Delhi District Court
Sushila Devi & Ors. Vs. Ved Parkash & ... vs . Ved Parkash & Ors. ; Bhom Singh & Ors. on 7 October, 2017
Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs.
Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai
Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash &
ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash &
ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved
Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,
JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), DELHI.
Suit No. 212/12
MACT No. 356285/16
Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000073-2012
1. Smt. Sushila Devi
W/o Late Sh. Shamsher
2. Ms. Sunita Devi
W/o Late Sh. Kuldeep Singh
3. Master Sagar
S/o Late Sh. Kuldeep Singh
4. Baby Himanshi
D/o Late Sh. Kuldeep Singh
All R/o Village and P.O. Baghanki,
PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16
356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.1 of99
356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16
Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs.
Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai
Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash &
ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash &
ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved
Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash
S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh
R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola,
District Gurgaon, Haryana
Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers,
Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06
..............Respondent No.1
(Owner)
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 213/12 MACT No. 356353/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000115-2012 MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.2 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
1. Sh. Lal Chand S/o Sh. Jeet Ram
2. Smt. Sona Devi W/o Sh. Lal Chand Both R/o Village and P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner)
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.3 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
AND Suit No. 214/12 MACT No. 356367/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000128-2012
1. Sh. Bhom Singh S/o Sh. Chander Singh
2. Smt. Santosh Devi W/o Sh. Bhom Singh Both R/o Village and P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.4 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner)
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 215/12 MACT No. 356368/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000129-2012
1. Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Gohar Singh
2. Smt. Sheela Devi W/o Sh. Om Prakash
3. Smt. Sapna W/o Late Sh. Kapil Yadav MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.5 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
4. Master Nitin S/o Late Sh. Kapil Yadav All R/o Village and P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner)
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.6 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
AND Suit No. 216/12 MACT No. 356369/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000130-2012
1. Smt. Sumitra Devi (since deceased) W/o Late Sh. Braham Prakash Through legal heir Vinod Kumar s/o Late Sh. Braham Parkash R/o Village & P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner) MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.7 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 217/12 MACT No. 356370/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000131-2012
1. Smt. Kamlesh Devi W/o Late Sh. Jai Pal Singh R/o Village & P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioner VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.8 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner)
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 220/12 MACT No. 356371/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000132-2012
1. Sh. Som Dutt S/o Sh. Samai Singh
2. Smt. Babli W/o Sh. Som Dutt MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.9 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
Both R/o Village and P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner)
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.10 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
AND Suit No. 219/12 MACT No. 356410/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000151-2012
1. Sh. Udai Veer S/o Sh. Samay Singh
2. Smt. Santra W/o Sh. Udai Veer
3. Smt. Sanju Devi W/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar
4. Km Jaya Kumari D/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar All R/o Village and P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.11 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner)
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 218/12 MACT No. 356425/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000161-2012 MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.12 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
1. Smt. Sumitra W/o Sh. Mahender R/o Village & P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner)
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) AND MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.13 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
Suit No. 222/12 MACT No. 356426/16Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000167-2012
1. Sh. Lal Chand S/o Sh. Jeet Ram
2. Smt. Sona Devi W/o Sh. Lal Chand Both R/o Village and P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner) MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.14 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 221/12 MACT No. 356427/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000168-2012
1. Sh. Bhom Singh S/o Sh. Bahadur Singh
2. Smt. Kamlesh W/o Sh. Bhom Singh Both R/o Village and P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.15 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner)
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer)
2. Smt. Rajini W/o Late Sh. Subhash R/o Village Sadhvar Tehsil & District Bagpat U.P. ..............Respondent No.3 AND Suit No. 223/12 MACT No. 356430/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000170-2012 MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.16 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
1. Sh. Ajit S/o Sh. Raghu Nath
2. Smt. Mukesh W/o Sh. Ajit Both R/o Village and P.O. Jatusana District Rewari, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner)
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.17 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
AND Suit No. 224/12 MACT No. 356564/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000285-2012
1. Sh. Braham Prakash S/o Sh. Jamna
2. Smt. Kamla W/o Sh. Braham Prakash
3. Smt. Kavita W/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar
4. Kumari Priyanka D/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar
5. Master Babin S/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar All R/o Village and P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.18 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner)
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 225/12 MACT No. 356670/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000388-2012 MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.19 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
1. Sh. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Sher Singh
2. Smt. Banarsi W/o Sh. Ved Prakash
3. Smt. Leela Wati W/o Late Sh. Manoj All R/o Village and P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner) MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.20 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 226/12 MACT No. 356671/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000389-2012
1. Sh. Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Sher Singh
2. Smt. Rajwati W/o Sh. Sishwar Singh Both R/o Village and P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.21 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner)
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2 (Insurer) AND Suit No. 227/12 MACT No. 356781/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000463-2012 MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.22 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
1. Smt. Vidya Devi W/o Late Sh. Balwant
2. Ms. Indu Devi W/o Late Sh. Satish
3. Kumari Riddhima D/o Late Sh. Satish All R/o Village and P.O. Baghanki, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H. No. 10, Village Nakhrola, District Gurgaon, Haryana Also at:-
Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Shop No. 16, Khanna Market, Delhi-06 ..............Respondent No.1 (Owner) MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.23 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite SBI, New Delhi.
..............Respondent No.2
(Insurer)
Date of filing of Claim Petitions : 02.06.2012
Arguments heard on : 24.07.2017
Date of passing of Award : 07.10.2017
Present: Sh. V.N.Jha & Sh. Krishan Mohan, Advocates, counsel for petitioners Respondent no. 1 is exparte vide order dated 26.07.2014.
Sh. S. P. Jain, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2 A W A R D:
1. The above said sixteen claim suits are the subject matter of this award as all the claim suits have arisen from the same motor vehicular accident. All the claim suits have been filed under Section 166 read with 140 of Motor Vehicles Act (in short M.V Act).
(i) Though the accident had taken place beyond MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.24 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, yet the claim suits have been filed before this Tribunal as respondent No.1 is working for gain within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal whereas respondent No. 2 has its office in Delhi.
(ii) It is also pertinent to state that prior to filing the present claim suits, petitioners had filed another claim suits, but the same were withdrawn due to technical reason with liberty to file fresh claim suits, accordingly, same were dismissed as withdrawn on March 22, 2012. Thereafter, present claim suits were filed on June 2, 2012.
(iii) Though in the above said unfortunate accident as many as 24 persons lost their lives, yet only 16 claim suits have been filed before this Tribunal. Legal representatives of four deceased persons filed their claim suits in Gurugram, Haryana.
2. Facts in brief as emerged from the claim suits are that on July 31, 2010 deceased persons, who were within the age of 18 to 25 years loaded their respective goods in the offending Truck bearing registration No. HR-55E- 2307 to be transported to Gangotri, Uttrakhand from their village Baghanki, Manesar, District Gurugram, Haryana. The goods included bags of flour, rice, soozi, vegetable, utensils etc. for MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.25 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
the purpose of holding 'langar' jointly by all the deceased persons for the pilgrims, who visit Holy Gangotri to distribute ambrosia among the pilgrims. The truck was hired by them and their co-villagers. It was alleged that they boarded the truck being the owners of the goods.
(i) It was alleged that the truck was being driven by the driver, Dharambir Singh, at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner. It was alleged that on August 1, 2010 at about 5:00 AM when truck reached near Durga Mandir, Dabrani Uttrakashi, Uttrakhand, driver lost control over the said truck, consequently, truck alongwith the goods fell into a ditch, resulting all the occupants of the truck including driver sustained fatal injuries.
(ii) As per the copies of criminal proceedings conducted after the accident, the information was sent to ITBP and Police Line and bodies were retrieved after cutting the body of truck with gas cutter. Some of the bodies had been charred as the motorcyle, which was also loaded in the truck, caught fired when the truck fell into the ditch.
(iii) The detail of deceased and the amount claimed in the aforesaid claim suits are as under:-
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.26 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
MACT Name of Deceased Age of Amount
Number the of
deceased claim
persons (in `)
356285/16 Kuldeep s/o Shamsher 24 years 50 Lac
356353/16 Kuldeep s/o Lal Chand 24 years 50 Lac
356367/16 Varun Kumar s/o Bhom Singh 18 years 50 Lac
356368/16 Kapil Yadav s/o Om Parkash 22 years 50 Lac
356369/16 Gajender s/o Late Sh. Braham Prakash 18 years 50 Lac
3563370/16 Jitender s/o Late Sh. Jai Pal Singh 19 years 50 Lac
356425/16 Harish Kumar s/o Late Sh. Mahender 22 years 50 Lac
356410/16 Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Udai Veer 24 years 50 Lac
356371/16 Ram Prakash s/o Sh. Som Dutt 25 years 50 Lac
356427/16 Subhash s/o Sh. Bhoom Singh 21 years 50 Lac
356426/16 Madan Kumar s/o Sh. Lal Chand 22 years 50 Lac
356430/16 Sachin s/o Sh. Ajit 18 years 50 Lac
356564/16 Anil Kumar s/o Braham Prakash 24 years 50 Lac
356670/16 Manoj s/o Ved Prakash 21 years 50 Lac
356671/16 Sunil Kumar s/o Ishwar Singh 20 years 50 Lac
356781/16 Satish s/o Late Sh. Balwant 21 years 50 Lac
3. All the claim suits were contested by both the respondents by filing their written statement. Respondent no.1 took the plea that the truck was duly insured with the respondent No.2. Though it was admitted that the deceased were travelling in the said truck, yet took the plea that he has MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.27 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
been falsely implicated in the FIR in collusion with the police. It was alleged that the claim amount is quite excessive and exorbitant.
(i) Respondent No.2 took the plea that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the owner and driver of the offending truck violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the provisions of Section 147 and 149 of M.V. Act. It was further stated that the insurance company shall not be liable to pay any compensation in case it is found that the driver of the offending truck was not holding valid and effective driving licence or truck was not having valid permit. It was further submitted that the deceased were travelling in the truck gratuitously, thus not covered within the terms and conditions of the policy. It was alleged that the insurance company had not charged any premium to take any liability of the deceased and there was clear breach of the terms of Section 147 & 149 (2) of M.V. Act. However, it was fairly admitted that the offending truck was insured with the respondent No. 2. It was stated that the claim amount is exorbitant and excessive.
4. Vide order dated October 6, 2012 following issues were framed in the above said claim suits:
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.28 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
In MACT No. 356285/16:-
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Kuldeep Singh s/o Shamsher had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh. Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356353/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Kuldeep s/o Sh. Lal Chand had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh. Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.29 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356367/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Varun Kumar had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh. Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356368/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Kapil Yadav had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh. Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.30 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356369/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Gagender had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh. Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356370/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Jitender had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at
05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh. Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.31 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356425/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Harish Kumar had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh. Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356410/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Udai Vir had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh. Ved Prakash?
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.32 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356371/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Ram Parkash had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driv-
ing by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh. Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356427/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Subhash had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.33 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh.
Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356426/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Madan Kumar had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh.
Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356430/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Sachin had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh.
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.34 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356564/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Anil Kumar s/o Braham Parkash had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh. Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356670/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Manoj had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh.
Ved Prakash?
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.35 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356671/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Sunil Kumar had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh.
Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT No. 356781/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Satish Kumar had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 01.08.2010 at 05.00 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Maneri, Uttarakashi, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving by Driver Dharambir Singh (now deceased) of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-55-E-2307 owned by respondent No.1 Sh.
Ved Prakash?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.36 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
5. In support of their claim suits, claimants examined the following witnesses:
MACT No. 356285/16:
PW1 Smt. Sunita Devi
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356353/16:
PW1 Sh. Lal Chand
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356367/16:
PW1 Sh. Bhom Singh
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356368/16:
PW1 Sh. Om Parkash
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.37 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356369/16:
PW1 Sh. Vinod Kumar
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356370/16:
PW1 Smt. Kamlesh Devi
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356425/16:
PW1 Smt. Sumitra
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356410/16:
PW1 Sh. Udey Vir
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356371/16:
PW1 Sh. Som Dutt
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.38 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
MACT No. 356427/16:
PW1 Sh. Bhom Singh
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356426/16:
PW1 Sh. Lal Chand
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356430/16:
PW1 Sh. Ajit
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356564/16:
PW1 Smt. Kamla Devi
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356670/16:
PW1 Sh. Ved Parkash
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.39 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
MACT No. 356671/16:
PW1 Sh. Ishwar Singh
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
MACT No. 356781/16:
PW1 Smt. Vidya Devi
PW2 Sh. Lalan Jha, eye witness
(i) In all the above claim suits, respondent No.2
examined following witnesses:
R2W1 Sh. Rohit Singh, Legal Consultant
R2W2 Sh. Parmod Kumar Sah, Legal
Manager
(ii) Vide order dated July 26, 2014 respondent
No.1 was proceeded ex-parate.
(iii) On completion of evidence led by both the
parties, statement of petitioners were recorded regarding their financial status in terms of clause 26 of Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs Jaibir Singh & others, FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.40 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
2014.
6. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of petitioners and respondent No.2, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
7. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue No. 1 : In all the matters.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that no reliance can be placed on the deposition of PW2 Lalan Jha as he is a planted witness. Per contra, counsel appearing for the petitioners refuted the said contention by arguing that PW2 had witnessed the incident and due to that reason, he narrated the incident minutely.
9. Before dealing with their contention, I deem it appropriate to refer some of the pronouncements of the Apex Court, various High Courts on the point of standard of proof that is required to prove negligence at the time deciding just compensation, same are reproduced as under:-
In Bimla Devi and Ors. V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. (2009) 13 SC 530, it was held that in a petition u/s 166 of the MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.41 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Claim Tribunal has to decide the negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sakshi Bhutani & ors, MAC APP. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal (Delhi High Court), it was observed that it has to be borne in mind that the Motor Vehicles Act does not envisage holding a trial for a petition preferred under Section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal is enjoined to hold an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal.
Further in State of Mysore Vs. S.S. Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and are not bound by strict rules of evidence. The relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder:
".......that tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and that therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can unlike courts, obtain all information for the points under the enquiry from all sources, and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.42 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
circumstance of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts."
Reference may also be made to observations in Ranu Bala Paul & Others vs. Bani Chakraborty 1999 ACJ 634 Gauhati wherein the claim was allowed after consideration of FIR before the Tribunal.
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary enquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society.
In N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Marumai Ammal, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC), the Supreme Court pointed out that the Accidents Claims Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and persons liable do not escape liability merely because of some MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.43 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
doubt here and some obscurity there.
The court should not succumb to
niceties, technicalities and mystic
maybes. The court is bound to take broad
view of the whole matter."
(emphasis supplied)
10. In the light of the aforesaid case law, the testimony of PW2 shall be analyzed to ascertain whether his testimony is sufficient to establish rash or negligence on the part of driver of the offending truck.
11. PW2 in his examination-in-chief deposed that on August 1, 2010 at about 5 AM, he was present near Durga Mandir. He saw that the offending truck was coming at high speed and he also gave signal to the driver that there was a sharp turn ahead, but he ignored. Consequently, the truck fell down in the ditch. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the accident had taken place in mountain region. He admitted that in mountains signage boards are displayed on every turn. He further deposed that since it was a dark, he could not see how many persons were travelling in the said truck as he had seen the truck just one second prior to the accident and he cannot tell whether any other vehicle was going ahead to the said truck. He admitted that at the time of accident, many trucks used to ply on the said road carrying Kawariyas. He further deposed that since those days were of carrying kawars, MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.44 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
it was routine that kawariyas were used to go upward in numbers.
(i) From the testimony of PW2, it can safely be culled out that the accident had taken place in the mountain region and it is common fact that at every turn particularly where there is a sharp turn, signage board is displayed prior to the turn to inform driver of vehicles not to drive their vehicles at fast speed. But despite that the truck fell into the ditch. This shows that driver of the truck was not vigilant while driving the truck in mountains region. Moreover, except the reasons deposed by PW2, respondents failed to furnish any other reasonable cause of falling the truck into the ditch. In the absence of any other evidence, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the deposition of PW2.
(ii) Considering the fact that the standard of proof requires in claim matters is much less than that is required in civil matters, I am of the considered opinion that deposition of PW2 is sufficient to hold that the unfortunate accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending truck, accordingly issue No.1 is decided in favour of petitioners/claimants and against the respondents.
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.45 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
12. Issue No.2:
INCOME OF DECEASED PERSONS:
MACT No. 356285/16:
(i). PW1 Smt. Sunita Devi wife of the deceased deposed that deceased Kuldeep s/o Shamsher was earning ` 15,000/- per month from his job and ` 5,000/- from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 20,000/- per month. However, in her cross-examination, she admitted that she has no document to establish that her husband was earning ` 15,000/- per month. Even during inquiry, petitioners also failed to prove his qualification. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled workers at the relevant time.
Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for unskilled workers was ` 5,278/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 5,278/- per month.
MACT No. 356353/16:
(ii). PW1 Sh. Lal Chand, father of the deceased MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.46 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
deposed that deceased Kuldeep s/o Lal Chand was earning ` 17,000/- per month from his job and ` 5,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 22,000/- per month. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 22,000/- per month. Even during inquiry, petitioners also failed to prove his qualification. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for unskilled workers was ` 5,278/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 5,278/- per month.
MACT No. 356367/16:
(iii). PW1 Sh. Bhom Singh, father of the deceased deposed that deceased Varun Kumar was earning ` 16,000/-
per month from his job and ` 5,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 21,000/- per month. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 21,000/- per month. Even during inquiry petitioners also failed to prove his qualification. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.47 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
applicable to unskilled workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for unskilled workers was ` 5,278/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 5,278/- per month.
MACT No. 356368/16:
(iv). PW1 Sh. Om Parkash, father of the deceased deposed that deceased Kapil Yadav was earning ` 15,000/-
per month from his job and ` 4,000/- to ` 5,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 19,000/- to ` 20,000/- per month. However, in his cross- examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 19,000/- to ` 20,000/- per month. However during inquiry, documents relating to his qualification that he passed Senior Secondary Examination have been filed. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to matriculate workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for matriculate workers was ` 6,448/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 6,448/- per month.
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.48 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
MACT No. 356369/16:
(v). PW1 Sh. Vinod Kumar, brother of the deceased deposed that deceased Gajinder was earning ` 15,000/- per month from his job and ` 3,000/- to ` 4,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 18,000/- to ` 19,000/- per month. However, in his cross- examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 18,000/- to ` 19,000/- per month. Even during inquiry, petitioners produced the document that he passed middle examination only. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for unskilled workers was ` 5,278/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 5,278/- per month.
MACT No 356370/16:
(vi). PW1 Smt. Kamlesh Devi, mother of the deceased deposed that deceased Jitender was earning ` 15,000/- per month from his job and ` 3,000/- to ` 4,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 18,000/- to ` 19,000/- per month. However, in his cross-
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.49 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 18,000/- to ` 19,000/- per month. As per documents placed on record, deceased Jitender passed Senior Secondary Examination. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to matriculate workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for matriculate workers was ` 6,448/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 6,448/- per month.
MACT No 356425/16:
(vii). PW1 Smt. Sumitra, mother of the deceased deposed that deceased Harish was earning ` 15,000/- per month from his job and ` 3,000/- to ` 4,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 18,000/-
to ` 19,000/- per month. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 18,000/- to ` 19,000/- per month. Even during inquiry, petitioners also failed to prove his qualification. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for unskilled workers was ` 5,278/-, income of the MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.50 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
deceased is assessed at ` 5,278/- per month.
MACT No 356410/16:
(viii). PW1 Sh. Udey Vir, father of the deceased deposed that deceased Anil Kumar was earning ` 15,000/- per month from his job and ` 5,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 20,000/- per month.
However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 20,000/- per month. As per documents placed on record, deceased Anil Kumar passed Matriculation Examination. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to matriculate workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for matriculate workers was ` 6,448/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 6,448/- per month.
MACT No .356371/16:
(ix). PW1 Sh. Som Dutt, father of the deceased deposed that deceased Ram Parkash was earning ` 15,000/-
per month from his job and ` 5,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 20,000/- per MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.51 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
month. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 20,000/- per month. Even during inquiry, petitioners also failed to prove his qualification. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for unskilled workers was ` 5,278/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 5,278/- per month.
MACT No .356427/16:
(x). PW1 Sh. Bhom Singh, father of the deceased deposed that deceased Subhash was earning ` 15,000/- per month from his job and ` 5,000/- to ` 6,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 21,000/-
to ` 22,000/- per month. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 21,000/- to ` 22,000/- per month. As per documents placed on record, deceased Subhash passed Senior Secondary Examination. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to matriculate workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for matriculate workers was MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.52 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
` 6,448/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 6,448/- per month.
MACT No .356426/16:
(xi). PW1 Sh. Lal Chand, father of the deceased deposed that deceased Madan was earning ` 15,000/- per month from his job and ` 5,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 20,000/- per month.
However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 20,000/- per month. Even during inquiry, petitioners also failed to prove his qualification. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for unskilled workers was ` 5,278/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 5,278/- per month.
MACT No .356430/16:
(xii). PW1 Sh. Ajit, father of the deceased deposed that deceased Sachin was earning ` 15,000/- per month from his job and ` 5000/- to ` 6,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 21,000/- MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.53 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
to ` 22,000/- per month. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 21,000/- to ` 22,000/- per month. Even during inquiry, petitioners also failed to prove his qualification. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled worker at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for unskilled workers was ` 5,278/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 5,278/- per month.
MACT No .356564/16:
(xiii). PW1 Smt. Kamla Devi, mother of the deceased deposed that deceased Anil Kumar was earning ` 15,000/- per month from his job and ` 5,000/- to ` 6,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 21,000/- to ` 22,000/- per month. However, in his cross- examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 21,000/- to ` 22,000/- per month. Even during inquiry, petitioners also failed to prove his qualification. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for unskilled workers was ` 5,278/-, income MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.54 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
of the deceased is assessed at ` 5,278/- per month.
MACT No 356670/16:
(xiv). PW1 Sh. Ved Parkash, father of the deceased deposed that deceased Manoj was earning `
15,000/- per month from his job and ` 5,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 20,000/- per month. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 20,000/- per month. Even during inquiry, petitioners also failed to prove his qualification. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for unskilled workers was ` 5,278/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 5,278/- per month.
MACT No .356671/16:
(xv). PW1 Sh. Ishwar Singh, father of deceased deposed that deceased Sunil Kumar was earning ` 15,000/-
per month from his job and ` 4,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 19,000/- MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.55 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
per month. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 19,000/- per month. Even during inquiry, petitioners also failed to prove his qualification. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum wages for unskilled workers was ` 5,278/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 5,278/- per month.
MACT No .356781/16:
(xvi). PW1 Smt. Vidya Devi, mother of the deceased deposed that deceased Satish was earning
` 15,000/- per month from his job and ` 5,000/- to ` 6,000/- per month from part-time job, consequently his monthly income was ` 21,000/- to ` 22,000/- per month. However, in his cross- examination, he admitted that he has no document to establish that his son was earning ` 21,000/- to ` 22,000/- per month. Even during inquiry, petitioners produced the documents showing that he passed Middle Examination only. In these circumstances the income of deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled workers at the relevant time. Since, in 2010, the minimum MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.56 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
wages for unskilled workers was ` 5,278/-, income of the deceased is assessed at ` 5,278/- per month.
13. Since the income of all the deceased except four namely Jitender (MACT No. 356370), Kapil Yadav (MACT No. 356368/16), Anil Kumar (MACT No. 356410/16) and Subhash (MACT No. 356427/16) has been assessed at ` 5278/- P.M., their annual income is assessed at ` 63,336/- each whereas the annual income of above four deceased is assessed at ` 77,376/- each (i.e. ` 6448 x 12).
Deduction towards personal living expenses:
14. Since in nine matters the deceased were unmarried, hence 50% of their income is liable to be deducted towards personal living expenses.
(i) Since in remaining seven matters deceased were married, in terms of law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma v. DTC, & others, (2009) 6 SCC 121, income of the deceased is liable to be deducted as per number of dependents on the income of deceased.
(ii) Since in claim suits MACT Nos. 356285/16, 356368/16 and 356410/16 four family members were MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.57 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
dependent on the income of deceased, in view of law laid down in Smt Sarla Verma's case (supra), 1/4th income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal living expenses.
(iii) In claim suits bearing MACT Nos. 356427/16, 356781/16 and 356670/16, three family members were dependent on the income of deceased, in view of law laid down in Smt Sarla Verma's case (supra), 1/3rd income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal living expenses.
(iv) In claim suit bearing no. 356564/16, five family members were dependent on the income of the deceased, accordingly, in view of law laid down in Smt Sarla Verma's case (supra), 1/4th income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal living expenses.
15. Selection of Multiplier:
(i) In case Lata Devi & another v. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., MAC APP. 189/2014 decided by the High Court of Delhi on January 15, 2015, Hon'ble High Court summarized the law on the MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.58 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
selection of multiplier and held that the choice of multiplier is to be determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is higher. In view of the above, multiplier is selected as under:
(i) In MACT Suit No. 356285/16 deceased Kuldeep was married and he was 24 years old at the time of his death, accordingly in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 18 shall be applicable.
(ii) In MACT Suit No. 356368/16 deceased Kapil Yadav was married and he was 22 years old at the time of his death, accordingly in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 18 shall be applicable.
(iii) In MACT Suit No. 356781/16 deceased Satish was married and he was 21 years old at the time of his death, accordingly in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 18 shall be applicable.
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.59 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
(iv) In MACT Suit No. 356410/16 deceased Anil Kumar was married and he was 24 years old at the time of his death, accordingly in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 18 shall be applicable.
(v) In MACT Suit No. 356670/16deceased Manoj was married and he was 21 years old at the time of his death, accordingly in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 18 shall be applicable.
(vi) In MACT Suit No. 356564/16 deceased Anil Kumar was married and he was 24 years old at the time of his death, accordingly in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 18 shall be applicable.
(vii) In MACT Suit No. 356427/16 deceased Subhash was married and his date of birth is April 10, 1989. It means that he was above 21 years old at the time of his death, accordingly, in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 18 MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.60 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
shall be applicable.
(viii) In MACT Suit No. 356370/16 deceased Jitender was bachelor and his mother Kamlesh was born on May 10, 1967. Since, she was about 43 years old at the time of death of the deceased, in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 14 shall be applicable.
(ix) In MACT Suit No. 356425/16 deceased Harish Kumar was bachelor and his mother Sumitra was born on September 1, 1967. Since, she was about 43 years old at the time of death of the deceased, in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 14 shall be applicable.
(x) In MACT Suit No. 356369/16deceased Gajender was bachelor and as per Voter I. Card, his mother Sumitra Devi was 32 years old as on January 1, 1994. It means that she was about 48 years old at the time of death of deceased, accordingly, in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 13 shall be applicable.
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.61 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
(xi) In MACT Suit No. 356367/16 deceased Varun Kumar was bachelor and the date of birth of his mother Santosh is January 1, 1968. It means she was about 42 years old at the time of death of the deceased, accordingly, in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 14 shall be applicable.
(xii) In MACT Suit No. 356353/16 deceased Kuldeep was bachelor and his mother Sona Devi was 56 years old at the time of his death, accordingly, in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 9 shall be applicable.
(xiii) In MACT Suit No. 356371/16 deceased Ram Parkash was bachelor and the date of birth of his mother Babli is January 1, 1970. It means she was above 40 years but less than 41 years at the time of death of the deceased, accordingly, in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 15 shall be applicable.
(xiv) In MACT Suit No. 356671/16 MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.62 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
deceased Sunil Kumar was bachelor and his mother Rajwati was 40 years at the time of death of the deceased, accordingly, in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 15 shall be applicable.
(xv) In MACT Suit No. 356430/16 deceased Sachin was bachelor and the date of birth of his mother Mukesh is January 1, 1972. It means that she was above 38 years old at the time of death of the deceased, accordingly, in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 15 shall be applicable.
(xvi) In MACT Suit No. 356426/16 deceased Madan Kumar was bachelor and his mother Sona Devi was 56 years old at the time of his death, accordingly, in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 9 shall be applicable.
16. Loss of Dependency of the deceased is as-
sessed as under:
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.63 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
NAME OF DECEASED MACT NO. TOTAL LOSS OF
DEPENDENCY IN ( `)
Kuldeep s/o Shemsher 356285/16 8,55,036
Kuldeep s/o Lal Chand 356353/16 2,85,012
Varun Kumar 356367/16 4,43,352
Kapil Yadav 356368/16 10,44,576
Gajender 356369/16 4,11,684
Jitender 356370/16 5,41,632
Ram Prakash 356371/16 4,75,020
Anil 356410/16 10,44,576
Harish Kumar 356425/16 4,43,352
Madan Kumar 356426/16 2,85,012
Subhash 356427/16 9,28,512
Sachin 356430/16 4,75,020
Anil Kumar 356564/16 8,55,036
Manoj 356670/16 7,60,032
Sunil Kumar 356671/16 4,75,020
Satish 356781/16 7,60,032
(i) The detail calculation of Loss of dependency
of each case is annexed as Annexure A to the award.
17. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-
(i) In view of the law laid down in Rajesh & Ors.
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.64 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, in 9 matters where the deceased were bachelor, a sum of ` 1 lakh towards loss of love and affection and ` 25,000/- & ` 10,000/- are awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively. However, in remaining seven matters (MACT Nos. 356285/16, 356368/16, 356410/16, 356427/16, 356564/16, 356670/16 and 356781/16), a sum of ` 1 lakh each is awarded towards loss of love and affection & loss of consortium and ` 25,000/- & ` 10,000/- are awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively.
(ii) Further, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded on the award amount by the Hon`ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). Accordingly, it is held that claimants are also entitled to 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petitions i.e. June 2, 2012 till realization of the amount.
(iii) Accordingly, claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased as under:
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.65 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
NAME OF MACT NO. TOTAL COMPENSA TOTAL Round off
DECEASE LOSS OF TION COMPENS- (IN `)
D DEPEND UNDER ATION
ENCY NON- (IN `)
(IN `) PECUNIARY
HEADS
Kuldeep 356285/16 8,55,036 2,35,000 10,90,036 10,90,100
s/o Late
Shamsher
Kuldeep 356353/16 2,85,012 1,35,000 4,20,012 4,20,100
s/o Lal
Chand
Varun 356367/16 4,43,352 1,35,000 5,78,352 7,58,500
Kumar
Kapil 356368/16 10,44,576 2,35,000 12,79,576 12,80,000
Yadav
Gajender 356369/16 4,11,684 1,35,000 5,46,684 5,47,000
Jitender 356370/16 5,41,632 1,35,000 6,76,632 6,77,000
Ram 356371/16 4,75,020 1,35,000 6,10,020 6,10,100
Prakash
Anil 356410/16 10,44,576 2,35,000 12,79,576 12,80,000
Harish 356425/16 4,43,352 1,35,000 5,78,352 5,78,500
Kumar
Madan 356426/16 2,85,012 1,35,000 4,20,012 4,20,100
Kumar
Subhash 356427/16 9,28,512 2,35,000 11,63,512 11,64,000
Sachin 356430/16 4,75,020 1,35,000 6,10,020 6,10,100
Anil 356564/16 8,55,036 2,35,000 10,90,036 10,90,100
Kumar
Manoj 356670/16 7,60,032 2,35,000 9,95,032 9,95,100
Sunil 356671/16 4,75,020 1,35,000 6,10,020 6,10,100
Kumar
Satish 356781/16 7,60,032 2,35,000 9,95,032 9,95,100
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.66 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
(iv) Further, claimants are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petitions i.e. June 2, 2012 till realization of the amount.
18. Share of each claimant in the above suits:
(i) Since, in six matters ( MACT No. 356353/16, 356367/16, 356371/16, 356426/16, 356430/16, 356671/16) deceased were bachelor and the claim suits have been filed by their parents, they shall get compensation amount equally i.e. 50% each.
(ii) In three matters ( MACT No. 356369/16, 356370/16, 356425/16) deceased were bachelor and the claim suits have been filed by their mother, accordingly, sole claimant shall get 100 % of the compensation amount.
(iii) Since in remaining seven matters (MACT Nos. 356285/16, 356368/16, 356410/16, 356427/16, 356564/16, 356670/16 and 356781/16) deceased were married, compensation shall be disbursed among them as under:(a) In MACT No. 356285/16, petitioner no. 2
(Sunita Devi w/o deceased) shall get 40% of the amount, MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.67 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
petitioners no. 3 & 4 (Master Sagar & Baby Himanshi) both kids of deceased shall get 20% each of the amount and peti- tioner no. 1 (Smt. Sushila Devi m/o deceased) shall get 20% of the amount.(b) In MACT No. 356368/16, petitioner no. 3
(Sapna w/o deceased) shall get 50% of the amount, petitioners no. 4 (Master Nitin, son of deceased) shall get 20% of the amount and petitioner no. 1 & 2 (Om Parkash & Smt. Sheela Devi, parents of deceased) shall get 15 % each of the amount.(c) In MACT No. 356410/16, petitioner no. 3
(Sanju Devi w/o deceased) shall get 50% of the amount, peti- tioners no. 4 (Kumari Jaya Kumari d/o of deceased) shall get 20% of the amount and petitioner no. 1 & 2 (Udey Vir & Smt. Santra, parents of deceased) shall get 15 % each of the amount.(d) In MACT No. 356427/16, respondent No. 3
(Smt. Rajini w/o deceased) shall get 60% of the amount, petitioners no. 1 & 2 (Bhom Singh & Smt. Kamlesh, parents of the deceased) shall get 20% each of the amount.(e) In MACT No. 356564/16, petitioner no. 3
(Kavita w/o deceased) shall get 40% of the amount, petitioners MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.68 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
no. 3 & 4 ( Km. Priyanka & Master Babin) shall get 20% each of the amount and petitioner no. 1 & 2 (Braham Parkash and Smt. Kamla Devi, parents of deceased) shall get 10 % each of the amount.(f) In MACT No. 356670/16, petitioner no. 3
(Smt. Leela Wati w/o deceased) shall get 60% of the amount, petitioners no. 1 & 2 (Sh. Ved Parkash & Smt. Banarsi, parents of the deceased) shall get 20% each of the amount.(g) In MACT No. 356781/16, petitioner no. 2
(Smt. Indu Devi w/o deceased) shall get 50% of the amount, petitioners no. 3 ( Km. Ridhima d/o deceased) shall get 25% of the amount and petitioner no. 1 ( Smt. Vidya Devi, m/o deceased) shall get 25 % of the amount.
17. Disbursement of the amount:
(i) After considering the statements of the claimants made in compliance of clause 26 of FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 12, 2014, in 9 matters where the deceased were bachelor, amount shall be disbursed as mentioned in Annexure 'B' & 'C' .
(iii) In remaining seven matters (MACT Nos.
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.69 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
356285/16, 356368/16, 356410/16, 356427/16, 356564/16, 356670/16 and 356781/16) where deceased were married, amount shall be disbursed as mentioned in Annexure 'D'.
Liability to Pay:
20 Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners raised following contentions:
(i) Ld. counsel appearing for the petitioners vigorously argued that since the deceased were going to Holy Gangotri in the offending vehicle for holding a 'Langar' (distributing ambrosia) among pilgrims, they were carrying 'Langar' items such as bags of floor, rice, soozi, besan, sugar pulses, vegetables, tins of ghee, vegetable oils, utensils and one motorcycle. It was urged that since the above said articles belonged to the deceased, which they either collected or purchased for holding 'Langar', deceased were travelling in the said offending vehicle being the owner of the said goods. It was accordingly urged that in terms of Section 147 of M.V. Act, insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
(ii) It was contended that there is a difference between the "personal belongings" and "goods". It was urged MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.70 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
that if a person can travel with articles in a passenger vehicle, such articles can be termed as "personal belongings". But if he is unable to travel in a passenger vehicle; rather such articles can be carried only in goods vehicle, such articles will be treated as "goods". It was argued that since the deceased could not travel with the above said articles in a passenger vehicle, it establishes that the above said articles were 'goods' and not 'personal belongings' as pleaded by the insurance company.
(iii) It was further contended that there is no substance in the plea of insurance company that since there is no reference of the above said articles in the DD No. 11 of the police, deceased were not carrying above said articles. It was urged that since the offending truck fell into a valley from the height of 1500 ft from sea level, there is every possibility that the said articles had been spilled over in tiny pieces and moreover, priority of the police was to recover the dead bodies and not the articles. Thus, it was urged non-mentioning of the articles in the DD No. 11 is not fatal to the case of petitioners.
(iv) It was further argued that since the deceased were resident of a village and it is common fact that in village generally food items are sold without bills and if the deceased purchased the articles against bills, same must be with the MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.71 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
deceased, thus petitioners are not in a position to produce the same. It was urged that non production of bills can not be considered adverse to the petitioners.
(v) It was vehemently contended that assuming for the sake of arguments that deceased were not owner of the said articles and they were travelling in the offending vehicle being the gratuitous passengers, even then insurance company can be directed to pay compensation to the petition- ers and recover the same later on from the registered owner of the vehicle. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:
a) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Balbiro others MAC.
APP No. 301/2005 (Delhi) DOD 12.05.2009
b) National Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Challa Bharathamma 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC)
c) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Parathneni 2009 Lawsuit (SC) 1502
d) The New India Insurance Co. v/s Darsana Devi & others JT 2008 (2) SC 430 MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.72 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
e) Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Saju P. Paul 2013 ACJ 554 (SC)
f) New India Assurance Co. Ltd v/s Baby Nanda & others 2015 (4) TAC 8 (Bombay)
g) New India Assurance Co. Ltd v/s Badlu & Another MAC APP 280/2005 DOD : 11.09.2013 (DELHI)
h) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Yellamma & another AIR 2008 SC 3145
i) National Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Baljeet Kaur & others 2004 (2) SCC 1
j) Samundra Devi & others v/s Narendra Kaur & others AIR 2008 SC 3205
(vi) At last it was contended that if the insurance company is exonerated from its liability and registered owner is directed to pay compensation, it would aggravate the hardship of petitioners as they would not be able to get any amount from the registered owner as he belongs to a humble background and would not be in a position to satisfy the award amount. It MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.73 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
was further contended that since Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation, its provisions should be applied in favour of the claimants. It was urged that since 24 persons lost their lives due to rash and negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle, insurance company be directed to pay award amount to the legal heirs of the deceased, who were solely dependent on the earning of the deceased.
21. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company sagaciously argued that there is no iota of evidence that the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle either being the owner of goods or authorized representative of the owner of such goods. It was urged that they were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers. It was further contended that it is admitted case of the petitioners that as many as 24 persons were travelling in the offending vehicle, which itself proves that they were not travelling being the owners of the goods; rather they were travelling as gratuitous passengers. It was further contended that since the deceased were travelling in the rear portion of the vehicle, insurance company is otherwise not liable to indemnify the liability of the insured. It was further contended that it is admitted case of petitioners that there is no reference of any 'Langar' items in the DD No. 11, which establishes that the deceased were not going to hold 'Langar'; rather they were MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.74 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
going to take 'Kaward' from Holy Gangotri. Further, during inquiry petitioners failed to establish that the deceased had ever purchased the alleged goods before proceeding to Gangotri. It was contended that no doubt it is unfortunate tragic incident wherein 24 persons lost their lives, but this itself is not sufficient to impose liability on the insurer. It was contended that in similar matters in case Sanju Devi & others v. Ram Than & others 2106 (2) T.A.C. 368, High Court of Delhi declined to impose any liability on the insurance com- pany.
(i) In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on following judgments-
a) New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Asha Rani III (2002) ACC 753 (SC)
b) M.V. Jayadevappa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd I (2005) ACC 472 (SC)
c) National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Bommithi III (2005) ACC 423 SC
d) National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Bhukya Tara II (2009) ACC 545 SC
e) National Insurance Co. Ltd v. V. Chinnamma III (2004) ACC 1 (SC) MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.75 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
f) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Devireddy Konda I (2003) ACC 277 (SC)
g) National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ajit Kumar III (2003) ACC 277 SC
h) National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Prema Devi II (2008) ACC 1 SC
i) Thokchom Orgoi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. IV (2007) ACC 1 SC
j) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati I 92007) ACC 924 SC
k) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti I (2008) ACC 225 SC
l) Sanju Devi v. Ram Dhan Singh 2016 (2) TASC 368 DHC
m) Bajaj Allianz v. Lal Singh MAC 651/2013 DHC
n) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prem Prasad MAC APP 82/2012 DHC
o) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mithlesh Devi MAC APP 516/2004 DHC
22. From the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties following questions arise for adjudication:
A) Whether the deceased were carrying any goods in the offending vehicle for holding 'Langar'.
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.76 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
B) If the answer is in affirmative; whether the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle being the owner of the goods or the authorised representative of the owners of the goods?
C) Whether the deceased were travelling in the cabin of the offending vehicle or in the rear portion?
D) If the deceased were not travelling being the owners of the goods; whether they were travelling as gratuitous passengers?
E) If the answer to the above question is in affirmative; whether insurer can be directed to indemnify the liability of the insured?
23. Perusal of the cited judgments makes it clear that most of the judgments are based on the judgments New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani & others (supra), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur & others (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Vedwati & others (supra). It is also clear that in most of the judgments, there is a reference of judgment New India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satpal Singh & Others (supra). Since all these judgments have been MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.77 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
discussed by the Apex Court in detail in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Cholleti Bharatamma & others (supra) while dealing with the moot question about the liability of insurance company to indemnify the liability of owner of the vehicle in respect of death of passengers travelling in goods carriage, I deem it appropriate to highlights the relevant portion of the same as under:
"5. In New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130 : 2000 ACJ 1] this Court proceeded on an assumption that the provisions of the 1939 Act and the provisions of the 1988 Act are in pari materia.
6. In Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130 : 2000 ACJ 1] interpreting the provisions contained in Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court held: (SCC pp. 240-41, paras 10-11) "10. ... Hence, under sub-section (2), there is no upper limitation for the insurer regarding the amount of com- pensation awarded in respect of death or bodily injury of a victim of the accident. It is, therefore, apparent that the limit contained in the old Act has been removed and the policy should insure the liability incurred and cover injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. The legislature has also taken care of even the policies which were in force on the date of commencement of the Act by specifically providing that any policy of insurance containing any limit regarding the insurer's liability shall continue to be effective for a period of four months from commencement of the Act or till the date of expiry of such policy, whichever is earlier. This means, after the said period of MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.78 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
four months, a new insurance policy consistent with the new Act is required to be obtained.
11. The result is that under the new Act an insurance policy covering third-party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. Hence the decisions rendered under the old Act vis-à-vis gratuitous passengers are of no avail while considering the liability of the insurance company in respect of any accident which occurred or would occur after the new Act came into force."
7. In Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2001) 6 SCC 713] this Court categorised the cases arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, stating: (SCC pp. 721-22, paras 3-4) "3. The first category of cases arise out of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'). The question raised for this category is:
'Whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on account of the death or bodily injury of the gratuitous passengers including the owner of the goods or his representative, travelling in a goods vehicle under Section 95 of the said Act?'
4. The second category of cases arise out of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') prior to its amendment in 1994. In this category also a similar question is raised. The third category of cases also arise under the new Act but after its amendment by Act 54 of 1994. In this category also the same question is raised."
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.79 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
8. The Act does not contemplate that a goods carriage shall carry a large number of passengers with small percentage of goods as considerably the insurance policy covers the death or injuries either of the owner of the goods or his authorised representative.
9. Correctness of the decision in Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130 : 2000 ACJ 1] came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223 :
2003 SCC (Cri) 493] .
10. In Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] having regard to various definitions involving the legal question, it was held: (SCC pp. 234-35, paras 23-28) "23. The applicability of the decision of this Court in Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1999) 1 SCC 403 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 58] in this case must be considered keeping that aspect in view. Section 2(35) of the 1988 Act does not include passengers in goods carriage whereas Section 2(25) of the 1939 Act did as even passengers could be carried in a goods vehicle. The difference in the definitions of 'goods vehicle' in the 1939 Act and 'goods carriage' in the 1988 Act is significant. By reason of the change in the definitions of the terminology, the legislature intended that a goods vehicle could not carry any passenger, as the words 'in addition to passengers' occurring in the definition of goods vehicle in the 1939 Act were omitted. Furthermore, it categorically states that 'goods carriage' would mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use 'solely for the carriage of goods '. Carrying of passengers in a 'goods carriage', thus, is not contemplated under the 1988 Act.
24. We have further noticed that Section 147 of the 1988 Act prescribing the requirements of an insurance policy does not contain a provision similar to Clause (ii) of MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.80 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
the proviso appended to Section 95 of the 1939 Act. The decision of this Court in Mallawwa case [(1999) 1 SCC 403 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 58] must be held to have been rendered having regard to the aforementioned provisions.
25. Section 147 of the 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicle'. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a 'goods carriage'.
26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-à-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words 'any person' must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. 'a third party'. Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor.
27. Furthermore, sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.81 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
28. An owner of a passenger-carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers. If a liability other than the limited liability pro- vided for under the Act is to be enhanced under an insurance policy, additional premium is required to be paid. But if the ratio of this Court's decision in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130 : 2000 ACJ 1] is taken to its logical conclusion, although for such passengers, the owner of a goods carriage need not take out an insurance policy, they would be deemed to have been covered under the policy where for even no premium is required to be paid."
11. The effect of the 1994 Amendment came up for consideration in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur [(2004) 2 SCC 1 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 370] wherein this Court fol- lowing Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] opined that the words "injury to any person" would only mean a third party and not a passenger travelling on a goods carriage whether gratuitous or otherwise. The question came up for consideration again in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma [(2005) 12 SCC 243] wherein upon taking into consideration a large number of decisions, the said view was reiterated.
12. Yet again in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati [(2007) 9 SCC 486 : (2007) 3 Scale 397] this Court held: [Ed.:
Quoting from Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy, (2003) 2 SCC 339, pp. 342-43, paras 9-10.] (SCC p. 490, para 6) "9. ... The difference in the language of 'goods vehicle' as appearing in the old Act and 'goods carriage' in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression 'in addition to passengers' as contained in the definition of MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.82 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
'goods vehicle' in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used 'goods carriage' is solely for the carriage of 'goods'. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to Clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicle'. The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the WC Act'). There is no reference to any passenger in 'goods carriage'.
10. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor."
(See also Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan [(2007) 7 SCC 56 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 304 : (2007) 7 Scale 753] .)
9. It is now well settled that the owner of the goo ds means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle."
5. In Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v. National Insurance Co Ltd., SLP (Civil) No. 17272 & 17273 of 2006 decided by the Apex Court on December 11, 2012.
it was held :
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.83 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
"........Thus, on a contextual reading of the provision, schematic analysis of the Act and the 1923 Act, it is quite limpid the the statutory policy only covers the employees of the insured, either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage. It does not cover any other kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not being an authorised agent in place of the owner of goods, and claims to be an employee of the owner of goods, cannot be covered by the statutory policy and to hold otherwise would tantamount to causing vio- lence to the language employed in the Statute. Therefore, we conclude that the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured."
6. In Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shobha Devi & others, MAC. APP. 580/2010 decided by High Court of Delhi on February 22, 2012 it was held:
"However, in the instant case, the deceased and the injured were not gratuitous passengers but were custodian of the goods. At the same time, they were travelling in the rear portion of the tempo along with the goods. They were not travelling in the cabin of the vehicle along with the driver. This question was examined by the Supreme Court in Cholleti Bharatamma (supra) where it was held the the owner of the goods would be only covered if he travels in the cabin of the vehicle. Since deceased Virender Yadav and injured Lal Singh were travelling in the rear portion of the tempo, their risk was not covered and the insurance company would not be liable to pay the compensation at all as it was clearly not a case of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.84 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
where the Insurance Company should be first made liable to pay the compensation with a right of recovery."
7. No doubt in case New India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Darshana Devi & other (supra), Apex Court in the peculiar facts of the case directed the insurance company to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle without filing separate suit, but directions were issued by the Apex Court under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction provided under Article 142 of the Constitution. Similarly in Sanju Paul's case (supra) Apex Court permitted the claimant to withdraw the deposited amount and insurance company was permitted to recover the amount from the registered owner, but again directions were passed under Article 142 of the Constitution. No doubt in case Badlu & another (supra) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi granted recovery right to the insurance company after holding that the injured was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. But it is pertinent to state that in the said case, attention of Hon'ble Court was not drawn toward the above stated pronouncement of the Apex Court. Even in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) recovery rights were granted after considering the peculiar facts of the case and the same is clear from the following para:
"21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.85 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] . The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] . We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be subserved if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied, and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tri- bunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in terms whereof, it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding."
27. At last, it is pertinent to state that in case Sanju Devi v. Ram Than (supra) Hon'ble High Court refused to direct the insurance company to indemnify the liability of insured as it found that the goods carrier was used by the devotees to carry Kawards.
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.86 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
28. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, facts of the cases at hand shall be analysed to ascertain whether insurer shall be liable to indemnify the liability of insured or not.
29. It is admitted case of both the parties that the offending vehicle in question was registered as goods carrier and at the time of unfortunate incident as many as twenty fours persons were travelling in the said vehicle.
30. Perusal of the insurance policy Ex. R2W1/3, it become clear that the insured had paid following premium qua the offending vehicle:
Own Damage : 7292.09
Deduct 35% for NCB : 2552.23
Net Own Damage : 4738.86
Basic Liability : 5920.00
LLP Paid Driver (1) : 25.00
LLP to paid Driver/cleaner/
conductor (2) : 60.00
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.87 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
(i) From the above, it becomes clear that no extra premium was paid for any passenger.
31. Now question arises for what purpose the offending vehicle was hired? In this regard the testimony of petitioners is quite relevant.
(i) All petitioners have tendered their examina- tion-in-chief on affidavit. It is pertinent to state that the affidavit of all the petitioners are akin if not verbatim. All the petitioners in para 2 of their affidavit deposed as under:
"The deceased namely Satish (name of deceased is different in their affidavits) along with other co-villagers/ neighbours on 31.07.2010 hired a truck No. HR-55-E-2307 for carrying goods and persons for Gangotri, Uttrakhand where they had to perform Lungar. The purpose of transporting the goods to Gangotri was to hold lungar jointly by all the said persons for the pilgrims who visit Holy Gangotri and to distribute Ambrosia amongst the pilgrims. For that purpose they loaded the goods i.e. bags of flours, rice, soozi, besan, sugar, vegetables, pulses and tins of ghee and vegetable oil besides utensil etc. in the said truck from vill Baghanaki, PS Mansesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana. The lungar was to be MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.88 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
jointly arranged by all the members who were around 25 in number."
(ii) In cross-examination all the petitioners deposed on the same line and the gist of their cross-examination on the above said point is as under:
"....about 24-25 persons left from Gurgaon to go to Gangotri. They left together from Gurgaon in a truck. I was there when the truck left from Gurgaon. They all were sitting in the carrier of the truck. My son was going to Gangotri for the first time. My son was going for the first time to bring Kawad. There was other stuff in the carrier of the truck including food stuff. I cannot say as to who bought the food stuff and for how much and from where it was bought. I do not know as to who fixed the tariff for each passenger on the truck and for how much was it. I do not know how the passengers were to come from Gangotri with the Kawad. I did not go when I heard the death of my son but three or four from village went to the place of accident."
32. Since petitioners alleged that the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle being the owner of the goods, onus was upon them to prove this fact. Now question MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.89 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
arises whether the testimony of petitioners is sufficient to establish this fact?
(i) From the examination-in-chief of the petition- ers, it is limpid that the truck was hired not only to carry goods but also to carry passengers. Since the offending vehicle was a goods carrier, the same could not be used to carry passengers. This itself establishes that the offending vehicle was not hired to transport the goods only and deceased were not travelling in the offending vehicle being the owners of the goods.
(ii) No doubt petitioners also testified that the goods were also loaded in the truck for the purpose of 'Langar'. But they failed to depose what was the quantity of alleged goods and to whom it belonged to. In their cross-examination they deposed that they did not know from whom the goods were purchased. None of the petitioners deposed what items/articles each deceased was carrying to hold 'Langar'. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the testimony of petitioners is not sufficient to hold that the deceased were carrying any goods to hold 'Langar' and they were travelling in the offending vehicle being the owner of such goods. Rather from the cross-examination of petitioners it becomes clear that the deceased were going to Gangotri to fetch Kaward and most of the deceased were going first time MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.90 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
Gangotri to fetch Kaward. In these circumstances, the possibility that the food stuff which deceased were allegedly carrying might be for their personal consumption can not be ruled out. Further, during inquiry petitioners failed to produce any witness to show even prima-facie that petitioners had obtained any permission from the local authority to organise any such 'Langar'. Even they did not testify where they had to hold the 'Langar'.
(iii) It is also admitted case of both the parties that after the tragic incident, the dead bodies were recovered by the local police with the help of ITBP and after the recovery of the dead bodies, local police prepared the GD No.11
(iv). Perusal of the said document reveals that there is no reference of any material such as bags of flour, rice, soozi and utensils, which rules also out the version of petitioners that the deceased were going to organise any 'Langar'. No doubt, after the tragic incident, priority of the local administration must be to rescue the victims and recover the dead bodies. But during inquiry no attempt was made by the petitioners to examine any official from local police to establish even prima- facie that any such article was found at the place of incident.
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.91 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
(v) PW2 in his deposition categorically deposed that at the time of this incident, number of trucks used to ply on the said road carrying Kawarias. This shows that the goods vehicles were being used by these Kawarias to fetch Kaward.
33. In the light of the above said discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the adduced evidence is not sufficient to hold that the deceased were carrying any articles/goods to hold any 'Langar'.
34. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the deceased were carrying some goods/articles for the purpose of holding Langar. But there is no evidence that the said goods belonged to them. Even there is no evidence to whom the said goods belonged to. None of the petitioners deposed which goods belonged to which deceased. Rather, petitioners deposed that they did not know from where the said goods were purchased. They even did not depose that the said goods were purchased by the deceased. In the absence of any cogent evidence, I am of the opinion that the testimony of petitioners is not sufficient to hold even prima-facie that the alleged goods were belonged to the deceased.
35. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the deceased were owners of the alleged goods and they were MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.92 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
travelling in the offending truck being the owners of the said goods. But it is settled law that the owner of the goods can only travel in the cabin of goods vehicle and not in the carrier. Since twenty four persons were travelling in the offending vehicle, it establishes that they were travelling in the carrier and not in the cabin and this fact is also admitted by the petitioners in their cross-examination. Since, they were travelling in the carrier of the vehicle, insurer is not liable to indemnify the liability of the insured.
36. Applying the settled proposition of law, as discussed earlier, in the matrix of evidence available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the liability of the insured. Mere fact that twenty four persons lost their lives in the unfortunate tragic incident is itself not sufficient to direct the insurance company to indemnify the liability of the insured.
37. Since it has been established that the de-
ceased were travelling in the said truck, it establishes that the driver and owner of the vehicle had not only violated the terms and condition of the policy but they had also violated the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. Since driver of the offending vehicle also died in this incident, registered owner shall be liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.93 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
38. No doubt, deceased also violated the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act as they preferred to travel in goods vehicle instead of passenger vehicle, but certainly there was no fault of the petitioners. Considering the gravity of the incident, this Tribunal also examined the rules of Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme to find out whether any compensation can be award to the petitioners under the said Scheme. In this regard, Rule 10 (5) of Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2015 is relevant and same is reproduced as under:
"The cases covered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 59 of 1988) wherein the compensation is to be awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, shall not be covered under this Scheme."
(i) Since, in the above matters, it has been held that registered owner is liable to pay compensation to the petition- ers, I am of the considered opinion that the matters at hand do not fall under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2015.
39. In the light of foregoing discussion, issue No. 2 in all the matters is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the registered owner.
MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.94 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
40. Relief:
(i) In view of the above, respondent No.1 (Ved Parkash), registered owner of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit:
(a) a sum of ` 10,90,100/- in MACT No. 356285/16
(b) a sum of ` 4,20,012/- in MACT No. 356353/16
(c) a sum of ` 7,58,500/- in MACT No. 356367/16
(d) a sum of ` 12,80,000/- in MACT No. 356368/16
(e) a sum of ` 5,47,000/- in MACT No. 356369/16
(f) a sum of ` 6,77,000/- in MACT No. 356370/16
(g) a sum of ` 6,10,100/- in MACT No. 356371/16
(h) a sum of ` 12,80,000/- in MACT No. 356410/16
(i) a sum of ` 5,78,500/- in MACT No. 356425/16
(j) a sum of ` 4,20,100/- in MACT No. 356426/16
(k) a sum of ` 11,64,000/- in MACT No. 356427/16
(l) a sum of ` 6,10,100/- in MACT No. 356430/16
(m) a sum of ` 10,90,100/- in MACT No. 356564/16
(n) a sum of ` 9,95,100/- in MACT No. 356670/16
(o) a sum of ` 6,10,100/- in MACT No. 356671/16
(p) a sum of ` 9,95,100/- in MACT No. 356781/16 MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.95 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors.
vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. June 2, 2012 till realization with Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners failing which the respondent No.1 (Ved Parkash, registered owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days in both the matters.
(ii) Respondent No.1 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount with the Tribunal to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today in all the matters.
(iii) A copy of this judgment be sent to Respondent No. 1 for compliance within the time granted.
(iv) Nazir is directed to place a report on record on November 15, 2017 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(v) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the FAO No. 842/03 Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. order dated December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.96 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(vi) The original award is signed and placed in the MACT No. 356285/16. Copy of the same be placed in remaining matters.
41. No doubt, compensation has been awarded in favour of the petitioners, but question arises whether registered owner has means to satisfy the award. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has already urged that since registered owner belongs to a humble background, he will not be able to satisfy the award. Indisputably, deceased violated the law by choosing to travel in the goods vehicle, but can State escape from its liability? Under Section 207 of Motors Vehicle Act, ample powers have been given to the police officers and the authorised officers of the State Government to impound any vehicle if it is being used in contravention of the registration certificate or permit of the vehicle. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was moving in gross violation of conditions of permit and registration certificate. Though in the matters at hand the offending vehicle crossed more than one State i.e. Haryana, Delhi, U.P. and Uttrakhand, but State machinery of the above States did not impound the offending vehicle despite the fact that offending vehicle was carrying as many as 24 MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.97 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
passengers in its carrier in contravention of the condition of permit and registration certificate. Had the State machinery of any of the States performed its duties in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, probably, this unfortunate tragic incident would not have taken place. But State machinery of all the States preferred not to act. It is common fact that in the month of August thousands of devotees go to Haridwar, Gangotri and Gomukh to fetch Kaward and for that purpose they also use goods vehicles in violation of the provisions of Motor vehicle Act. Besides that devotees also play loud music on these vehicles irrespective of the fact that the loud music violates the right of other citizens. But instead of taking action in accordance with law, State machinery watch all these as a mute spectator. If State machinery think that there is no harm if devotees be allowed to use goods vehicle to carry Kaward, State should permit the owners of goods vehicles in Kaward days to carry passengers by notification so that in case of any such incident, legal heirs of deceased may get just and reasonable compensation from the insurance company but not to act is not good either for Kawarias or public at large. Once the Parliament by Statute cast a duty on the State machinery to impound the vehicle if the same is used in contravention of registration or permit of the vehicle, State machinery is under obligation to act and if it does not act, question arises whether in case of any such incident, legal heirs of deceased may MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.98 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16 Sushila Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Om Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Sumitra Devi through LR & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Kamlesh Devi vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Som Dutt & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors;, Udai Vir & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Sumitra vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Lal Chand & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors., Bhom Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ajit & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.;, Braham Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ved Parkash & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.; Ishwar Singh & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors. ; Vidya Devi & ors. vs. Ved Parkash & ors.
compel the State to pay compensation for the omission on its part for not taking legal action against such vehicle? But in the matters at hand, petitioners did not deem it appropriate to sue the State. Accordingly, this Tribunal has no occasion to adjudi- cate over this issue.
42. In order to enable the State to take appropriate remedial steps to avoid any such situation in future, copy of this award be sent to the Chief Secretary of Government of NCT Delhi and Commissioner of Police. Copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary Delhi Legal Aid Service Authority enabling him to take appropriate steps as he deems fit to stop use of goods vehicle in contravention of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
43 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on this 7th day of October, 2017 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) Judge, MACT-1 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/sv MACT No. 356285/16, 356353/16, 356367/16, 356368/16 356369/16, 356370/16, 356371/16, 356410/16, 356425/16 Page No.99 of99 356426/16, 356427/16, 356430/16, 356564/16, 356670/16, 356671/16, 356781/16