/- (5% of 4,89,084-2,50,000) Total Income Tax= Rs.11,954/-
After deducting the income tax of Rs.11,954/-, the net annual income of the deceased is computed as Rs.4,77,130/- (4,89,084- 11,954 i.e. gross income minus income tax). Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.4,77,130/-.
Application of Multiplier
50. As determined above, the age of the deceased was 50 years on the date of the accident. In view of the guidelines given in Para 21 of the judgment in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of 13 shall be applicable in case of the deceased herein, who belonged to the age group between 46 to 50 years.
Future Prospects
51. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157)]. Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:-
"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 36 of 57 actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
52. The deceased herein was a regular employee of DTC and therefore, considering him on a permanent job, an addition of 15% to the income of the deceased, aged 50 years, 08 months and 20 days (belonging to the age between 50 to 60 years) has to be considered towards future prospects.
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
53. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under
Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number of dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family members 1/3rd is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family members 1/4th is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family members 1/5th exceeds 6 (six)
54. In the instant claim petition, there are six claimants i.e. wife, two unmarried daughters, two minor sons and father of the deceased, who are stated to be dependent upon the deceased at the time of ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 37 of 57 accident. In view of the above, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.
Loss of Dependency:
55. In view of the settled guidelines as laid down in the various judgments herein above, by adding the future prospects @ 15% to the annual income of the deceased, applying the multiplier of 13 and making deduction of one-fifth, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.53,49,820/- (4,77,130x115/100x3/4x13).
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
56. In the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 31.10.2017, in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years.
57. The accident in this case occurred on 22.10.2018, therefore, a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, petitioner no.1 being the wife of deceased shall be entitled to a spousal consortium, petitioner no.2 to 5 being children shall be entitled to parental consortium and petitioner no.6 being father of the deceased ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 38 of 57 shall be entitled to filial consortium. Hence, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:
S. No. Conventional Head Amount
1. Loss of Consortium :
(a). Spousal Consortium Rs.40,000/- (40,000x1)
(b). Parental Consortium Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000x4)
(c). Filial Consortium Rs.40,000/- (40,000x1)
2. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total = Rs.2,70,000/-
Thus, petitioners shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- under this head.
58. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.56,19,820/-
(53,49,820+2,70,000), rounded off to Rs.56,20,000/-.
MACT no. 698/2018(Attached DAR-MACT no.763/2018) (Seema & Ors. v. Nooruddin & Ors.) PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Age of deceased
59. The High School Examination Certificate of deceased Rupendra Kumar, issued by Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P., copy of which has been proced on record as Ex.PW1/8, shows his date of birth as 15.02.1980. Accordingly, the age of deceased on the date of accident (22.10.2018) comes to 38 years, 08 months and 07 days.
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 39 of 57 Assessment of Income of deceased
60. PW1 Seema has deposed by way of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A that her husband deceased Rupendra Kumar was working as Driver in Delhi Transport Corporation and was earning Rs.45,000/- per month. PW1 placed on record the original pay-slip of the deceased for the month of October-2018 as Ex.PW1/7. Perusal of said original pay slip shows that it was issued by Kalkaji Depot, DTC, bearing name of employee as Rupender Kumar son of Sh. Jag Pal Singh, employee code as 13255/64774, designation 'driver'. In this regard, PW3 Shankar Shankar Kumar, posted as Contact Basis Conductor at Kalkaji Depot, Delhi has produced a letter addressed to this Tribunal bearing no. KI/GO/PBC (DR)/2022/1369, dated 06.05.2022 furnishing complete service and salary record from June 2018 to October 2018 of Rupesh Kumar, E.C. 13255/64744 and proved the same as Ex.PW2/A. The Employee Code 13255/64744 as mentioned in this said record (Ex.PW2/A) is exactly the same as given in the original pay-slip Ex.PW1/7 of the deceased Rupender Kumar. Further, the gross pay of the month of October-2018 as given in the said record (Ex.PW2/A) is also the same as mentioned in the original pay-slip Ex.PW1/7. Hence, there might have been a typographical error in the name in Ex.PW2/A, wherein the name of employee Rupender Kumar appears to have been typed, inadvertently, as Rupesh Kumar. Moreover, considering the fact that PW1 has been cross-examined at length by learned counsel for the respondents but nowhere in the entire cross-examination, the original pay slip in the name of Rupender Kumar, which has been proved by her as ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 40 of 57 Ex.PW1/7, has been disputed. Accordingly, the gross salary of the deceased at the time of accident, as per original pay-slip Ex.PW1/7, is taken as Rs.45,467/- per month. Since Form-16 to show the income tax deductions have not been placed on record, the net income of deceased has to be taken after deduction of the income tax as per applicable income tax slab of the assessment year 2019-20. Accordingly, the income tax payable on deceased's annual income of Rs.5,45,604/- (45,467x12), as per income tax slab of the assessment year 2019-20, is computed as under:
Income Slab Income Tax Rates Applicable Income Tax on Annual Income of Rs.5,45,604/-
Upto Rs.2,50,000/- Nil Nil
Rs.2,50,000 to 5,00,000 5% Rs.12,500/-
Rs.5,00,000 to Rs.12,500+20% of total Rs.9,121/-
Rs.10,00,000 income minus Rs.5,00,000/- (12,500+20% of 45,604)
Total Income Tax= Rs.21,621/-
After deducting the income tax of Rs.21,621/-, the net annual income of the deceased is computed as Rs.5,23,983/- (5,45,604- 21,621 i.e. gross income minus income tax). Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.5,23,983/-.
Application of Multiplier
61. As determined above, the age of the deceased was 38 years at the time of the accident. In view of the guidelines given in Para 21 of the judgment in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of 15 shall be applicable in case of the deceased herein, ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 41 of 57 who belonged to the age group of 36-40 years.
Future Prospects
62. Considering the deceased a permanent employee of DTC, The deceased herein was a regular employee of DTC and therefore, considering him on a permanent job, an addition of 50% to the income of the deceased, aged 38 years (below 40 years of age) has to be considered towards future prospects [refer: National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157)].
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses
63. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v.
Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :
Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number of dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six) There are five claimants in the instant case i.e. wife, two children and parents of the deceased, who are stated to be dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. Accordingly, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 42 of 57 Loss of Dependency
64. In view of the settled guidelines as laid down in the various judgments herein above by adding the future prospects @ 50% to the income of the deceased, applying the multiplier of 15 and making deduction of one-fourth, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.88,42,213/- (5,23,983x150/100x3/4x15).
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
65. In the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 31.10.2017, in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years.
66. The accident in this case occurred on 22.10.2018, therefore, a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, petitioner no.1 being the wife of deceased shall be entitled to a spousal consortium, petitioner no.2 and 3 being children shall be entitled to parental consortium and petitioner no.4 and 5 being parents of the deceased shall be entitled to filial consortium. Hence, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:
S. No. Conventional Head Amount ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 43 of 57
1. Loss of Consortium :
(a). Spousal Consortium Rs.40,000/- (40,000x1)
(b). Parental Consortium Rs.80,000/- (40,000x2)
(c). Filial Consortium Rs.80,000/- (40,000x2)
2. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total = Rs.2,30,000/-
Thus, petitioners shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- under this head.
67. Accordingly, the total compensation in this case comes to Rs.90,72,213/- (88,42,213+2,30,000).
MACT no.747/2018(Attached DAR-MACT no.760/2018) (Narender Kumar v. Nooruddin & Ors.)
68. PW2 Narender Kumar, the injured/ petitioner (in MACT no.747/2018) deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW2/A regarding the injuries sustained by him in the accident, expenses incurred on treatment and other losses suffered as a result of the accident. He relied upon the following documents:
(i). DAR as Ex.PW2/1 (colly) (running into 40 pages).
(ii). Original medical documents and bills are Ex.PW2/2 (colly) (running into 4 to 23 pages).
(iii). Copy of Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and Driving License are Ex.PW2/3 (colly).
69. The petitioner Narender (PW2) has deposed to have incurred a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- approx on his medical treatment and placed on ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 44 of 57 record medical treatment papers and medical bills as Ex.PW2/2 (colly). Perusal of documents Ex.PW2/2 (colly) shows that only the Emergency Registration Card dated 22.10.2018 and Progress Record dated 22.10.2018, issued from GTB Hospital, Delhi along with medical bill of Rs.462/-, dated 25.10.2018 pertaining to the treatment taken by the petitioner as a result of the accident have been placed on record. The other medical documents of Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi, which have been placed on record show that the said treatment papers and medical bills do not belong to the treatment of the petitioner with respect to the injuries sustained in the accident.
70. The MLC and the Emergency Registration Card dated 22.10.2018 of the petitioner, issued from GTB Hospital show that he was observed to have sustained lacerated wound over vertex of 1x0.5 cm size. His treatment record shows that he was discharged on the same day after the treatment given to him in the hospital. His treatment record nowhere indicates that he was advised medical rest by the doctor. Further, the injuries received by him were opined by the doctor to be 'simple' in nature.
71. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- for medical expenses, pain and sufferings, special diet and conveyance, if any.
72. Accordingly, petitioner Narender Kumar in this case is entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 45 of 57 MACT no.722/2018 (Attached DAR-MACT no.759/2018) (Vinod Kumar v. Nooruddin & Ors.)
73. The treatment documents of the injured/ petitioner Vinod Kumar, which have been placed on record are the copy of Emergency Registration Card dated 22.10.2018 and Progress Record dated 22.10.2018, issued from GTB Hospital, Delhi, which reveals that he had sustained an abrasion over lower back. Said documents show that he was discharged on the same day after the treatment given to him in GTB Hospital. The treatment record nowhere indicates that the petitioner was advised medical rest by the doctor. The injury received by the petitioner was opined by the doctor to be 'simple' in nature, as per MLC of the petitioner prepared at GTB Hospital, Delhi. Further, no medical bills have been placed on record to show the expenses, if any, incurred for treatment.
74. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- for medical expenses, pain and sufferings as well as for special diet and conveyance, if any. Accordingly, the petitioner in this case is entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
INTEREST ON AWARD
75. Petitioner(s) in all the cases shall also be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 46 of 57 LIABILITY
76. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. The offending bus was insured at the time of the accident with respondent no.3/ insurance company. Though the insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured, however, in the instant case, learned counsel for the insurance company has prayed for the right to pay and recover the award amount from the respondent no.1 and 2 as the offending bus did not have a valid Fitness Certificate.
77. The relevant part of section 56 of Motor Vehicles Act provides:
56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles.-(1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorized testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder:
xxxxxxxxxx
78. In the light of section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3/ insurance company is that, as the offending vehicle did not have the fitness certificate, the offending vehicle would be deemed to have been not duly registered and that for a valid permit the vehicle has to be duly registered and therefore, if the vehicle does not have a fitness certificate, it would amount to as if such vehicle did not have a valid permit, which would constitute one of the infractions of its terms and conditions/ ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 47 of 57 statutory defence and therefore, the insurance company would have the right to pay and recover the award/compensation amount. To the said argument, the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 has argued that, as the insurance company has not proved that the offending bus did not have a valid fitness certificate, as no authorized person on behalf of the insurance company has been examined to prove the said fact and R3W1 Rajat Nanda has deposed to in violation of Rule 49 of Bar Council of India Rules; therefore his deposition is not admissible. There is no need for the Tribunal to go to the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 on this aspect, as the fact situation is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kaushalpati Pandey Vs. New India Ass. Co. Ltd. & Ors., MANU/DE/3274/2020 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MANU/SCOR/02720/2021.
79. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kaushalpati (supra) judgment has negatived the contention that non-possession of the Fitness Certificate is not a ground of the defence under section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and has upheld the right of the insurance company to pay the compensation amount and recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle.
80. The trial/ inquiry by the Tribunal is conducted to ascertain the facts and for no other esoteric reasons. When in the DAR, the Investigating Officer has specifically mentioned on page no.9 (Backpage) to the column 'section 56/192, 'without fitness' as 'yes' and that to the specific query put by the Tribunal to the learned ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 48 of 57 counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2, whether as on the date of the accident the offending vehicle had Fitness Certificate, to which the reply was that the offending vehicle did not have Fitness Certificate as on the date of the accident. When in defence, respondent no.1 and 2 have been examined and neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 have exhibited the Fitness Certificate prove quite unambiguously that, as on the date of accident the offending bus did not have the valid Fitness Certificate, all arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 that the insurance company/ respondent no.3 has failed to prove that the offending bus did not have the valid Fitness Certificate is of no consequence.
81. In the result of the above discussion, insurance companies would be liable to compensate the petitioner(s) at the first instance and thereafter, would be entitled to recover the paid amount from the respondents no.1 and 2, jointly or severally, in accordance with law.
RELIEF
82. In the light of the decision on substantive issues framed the present claim petitions/ DARs are allowed and the following awards are being passed:
AWARD MACT no. 702/2018 (Attached DAR-MACT no.764/2018) (Savita Verma & Ors. v. Nooruddin & Ors.)
83. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.56,20,000/- (Rs. Fifty Six Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) to the petitioners along with ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 49 of 57 interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.
84. The respondent no.3/ Reliance General Insuranec Company Ltd. is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today and thereafter, the insurance company would be entitled to recover the paid amount jointly or severally from the respondent no.1 and 2, in accordance with law.
Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement
85. All the five petitioners shall be entitled to the award amount of Rs.56,20,000/- along with the interest in the following manner:
S. No Name of the Age Relation with Share in Award Amount Petitioner (Present Age) Deceased 1 Savita Verma 53 years Wife Rs.31,20,000/- along with corresponding interest 2 Priyanka 27 years Daughter Rs.5,00,000/- along with corresponding interest 3 Megha 25 years Daughter Rs.5,00,000/- along with corresponding interest 4 Lakshit 22 years Son Rs.5,00,000/- along with corresponding interest 5 Akshit 21 years Son Rs.5,00,000/- along with corresponding interest 6 Bhagwat Prasad 79 years Father Rs.5,00,000/- along with corresponding interest ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 50 of 57
86. A sum of Rs.6,20,000/- along with corresponding interest shall be released forthwith to the petitioner no.1 Savita Verma and the rest of her share amounting to Rs.25 lakhs along with the interest on that amount shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 120 monthly FDRs of equal amount to be prepared in her name for a period of 1 to 120 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
87. The share of petitioner no.2 to 6, amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- each along with respective interest shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 50 monthly FDRs each of equal amount to be prepared in the name of petitioner no.2 to 6 for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
88. The amount of aforesaid FDRs on maturity would be released in MACT saving bank account of the concerned petitioner(s) without any further order to that effect.
AWARD MACT no. 696/2018 (Attached DAR-MACT no.763/2018) (Seema & Ors. v. Nooruddin & Ors.)
89. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.90,72,213/- (Rs. Ninety ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 51 of 57 Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Two Hundred Thirteen Only) to the petitioners along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.
90. The respondent no.3/ Reliance General Insuranec Company Ltd. is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today and thereafter, the insurance company would be entitled to recover the paid amount jointly or severally from the respondent no.1 and 2, in accordance with law.
Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement
91. It has come in the cross-examination of PW1 Seema (wife of the deceased) that her father-in-law Jagpal Singh was working in DTC now retired. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. DTC & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, that subject to evidence to the contrary, the father of deceased is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant upon the deceased. Hence, petitioner no.5 Jagpal Singh shall be entitled to consortium amount only. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be entitled to the award amount of Rs.90,72,213/- along with the interest in the following manner:
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 52 of 57 S. No Name of the Age Relation with Share in Award Amount Petitioner (Present Age) Deceased 1 Seema 43 years Wife Rs.40,32,213/- along with corresponding interest 2 Shivani Panwar 24 years Daughter Rs.20,00,000/- along with corresponding interest 3 Mayank Panwar 16 years Son Rs.20,00,000/- along with corresponding interest 4 Jasbiri Devi 65 years Mother Rs.10,00,000/- along with corresponding interest 5 Jagpal Singh 67 years Father Rs.40,000/- along with corresponding interest
92. After compliance of the award, a sum of Rs.10,32,213/- only shall be released forthwith to the petitioner no.1 Seema and the rest of her share amounting to Rs.35 lakhs along with the interest on her entire share shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 120 monthly FDRs of equal amount to be prepared in her name for a period of 1 to 120 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
93. The entire share of the petitioner no.2 Shivani Panwar, amounting to Rs.20 lakhs along with interest, shall be kept secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 100 monthly FDRs of equal amount to be prepared in her name, payable to her for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 53 of 57 Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
94. The entire share of minor claimant i.e. petitioner no.3 Mayank Panwar, amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- along with corresponding interest shall be kept secured in the form one FDR of the said amount to be prepared in his name for the period till he attains the age of majority. It is also directed that after attaining the age of majority, the amount of aforesaid FDR shall be converted into Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 100 monthly FDRs of equal amount in the name of petitioner no.3, payable to him in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession.
95. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma is also directed that entire share of the petitioner no.4 Jasbiri Devi, amounting to Rs.10 lakhs along with interest, shall be kept secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 100 monthly FDRs of equal amount to be prepared in her name, payable to her for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
96. The entire share of the petitioner no.5, amounting to Rs.40,000/-
along with the corresponding interest shall be released forthwith to him by way of transferring the said amount into his MACT Saving Bank Account.
____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 54 of 57
97. The amount of aforesaid FDRs on maturity would be released in MACT saving bank account of the concerned petitioner(s) without any further order to that effect.
AWARD MACT no.747/2018 (Attached DAR-MACT no.760/2018) (Narender Kumar v. Nooruddin & Ors.)
98. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) to the petitioner Narender Kumar along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3/ insurance company. The insurance company shall deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.
Disbursement:
99. The Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma shall forthwith release the entire award amount to the petitioner by way of transferring the said amount into his MACT Saving Bank Account.
AWARD MACT no.722/2018 (Attached DAR-MACT no.759/2018) (Vinod Kumar v. Nooruddin & Ors.)
100. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 55 of 57 Thousand Only) to the petitioner Vinod Kumar along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3/ insurance company. The insurance company shall deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.
Disbursement:
101. The Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma shall forthwith release the entire award amount to the petitioner by way of transferring the said amount into his MACT Saving Bank Account.
Direction to Petitioner(s) & his/her/ their Bank(s):
102. The claimant(s) in all the cases are directed to get opened their saving bank accounts near the place of their residence. The Bank of claimant(s) is/ are directed to comply with the following conditions:
i) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e., the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
ii) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the claimant(s).
iii) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
iv) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 56 of 57 Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
v) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
vi) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
vii) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
103. As per 'The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure-XIII), the relevant Forms to be incorporated in the award are enclosed with this judgment as Annexure-A to D.
104. The claim petitions/ DARs are accordingly disposed of. Files be Digitally signed by consigned to Record Room. VIJAY VIJAY KUMAR KUMAR JHA Date: 2025.02.07 JHA 17:23:49 +0530 Announced in the open (VIJAY KUMAR JHA) Court on 07.02.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT-01 (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ____________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. (i) 702/18, (ii) 696/18, (iii) 747/18 & (iv) 722/18 Page 57 of 57