Delhi District Court
Mst. Lakshay Nagpal @ Mani S/O Sh. Rajiv ... vs Sh. Dhiraj Sharma @ Rinku S/O Sh. Kewal ... on 17 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARVIND KUMAR: PRESIDING OFFICER MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0520532002
Mst. Lakshay Nagpal @ Mani S/o Sh. Rajiv Nagpal, aged about 2 ½ years
R/o H. No. 2972, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi-32.
(Petitioner being minor Filing petition through his natural guardian/
Next friend/ father/ Sh. Rajiv Nagpal) ... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Dhiraj Sharma @ Rinku S/o Sh. Kewal Prakash Sharma
R/o H. No. F-70, Gali No. 3, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-92.
Also at C/o Abdul Khaliq.
R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3, Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar,
Shakarpur, New Delhi-92 Driver
2. Sh. Abdul Khaliq. S/o Sh. Not Known
R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3., Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar
Alos At : Tushar Travels, 848/2, Shalimar Park, DCP.
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi Owner
3. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.,
F.A.I. Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 Insurance Co.
... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 1151/10 Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0520542007 Baby Akanksha Nagpal @ Mini, D/o Lt. Sh. Sunil Nagpal aged about 11 years R/o H. No. 2972, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi-32.
(Petitioner being minor Filing petition through his natural guardian/ Next friend/ Mother / Smt. Vijay Nagpal) .... Petitioners VERSUS
1. Sh. Dhiraj Sharma @ Rinku S/o Sh. Kewal Prakash Sharma R/o H. No. F-70, Gali No. 3, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-92. Also at C/o Abdul Khaliq.
R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3, Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, Shakarpur, New Delhi-92 Driver
2. Sh. Abdul Khaliq. S/o Sh. Not Known R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3., Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar Alos At : Tushar Travels, 848/2, Shalimar Park, DCP.
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi Owner
M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 1/33
3. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.,
F.A.I. Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 Insurance Co.
... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 1152/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0520552007
Sh. Rajiv Nagpal S/o Sh. Somnath Nagpal aged about 27 years R/o H. No. 2972, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi-32. ... Petitioners VERSUS
1. Sh. Dhiraj Sharma @ Rinku S/o Sh. Kewal Prakash Sharma R/o H. No. F-70, Gali No. 3, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-92. Also at C/o Abdul Khaliq.
R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3, Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, Shakarpur, New Delhi-92 Driver
2. Sh. Abdul Khaliq. S/o Sh. Not Known R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3., Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar Alos At : Tushar Travels, 848/2, Shalimar Park, DCP.
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi Owner
3. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.,
F.A.I. Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 Insurance Co.
... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 1153/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0520482007
Sh. Rajiv Nagpal S/o Sh. Somnath Nagpal aged about 29 years Master Lakshay @ Mani S/o Sh. Rajiv Nagpal aged about 2 ½ years R/o H. No. 2972, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi-32.
(Petitioner no. 2 being minor Filing petition through his natural guardian/ Next friend/ father/ petitioner no.1) ... Petitioners VERSUS
1. Sh. Dhiraj Sharma @ Rinku S/o Sh. Kewal Prakash Sharma R/o H. No. F-70, Gali No. 3, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-92. Also at C/o Abdul Khaliq.
R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3, Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, Shakarpur, New Delhi-92 Driver
2. Sh. Abdul Khaliq. S/o Sh. Not Known R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3., Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar Alos At : Tushar Travels, 848/2, Shalimar Park, DCP.
M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 2/33 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi Owner
3. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.,
F.A.I. Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 Insurance Co.
... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 1154/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0520462007
Smt. Vijay Nagpal W/o Lt. Sh. Sunil Nagpal aged about 35 years Baby Akansha @Mini D/o Lt. Sh. Sunil Nagpal aged about 11 years Sh. Somnath Nagpal S/o Lt. Sh. Bhgwan Dass aged about 67 years R/o H. No. 2972, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi-32.
(Petitioner no. 2 being minor Filing petition through his natural guardian/ Next friend/ mother/ petitioner no.1) ... Petitioners VERSUS
1. Sh. Dhiraj Sharma @ Rinku S/o Sh. Kewal Prakash Sharma R/o H. No. F-70, Gali No. 3, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-92. Also at C/o Abdul Khaliq.
R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3, Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, Shakarpur, New Delhi-92 Driver
2. Sh. Abdul Khaliq. S/o Sh. Not Known R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3., Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar Alos At : Tushar Travels, 848/2, Shalimar Park, DCP.
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi Owner
3. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.,
F.A.I. Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 Insurance Co.
... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 1155/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0520512007
Smt. Vijay Nagpal W/o Lt. Sh. Sunil Nagpal aged about 35 years R/o H. No. 2972, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi-32. ... Petitioners VERSUS
1. Sh. Dhiraj Sharma @ Rinku S/o Sh. Kewal Prakash Sharma R/o H. No. F-70, Gali No. 3, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-92. Also at C/o Abdul Khaliq.
R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3, Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, Shakarpur, New Delhi-92 Driver
2. Sh. Abdul Khaliq. S/o Sh. Not Known M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 3/33 R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3., Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar Alos At : Tushar Travels, 848/2, Shalimar Park, DCP.
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi Owner
3. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.,
F.A.I. Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 Insurance Co.
... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 1156/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0520522007
Smt. Vijay Nagpal W/o Lt. Sh. Sunil Nagpal aged about 35 years Baby Akansha @Mini D/o Lt. Sh. Sunil Nagpal aged about 11 years R/o H. No. 2972, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi-32.
(Petitioner no. 2 being minor Filing petition through his natural guardian/ Next friend/ mother/ petitioner no.1) ... Petitioners VERSUS
1. Sh. Dhiraj Sharma @ Rinku S/o Sh. Kewal Prakash Sharma R/o H. No. F-70, Gali No. 3, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-92. Also at C/o Abdul Khaliq.
R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3, Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, Shakarpur, New Delhi-92 Driver
2. Sh. Abdul Khaliq. S/o Sh. Not Known R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3., Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar Alos At : Tushar Travels, 848/2, Shalimar Park, DCP.
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi Owner
3. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.,
F.A.I. Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 Insurance Co.
... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 1157/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0520502007
1. Sh. Somnath Nagpal S/o Lt. Sh. Bhagwan Dass, aged about 67 years
2. Sh. Anil Nagpal S/o Sh. Somnath Nagpal, aged about 43 years
3. Sh. Rajiv Nagpal S/o Sh. Somnath Nagpal, aged about 29 years
4. Sh. Sanjeev Nagpal S/o Sh. Somnath Nagpal, aged about 32 years All R/o H. No. 2972, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi-32 ... Petitioners VERSUS
1. Sh. Dhiraj Sharma @ Rinku S/o Sh. Kewal Prakash Sharma R/o H. No. F-70, Gali No. 3, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-92. Also at C/o Abdul Khaliq.
M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 4/33R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3, Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, Shakarpur, New Delhi-92 Driver
2. Sh. Abdul Khaliq. S/o Sh. Not Known R/o H. No. 121, Gali No. 3., Lalita Park, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nagar Alos At : Tushar Travels, 848/2, Shalimar Park, DCP.
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi Owner
3. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.,
F.A.I. Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 Insurance Co.
... Respondents
Presented on : 30.07.2007
Reserved for judgment : 28.11.2011
Judgment delivered on : 17.12.2011
JUDG MENT
1. By a common judgment, I am disposing of these eight petitions as the claims are arising from the same accident involving the same vehicle. In M.A.C. Petition No. 1150/10, the claimant put up a claim for Rs. 5,00,000/-( Rs. Five Lacs) towards the injuries sustained by him. In M.A.C. Petition No. 1151/10, the claimant put up a claim for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) towards the injuries sustained by her. In M.A.C. Petition No. 1152/10, the claimant put up a claim for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs) towards the injuries sustained by him. In M.A.C. Petition No. 1153/10, the claimants put up a claim for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Lacs) towards the death of Smt. Parul Nagpal. In M.A.C. Petition No. 1154/10, the claimants put up a claim for Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rs. Forty Lacs) towards the death of Sh. Sunil Kumar Nagpal. In M.A.C. Petition No. 1155/10, the claimants put up a claim for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) towards the injuries sustained by her. In M.A.C. Petition No. 1156/10, the claimants put up a claim for Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lacs) towards the death of Master Karan Nagpal @ Mannu. In M.A.C. Petition No. 1157/10, the claimants put up a claim for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Lacs) towards the death of Smt. Sarla Nagpal.
2. The brief facts, as stated by petitioners, are that on 22.06.2007, M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 5/33 the deceased Late Sh. Sunil Nagpal, his wife Smt. Vijay Nagpal (injured) son Karan Nagpal (deceased), daughter Akanksha @ Mini (injured) mother Smt. Sarla Nagpal (deceased), brother Sh. Rajeev Nagpal (injured), sister- in-law Smt. Parul Nagpal (deceased), nephew Master Lakshay @ Mani (injured) and one Sh. Ravi were travelling in Toyota Innova Car bearing no. DL-7CE-6427 and were going from Delhi to Mata Naina Devi Shrine in Himachal Pradesh. The driver of the Innova Car, respondent no. 1 was driving the car at a very high speed in hilly area despite being cautioned and warned to drive at slow speed but he, ignoring all the warnings, continued to drive in dangerous manner and when they reached at Namehlakanchi Mor, police Station, Kot-Kahloor, Distt. Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, the driver lost control over the vehicle and the said vehicle fell down from upper hill road to down hill road. As a result of the accident Sh. Sunil Nagpal, Smt. Sarla Nagpal, Smt. Parul Nagpal, Karan Nagpal sustained fatal injuries and Smt. Vijay Nagpal, Akanksha @ Mini, Rajeev Nagpal and Lakshay @ Mani suffered injuries. They all were taken to Civil Hospital at Anandpur Saheb, Punjab. It is stated that accident took place because of the negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
3. Petitioner no. 1 (in petition no. 1154/10) stated that Sh. Sunil Nagpal, the deceased was 37 years of age at the time of accident and was self-employed running manufacturing business of cutting tools in the name and style of M/s Som Welding Works at 458/466, Gali No. 8, Friends Colony Industrial Area, Shahdara Delhi-95 and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is stated that the deceased would have earned Rs. 30-35000/- per month later on. It is stated that deceased was maintaining a Car, scooter, several telephones/ cell phones and paying his electricity and water bills of his office as well as of his house and used to spend Rs. 5,000/- per month on education of his daughter and son.
4. In petition no. 1150/10, Sh. Rajiv Nagpal, father of petitioner, stated that Master Lakshay, the petitioner was taken to Civil Hospital at Anandpur Saheb, Punjab on 22.06.2007 and was discharged on M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 6/33 23.06.2007 and he suffered lacerated wound on left occipital region, abrasion on right knee, lacerated wound on chin, abrasion on left forearm and his right leg was fractured. It is stated that petitioner has already incurred a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on his treatment.
5. In petition no. 1155/10, petitioner Smt. Vijay Nagpal stated that after accident she was taken to Civil Hospital on 22.06.2007 and thereafter she was shifted to PGI hospital, Chandigarh and she remained unconscious for two hours. Later on she was shifted to Pushpanjali Hospital. The petitioner was again admitted in Shree Ram Singh Hospital and Heart Institute on 25.06.2007 and was discharged after treatment. It is stated that petitioner sustained injuries on her right hand and neck, left elbow and her right hand was fractured and there was also neuro vascular deficit. It is stated that petitioner incurred Rs. 50000/- on her treatment and she was self employed and was earning Rs. 5000/- by taking tuitions. It is also stated that petitioner could not work for one year.
6. The petitioner no. 1, in petition no. 1153/10, Sh. Rajeev Nagpal stated that Smt. Parul Nagpal, the deceased was gainfully employed and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by running the ladies boutique and beauty parlour at 2972, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi-32. It is also stated that petitioner no. 2 was minor child of 2 and half years of age and would be deprived of motherly love and affection and petitioners have been spending Rs. 3,000/- per month for keeping a maid servant for household work and looking after his child.
7. In petition no. 1156/10, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Vijay Nagpal stated that Master Karan Nagpal, the deceased, was 14 years of age at the time of accident and was studying in School. He was also learning the work of Electronics at Ramavtar Electronics at Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month.
8. In petition no. 1157/10, the petitioner no. 1 Sh. Som Nath Nagpal M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 7/33 stated that Smt. Sarla Nagpal, the deceased was self employed and was a good house wife and was 63 years of age at the time of accident and the petitioners were totally dependants upon the deceased as she was looking after them.
9. In petition no. 1151/10, Smt. Vijay Nagpal, mother of petitioner stated that after the accident petitioner Baby Akanksha Nagpal was taken to Civil Hospital at Anandpur Saheb Hospital on 22.06.2007 and thereafter shifted to PGI hospital Chandigarh and was discharged on 23.06.2007. Petitioner was again admitted in Pushpanjali Hospital on 23.06.2007 and was discharged on 27.06.20047. It is stated that petitioner suffered lacerated wound on left cheek on face, lacerated wound on chin, head injury, spinal injury etc. it is stated that petitioner had spent Rs. 50,000/- on her treatment and she was a student and the accident has curtailed her working / studying capacity.
10. In petition no. 1152/10, the petitioner Sh. Rajeev Nagpal stated that after the accident he was taken to Civil Hospital at Anandpur Saheb, Punjab on 22.06.2007 and as the injuries were serious he was shifted to PGI Hospital Chandigarh and was discharged on 23.06.2007 and he was again admitted in Pushpanjali hospital on 23.06.2007 and was discharged on 27.06.2007. Petitioner stated that he had to be again admitted in Khandelwal hospital on 03.07.2007 and was discharged on 05.07.2007. Petitioner stated that he suffered dislocation of left shoulder, spinal injury, neurogenic bladder, fracture of right alasacrum bone, head injury, pelvis injury and multiple fracture of F.A. elbow, left rib and chest and he had to spend Rs. 1.5 lac on treatment. Petitioner stated that he was gainfully employed and was running business of whole seller and retailer of baby toys and furniture at Kids Junction at 548/7, Babu Ram School Chowk and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month.
11. Written statement is filed by respondent no. 1 denying the negligence on his part. It is stated that when the vehicle was going up on M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 8/33 the road at hill area then suddenly a truck driven at a very high speed, rashly and negligently, came down on the road from the front side and hit the side of his truck in the said car which was driven by respondent no. 1, as a result of which the car became out of control and fell down from the road and the driver of the truck along with his truck ran away from the spot. The respondent no. 1 also stated that respondent no. 1 was not the driver of respondent no. 2, the owner of the alleged car, but the true facts were that the respondent no. 1 was called by Sh. Sunil Nagpal, who was also travelling in the alleged vehicle, at the daily wages of Rs. 250/- for driving the alleged offending vehicle and he was kept only for one week for driving and the alleged involved vehicle was got arranged by the said Sh. Sunil Nagpal from his friend, the respondent no. 2.
12. The respondent no. 2 filed written statement. It is stated by respondent no. 2 that respondent no. 1 was having valid driving licence and the vehicle was insured. It is stated that vehicle was going in hilly area and a truck came at a high speed and hit the said car which the respondent no. 1 was driving. The car got out of control and fell down. It is stated that accident took place due to negligence of truck driver. It is also stated that the respondent no. 1 was not the driver of answering respondent no. 2 who was the owner of alleged car and the true facts were that the respondent no. 1 was called for driving the offending vehicle at Rs. 250/- per day and he was kept only for one week for driving the car because Sh. Sunil Nagpal has taken the said car from answering respondent for pilgrimage and the respondent no. 2 has given his car to him being a friend without any charges in good faith hence the respondent no. 2 was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
13. The respondent No. 3 / insurance company filed its written statement admitting that the vehicle no. DL-7CE-6427 was insured vide policy no. 35588755 valid for the period 28.06.2006 to 27.06.2007. It is further stated that the insurance company would not be liable in case the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence or if there was M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 9/33 breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It is also stated that the vehicle was insured as private vehicle but was used for commercial purpose at the time of accident. The deceased and other persons were travelling in vehicle no. DL-7CE-6427 for hire and reward. The respondent no. 3 denied almost all the contents of the petition.
14. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following common issues were framed in all the petitions :-
1. Whether Master Lakshay Nagpal @ Mani, Sh. Rajiv Nagpal, Smt. Vijay Nagpal and Baby Aakanksha @ Mini sustained injuries & Smt. Parul Nagpal, Master Karan Nagpal @ Mannu, Sh. Sunil Kumar Nagpal and Smt. Sarla Nagpal sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Toyta Innova Car No. DL-7CE-6427 by R-1? OPP.
2. Whether the alleged accident took place due to hitting of Toyta Innova Car No. DL-7CE-6427 by unknown truck and if so, to what effect? OPR1.
3. Whether petitioners are entitled to get any compensation, if so from whom and of what amount? OPP
4. Relief.
15. All the cases were consolidated for recording common evidence.
Smt. Vijay Nagpal examined herself as PW-1. Sh. Rajiv Nagpal examined himself as PW-2. Petitioners also examined Sh. Sanjay Mathur, Record Clerk, Khandewal Hospital and Urology hospital as PW-3, Sh. Pyara Lal Medical Report Supervisor from Ganga Ram Hospital as PW-4, Sh. Somnath Nagpal as PW-5, Sh. Rajeshwar Singh, Head Constable as PW-6, Sh. Robin Singh, Inspector Income Tax Department as PW-7, Sh. Suresh Chand Kaushik, Record Keeper, Pushpanjali Medical Center as PW-8, Dr. Mohit Jindal, MBBS, MS, Orthopeadics, Khandelwal Hospital as PW-9. On the other hand, respondent no. 3 examined Sh. Rohit Kumar, Senior Executive, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. as R3W1 and Sh. Sanjay Singh, Investigator, Bhavya Associates as R3W2.
16. I have heard counsels for the parties. Ld. Counsel for insurance M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 10/33 company contended that the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle but was used as a commercial vehicle therefore insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. Ld. Counsel for insurance company also contended that the respondent no. 1/ driver of the vehicle no. DL-7CE-6427 was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident as the driving licence as placed on record, was found to be fake therefore the insurance company was not liable for any compensation. Ld. Counsel for insurance company also contended that the petition no. 1154/10 is not maintainable as the deceased Sh. Sunil Nagpal had borrowed the vehicle from one Sh. Abdul Khaliq and therefore stepped into the shoes of the owner and cannot be taken as the third party therefore the said petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for insurance company relied upon the judgment "Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance company Ltd.", reported as 2009 SCCL.Com 78.
17. Ld. Counsel for petitioner contended that the offending vehicle was used as a private vehicle and was not hired for any commercial purpose or was being used for commercial purpose therefore insurance company cannot be absolved of its liabilities. Ld. Counsel for petitioner also contended that the deceased Sh. Sunil Nagpal cannot be treated as owner and was a third party and hence the petition no. 1154/10 was maintainable and liable to be allowed. My findings on issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 1 and 2 are connected hence are taken together
18. PW-1 Smt. Vijay Nagpal deposed that on 22.06.2007, she along with Late Sh. Sunil Nagpal, her son Karan Nagpal (deceased), her daughter Akanksha @ Mini (injured), her mother-in-law Smt. Sarla Nagpal (deceased), brother-in-law Sh. Rajeev Nagpal (injured), Parul Nagpal (deceased) and Master Lakshay @ Mani (injured) and Sh. Ravi were travelling in Toyota Innova Car bearing no. DL-7CE-6427 and were going from Delhi to Mata Naina Devi Shrine in Himanchal Pradesh. The driver of the Innova Car, respondent no. 1 was driving the car at a very high speed in hilly area despite being cautioned and warned to drive slow but he, M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 11/33 ignoring all the warnings, continued to drive in dangerous manner and when they reached at Namehlakanchi Mor, police Station, Kot-Kahloor, Dist. Bilaspur in Himachal Pradesh, the driver lost control over the vehicle and the said vehicle fell down from upper hill road to down hill road. As a result of the accident Sh. Sunil Nagpal, Smt. Sarla Nagpal, Smt. Parul Nagpal, Karan Nagpal sustained fatal injuries and Smt. Vijay Nagpal, Akanksha @ Mini, Sh. Rajeev Nagpal and Lakshay @ Mani suffered injuries. They all were taken to Civil Hospital at Anandpur Saheb, Punjab. It is stated that accident took place because of the negligent driving of respondent no. 1. During cross-examination, Smt. Vijay Nagpal stated that she was unable to tell the exact speed of the Car but the car was being driven at a fast speed despite their warnings. She herself, her husband and her mother-in-law asked the driver of car not to drive vehicle at a fast speed. It is also stated that no vehicle was coming from opposite side.
19. PW-2, Sh. Rajeev Nagpal stated almost same facts as stated by PW-1. During cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he was sitting at the back seat of the vehicle Innova and Sh. Sunil Nagpal was sitting in front seat besides driver's seat. In the middle seat Smt. Sarla Nagpal, Vijay Nagpal and Parul Nagpal were sitting and besides him Sh. Karan Nagpal and Ms. Akaksha were sitting on back seat.
20. PW-6 HC Rajeshwar Singh brought the attested copy of FIR, final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., site-plan, Driving licence of accused Dheeraj Sharma, insurance policy of vehicle, RC, mechanical inspection report, arrest memo of accused Dheeraj Sharma, postmortem report and Panchnamas of Sunil Nagpal, Karan Nagpal, Sarla Nagpal and Parul Nagpal and admission record / MLC of Baby Mini, Rajeev, Smt. Vijay Nagpal and Master Mani. He exhibited all the documents as PW-6/1. PW-6 stated that the case was under trial before the CMM, District Bilaspur, HP. He identified his signature on the FIR.
21. The FIR, site-plan, postmortem report, and testimony of PW-1,2 M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 12/33 and 6 taken together fully establish the death of the deceased, Smt. Parul Nagpal, Sh. Sunil Kumar Nagpal, Master Karan Nagpal and Smt. Sarla Nagpal caused by the injuries sustained by them in the road accident and that Master Lakshay Nagpal (petitioner in petition no. 1150/10), Baby Akanksha Nagpal (petitioner in petition no. 1151/10), Sh. Rajiv Nagpal (petitioner in petition no. 1152/10) and Smt. Vijay Nagpal (petitioner in petition no. 1155/10) sustained injuries in the accident involving vehicle bearing no. DL-7CE-6427. It is evident that driver of the vehicle no. DL-7CE-6427 was driving the vehicle at high speed in hilly area despite being warned repeatedly by the occupants of the car. The PW-1 also stated during cross-examination that no vehicle was coming from the opposite side. There is nothing on record to point out that there was any truck being involved in the accident. There is nothing on record to dispel the inference that deceased Smt. Parul Nagpal, Sh. Sunil Kumar Nagpal, Master Karan Nagpal and Smt. Sarla Nagpal died on account of injuries sustained by them in a road accident which occurred on 22.06.2007 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL-7CE-6427 being driven by the respondent No. 1. It is also clear from the material on the record that the petitioners Master Lakshay Nagpal (petitioner in petition no. 1150/10), Baby Akanksha Nagpal (petitioner in petition no. 1151/10), Sh. Rajiv Nagpal (petitioner in petition no. 1152/10) and Smt. Vijay Nagpal (petitioner in petition no. 1155/10) suffered injuries because of negligence of respondent no. 1. The respondents did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. The issue no. 1 and 2 are accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 3 in M.A.C. Petition No. 1150/10 (Master Lakshay Nagpal vs Dheeraj Nagpal and ors.)
22. PW-2 Sh. Rajiv Nagpal, father of Master Lakshay, the petitioner deposed that petitioner was a minor child of two and half years at the time of accident and suffered injuries i.e. lacerated wound on left occipital region, abrasion right knee, lacerated wound on chin, abrasion left forearm and fracture of right leg. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Anandpur Saheb, M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 13/33 Punjab on 22.06.2007 and was discharged on 23.06.2007. PW-2 stated that he had to spend Rs. 20,000/- on treatment. PW-2 exhibited the treatment record of petitioner as PW-2/11.
23. I have gone through the material on record. The admission record issued by Punjab Health System Corporation shows that petitioner was admitted on 22.06.2009 and was discharged on the same day. The prescription issued by Sneh Shakti Ortho Care shows that petitioner suffered lacerated wound on occipital region, abrasion right knee and abrasions on forearm and back. Bills are for Rs. 750/-. There is no other document with regard to the treatment of Master Lakshay therefore considering the facts and circumstances, I consider Rs. 15,000/- inclusive of bills of Rs. 750/-, to be just compensation on all allowable heads, to the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 3 IN M.A.C. Petition No. 1151/10 (Baby Akanksha Nagpal vs Dheeraj Sharma and ors.)
24. PW-1, Smt. Vijay Nagpal, mother of the petitioner deposed that petitioner, Baby Akanksha Nagpal suffered injury and was taken to civil Hospital at Anandpur Saheb, Punjab on 22.06.2007 and as the injuries suffered by the petitioner were serious in nature she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and was discharged on 23.06.2007. She was also admitted in Pushpanjali on 23.06.2007 and was discharged on 27.06.2007. PW-1 stated that petitioner suffered lacerated wound on left cheek on face, lacerated wound on chin, head injury and spinal injuries. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- were incurred on treatment of petitioner. It is also stated that petitioner was a student and the accident has curtailed her working /studying capacity and the petitioner could not study in the year she met with an accident. It is also stated that petitioner suffered injuries on right hand and neck and fracture of left elbow, right hand with neurovascular deficit.
25. PW-8, Sh. Suresh Chand Kaushik, Record Keeper, Pushpanjali M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 14/33 Medical Center exhibited the treatment record of Baby Akanksha as PW-8/1 and final bills for a sum of Rs. 12,250/- as PW-8/2.
26. I have gone through the material on record. The General Case sheet issued by Punjab Health System Corporation shows that petitioner suffered lacerated wound on left cheek, on chin and the petitioner was admitted on 22.06.2007 and was discharged on the same day. She was also admitted in PGI Hospital, Chandigarh. The discharge summary issued by Pushpanjali Hospital shows that petitioner was admitted on 23.06.2007 and was discharged on 27.06.2007 and she suffered comp. fracture of D9 to L3 with CLW, face, inner cheek, head injury besides other injuries. It is apparent from the record that petitioner was a student. It can be easily deduced that petitioner must have remained out of studies for about 2-3 months. Bills are for Rs.17,936/-. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider the following amount to be the just compensation to the petitioner:-
1 Compensation towards pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- 2 Compensation towards loss of studies for 3 months Rs.10,000/- 3 Actual medical bills Rs.17,936/-
4 Compensation towards conveyance and Rs.10,000/-
special diet (without bills) Therefore, in my opinion the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 87,936/- (rounded of to Rs. 87,950/-) which shall be the just compensation to petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 3 in M.A.C. Petition No. 1152/10 (Sh. Rajiv Nagpal vs Dheeraj Sharma and ors.)
27. The PW-2 Sh. Rajiv Nagpal deposed that he was taken to Civil Hospital at Anandpur Saheb, Punjab on 22.06.2007 and as the injuries were grievous in nature he was shifted to PGI Hospital in Chandigarh and was discharged on 23.06.2007. Petitioner was again admitted in Pushpanjali Hospital on 23.06.2007 and was discharged on 27.06.2007. Petitioner was also admitted in Khandelwal Hospital on 03.07.2007 and M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 15/33 was discharged on 05.07.2007. It is further stated that petitioner suffered dislocation of left shoulder, spinal injuries, neurogenic bladder, fracture right alasacrum, bone cervical vertibra showed osteopphytosis, head injury, pelvis injury and fracture of FA and elbow, left rib and chest. Petitioner deposed that he incurred Rs. 1.5 lacs on treatment and he was gainfully employed running business of whole sellers and retailer of baby toys and furniture at Kids Junction at 548/7, Babu Ram School Chowk, Delhi and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Petitioner stated that he could not work for one year. Petitioner exhibited the prescriptions consisting of 3 pages as PW-2/9, Cash memos consisting of 21 sheets as PW-2/10, IT return as PW-2/5 and treatment record as PW-2/11. During cross- examination, PW-2 stated that he did not have documents regarding purchasing and selling of goods and he has no other document regarding his income except PW-2/5 and he was not maintaining any account of his income.
28. PW-3 Sh. Sanjay Mathur, Record Clerk, Khandewal Hospital and Urology hospital exhibited the treatment record and reports of the petitioner as PW-3/A. PW-4 Sh. Pyara Lal, Medical Report Supervisor from Ganga Ram Hospital exhibited the treatment record as PW-4/A. PW-8, Sh. Suresh Chand Kaushik, Record Keeper, Pushpanjali Medical Center exhibited the treatment record of Sh. Rajiv Nagpal as PW-8/3. PW-7 Sh. Robin Singh, Inspector Income Tax Department exhibited the Income Tax Return of petitioner for the assessment year 2007-08 as PW-7/4.
29. PW-9 Dr. Mohit Jindal, MBBS, MS, Orthopeadics, Khandelwal Hospital deposed that he treated Sh. Rajiv Nagpal and the patient had suffered shoulder injury, spine injury besides other multiple injuries on face. The patient also suffered injuries of bladder and vowel and patient remained admitted with them for 3 days. The patient again approached to the hospital after six month as was having some pain in wrist and found to be having some glass pieces which were removed by operation and bed rest for 3-4 months was prescribed. It is also stated that due to injuries M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 16/33 suffered by patient, patient might develop further complications which might persist through out the life and he had also prescribed physiotherapy for six months. PW-9 further deposed Dr. Khandelwal also prescribed some investigations and diagnosis for problem in bladder which occurred consequent to the spine injuries. He stated that PW-3/A i.e. discharge summary was issue from their hospital.
30. I have gone through the material on record. The discharge summary issued by Khandelwal Hospital shows that petitioner was diagnosed with spinal injury with neurogenic bladder and was admitted on 03.07.2007 and was discharged on 05.07.2007. The admission and discharge record issued by Ganga Ram hospital shows that petitioner was admitted on 09.09.2007 and was discharged on 13.09.2007 and was diagnosed with acute renal failure (ATN), hematuris, intravascular hemolysis. The admission and discharge record issued by Pushpanjali Medical center shows that petitioner was admitted on 23.06.2007. The treatment record shows that petitioner suffered dislocation of shoulder with fracture of Gr. trb, fracture of seventh rib (left) with fracture of pelvis, head injury besides other injuries. PW-9, Dr. Mohit Jindal stated about the injuries suffered by petitioner and also stated that petitioner approached him after six months for pain in wrist and some glass pieces were removed by operation and bed rest for 3-4 months was advised. Physiotherapy was also prescribed by PW-9. PW-9 Dr. Mohit Jindal also stated that petitioner might get complication which might persists through out life. It can be easily deduced from the material on record that petitioner must have remained out of work for about 5-6 months. The petitioner although stated that he was doing business of toys but failed to place any document on record to establish his occupation. The income tax return for the assessment year 06-07 shows the gross income of the petitioner to be Rs. 1,25,254/- and for the assessment year 05-06 shows the gross income to be Rs. 1,04,654/-, for the assessment year 07-08 the income shown is Rs. 1,35,401/-. The income tax return for the year 2007-08 can be considered for calculating loss of income. Bills are for Rs. 1,44,494/-. Keeping in view the facts and M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 17/33 circumstances, I consider the following amount to be the just compensation to the petitioner:-
1 Compensation towards pain and sufferings Rs. 75,000/- 2 Compensation towards loss of earning for 6 months Rs. 67,800/- @ Rs. 11,300/- per month 3 Medical bills Rs.1,44,494/-
4 Compensation towards conveyance and Rs. 25,000/-
special diet (without bills) Therefore, in my opinion the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 3,12,294/- (rounded of to Rs. 3,12,300/-) which shall be the just compensation to petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 3 in M.A.C. Petition No. 1153/10 (Sh. Rajiv Nagpal and ors vs Dheeraj Sharma and ors.)
31. The PW-2, Sh. Rajiv Nagpal, husband of the deceased Smt. Parul Nagpal deposed that deceased was his wife and was 27 years of age at the time of accident. Smt. Parul Nagpal suffered injuries and died. It is stated that deceased was gainfully self-employed and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by running the ladies boutique cum beauty parlour at 2972, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi-32. The deceased left behind minor child of two and half years of age who would be deprived of mother love and affection and the petitioner had to appoint a maid servant for household works. During cross-examination, PW-2 stated that his wife was running boutique / beauty parlor at his residence and she had no licence for running boutique / beauty parlor and she had no formal education in field of cutting, tailoring, fashion designing etc.
32. I have gone through the material on record. Petitioner although stated that his wife was running a boutique / beauty parlor at his residence and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month but failed to place on record any document regarding avocation and earning. However, it cannot be denied that the deceased must have been rendering services to the family besides taking care of two and half year old son. Under these facts and M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 18/33 circumstances services of the deceased, as a house wife can be taken in to account.
33. In "Lata Wadhwa vs State of Bihar" reported as 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 673, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that services of the household lady can be taken to be Rs. 3000/- per month.
34. Following judgment of "Lata Wadhwa vs State of Bihar", the value of services of the deceased as a house wife are taken to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 3000 x 12 = Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The petitioners placed on record postmortem report showing the age of the deceased as 27 years. The multiplier applicable would be 17 considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident (27 years). Therefore, the total loss on dependency would be Rs. 36000 x 17 = Rs. 6,12,000/-.
35. In addition the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The husband of the deceased will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation will be Rs. 6,37,000/-.
ISSUE NO. 3 in M.A.C. Petition No. 1154/10 (Smt. Vijay Nagpal and ors vs Dheeraj Sharma and ors.)
36. PW-1 deposed that deceased Sh. Sunil Nagpal was her husband and was 37 years of age at the time of accident. He was self employed and was running the manufacturing of cutting tool under the name and style M/s Som Welding Works at 458/466, Gali No. 8, Friends Colony Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is also deposed that deceased was B.Com and was having mechanical / technical skills. He was a income tax payee. Petitioner exhibited income tax returns for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 are Ex.PW-1/6 (colly). PW-7, Sh. Robin Singh from Income Tax Department exhibited the income M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 19/33 tax returns for the assessment year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 as PW-7/1, PW-7/2 and PW-7/3 respectively.
37. Ld. Counsel for insurance company contended that the present petition is not maintainable as the deceased Sh. Sunil Nagpal had borrowed the vehicle from one Sh. Abdul Khaliq and therefore stepped into the shoes of the owner and cannot be taken as the third party therefore the said petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for insurance company relied upon the judgment "Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance company Ltd.", reported as 2009 SCCL.Com 78.
38. I have gone through the material on record. The law is well settled as laid down in Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance company Ltd., reported as 2009 SCCL.Com 78, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
'If it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as a liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A. In the instant case, the deceased was not the owner of the vehicle, in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorized to drive the vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the steps of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed the compensation under Section 163-A.'
39. In the matter titled as 'M/s. HDFC CHUBB General insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Rajwal Singh Hapur and another', hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that as the deceased driver of the motorcycle has borrowed the vehicle from the owner and met with an accident, he cannot come within the definition of third party.
M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 20/3340. The PW-1 Smt. Vijay Nagpal, wife of the deceased stated during cross-examination that one Mr. Khaliq was the owner of the car and she was not knowing to Mr. Khaliq before the accident and the car was not hired by them for going to Naina Devi, Himanchal Pradesh. She admitted that her husband had taken the car from its owner. She denied the suggestion that they have hired the offending vehicle for going to temple. The respondent no.1 and 2, driver and owner of vehicle no. DL-7CE-6427 stated that the respondent no. 1 was not the driver of respondent no. 2 owner of alleged car and the true facts were that the respondent no. 1 was called for driving the offending vehicle at Rs. 250/- per day and he was kept only for one week for driving the car because Sh. Sunil Nagpal has taken the said car from respondent no. 2 for pilgrimage and the respondent no. 2 had given his car to him being a friend without any charges, in good faith.
41. It is evident from the testimony of PW-1, Smt. Vijay Nagpal that deceased Sh. Sunil Nagpal has borrowed the vehicle from respondent no. 2 for going to Naina Devi Temple. There is no evidence in rebuttal to these facts. There is nothing on record to indicate that the vehicle was taken on hire or was used for commercial purpose.
42. So far as the mandate of Section 166 MV Act is concerned, it is clear that only a third party can maintain a petition under Section 166 of MV Act. In the matter in hand, the deceased has taken the vehicle which met with an accident. It is not the case of the petitioner that the car was hit by some other vehicle. In a third party insurance, the insurer and insured have contract between them and both are bound by terms and conditions of the contract. Generally, the insurer agree to indemnify the losses, if any, suffered by the third party on account of the use of the motor vehicle of the insured. It cannot be said that insured can claim compensation for injuries caused to him or his legal heirs can claim compensation for his death under the head of third party. There may be contract between the insurer and the insured with regard to the personal accident of the insured. In that M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 21/33 eventuality, the insured can enforce claim against insurer for the damages or injury caused to him.
43. It is clear from the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance company Ltd. and other, judgments as referred above that the person borrowing vehicle from the owner cannot be treated as third party. Following the ratio as laid down in the above said judgment the deceased cannot be the third party, therefore, the petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased is not maintainable. Petition is therefore, dismissed.
ISSUE NO. 3 in M.A.C. Petition No. 1155/10 (Smt. Vijay Nagpal vs Dheeraj Sharma and ors.)
44. PW-1, Petitioner deposed that after the accident she was taken to Civil Hospital, Anandpur Saheb, Punjab and as her condition was serious she was taken to PGI hospital, Chandigarh and was thereafter admitted in Pushpanjali hospital on 23.06.2007 and was discharged on the same day. Petitioner was again admitted in Shri Ram Singh Hospital and Heart Institute on 25.06.2007 and was discharged after treatment. Petitioner stated that she sustained injuries on right hand and neck, fracture of left elbow right hand with neuro vascular deficit.
45. I have gone through the material on record. The discharge summary issued by Pushpanjali Medical Centre shows that petitioner was admitted on 23.06.2006 and was discharged on the same day and has suffered injury to right hand and neck. Bills are for Rs.3,331/-. Therefore I consider Rs. 20,000/- plus bills of Rs. 3,331/- i.e. Rs. 23,331/- (rounded of to Rs. 23,350/-) to be the just compensation to the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 3 in M.A.C. Petition No. 1156/10 (Sh. Vijay Nagpal and ors. vs Dheeraj Sharma and ors.)
46. PW-1, Smt. Vijay Nagpal stated that master Karan Nagpal was her son and succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. PW-1 further stated that her son Master Karan Nagpal was a student and brilliant M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 22/33 in studies. He was also learning the work of electronics at Ram Avtar Electronics at Bhola Nath Nagar and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and in future he could have earned Rs. 15-20,000/- per month.
47. I have gone through the material on record. There is no material on record to show that deceased was employed and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. The deceased was 14 years of age. So far as the grant of compensation is concerned, the law is well settled in R.K. Malik vs Kiran Pal III (2006) ACC261 Hon'ble Delhi High Court held the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act to be the appropriate method for computing the compensation. With respect to the non-pecuniary damages, the Court observed that loss of dependency of life and pain and suffering on that account, generally speaking is same and uniform, to all regardless of status unless there is a specific case made out for deviation. Hon'ble High Court awarded Rs. 75,000/- towards non-pecuniary compensation. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment "R.K. Malik vs Kiran Pal, 2009(8) Scale 451" held that the claimants are also entitled to compensation towards future prospects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the claimants are entitled to be compensated towards future prospects and granted further compensation of Rs. 75,000/- towards future prospects of the children.
48. It is discerned from the record that deceased was 14 years of age, therefore notional income of the deceased can be taken as Rs. 15,000/- and applying the second schedule the multiplier of 15 can be taken. Therefore the compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000/- towards pecuniary damages. The claimants are also entitled to compensation of Rs. 75,000/- towards future prospects in terms of the above said judgment and the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Farzana Ors. The claimants are also entitled to a further sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages in terms of the judgment of R.K. Malik vs Kiran Pal, 2009(8) Scale 451. The claimants are therefore entitled to total compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- (Rs. 2,25,000/- + Rs. 75,000/- + Rs.
M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 23/3375,000/-).
ISSUE NO. 3 in M.A.C. Petition No. 1157/10 (Sh. Som Nath Nagpal and ors. vs Dheeraj Sharma and ors.)
49. PW-5, Sh. Som Nath Nagpal deposed that the deceased Smt. Sarla Nagpal suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. Petitioner deposed that deceased was 63 years of age at the time of accident and was rendering services to the family. After the death of deceased petitioner had to spend Rs. 25,000/- for keeping a maid servant.
50. I have gone through the material on record. The PW-5 has deposed that the deceased was housewife and was rendering her services to the family. In the judgment of "Lata Wadhwa vs State of Bihar" reported as 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 673, Hon'ble Supreme Court took the value of services rendered by housewife in the age group of 34 to 59 to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and for the housewife in the age group of 62-72 to be Rs. 20,000/- per annum.
51. Following judgment of "Lata Wadhwa vs State of Bihar", the value of services of the deceased as a house wife are taken to be Rs. 20,000/- per annum. The petitioners placed on record ration card Ex.PW-1/22, showing the year of birth of the deceased to be 1944.The multiplier applicable would be 7 considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident (64 years). Therefore, the total loss on dependency would be Rs. 20000 x 7 = Rs. 1,40,000/-.
52. In addition the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The husband of the deceased will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation will be Rs. 1,75,000/-.
M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 24/33LIABILITY
53. The insurance company examined Sh. Rohit Kumar, Sr. Executive, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. as R3W1. R3W1 exhibited the copy of the policy as R3W1/A.
54. The insurance company also examined Sh. Sanjay Singh, Investigator, Bhavya Associates as R3W2. R3W2 deposed that he had gone through the record of the Licencing Authority but the licence no. 3499/2005 was not found issued from Licencing Authority, Eta, U.P. in the name of Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Sharma and the said driving licence was found to be fake. R3W2 exhibited his authority letter as R3W2/A and verification report of driving licence no. 3499/2005 as R3W2/1. R3W2 Sh. Sanjay Singh also deposed that he had also gone through the record of the Licencing Authority, Mathura but the licence no. 3651/2005 was not found issued from Licencing Authority, Mathura, U.P in the name of Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Sharma the said driving licence was found to be fake. The verification report of DL no. 3651/2005 was exhibited as R3W2/2.
55. I have gone through the material on record. The report issued by Licencing Authority, MV Depot, Eta on form 54 shows that driving licence no. 3499/ETH/2005 was not issued in the name of Sh. Dheeraj Sharma. Another report issued on form 54 by Licencing Authority, Mathura records that DL no. 3651/MTR/05 was not issued in the name of Sh. Dheeraj Kumar. It is clear from the reports issued by Licencing Authorities that the respondent no. 1 was not possessing valid driving licence. The two driving licences on record were found to be fake. Under these facts and circumstances, liability cannot be fastened on insurance company.
56. Since the respondent no. 3 has admitted the policy, the respondent no. 3 shall initially satisfy the award. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from respondent no. 2.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF) M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 25/33
57. While granting the relief to petitioners in both the cases, I am also to award the interest @ 7.5% p.a on the amount awarded to petitioners from the date of filing of petitions till realization of the amount. Issue no. 3 is answered accordingly.
RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 1150/10:-
58. In view of the above, the respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-, within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2.
59. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 1150/10
60. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-, within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2.
61. The amount granted to minor petitioner shall be kept in FDR till his attaining age of majority.
62. The award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 26/33 30 days from today, in the court.
RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 1151/10:-
63. In view of the above, the respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 87,950/-. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 87,950/-, within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2.
64. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 1151/10
65. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 87,950/-. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 87,950/-, within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2.
66. The amount granted to minor petitioner shall be kept in FDR till her attaining age of majority.
67. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 1152/10:-
M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 27/3368. In view of the above, the respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,12,300/-. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.
3,12,300/-, within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2.
69. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 1152/10
70. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,12,300/-. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,12,300/-, within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2.
71. 50% of the awarded amount to petitioner shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years and rest of the amount be released to petitioner.
72. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 1153/10:-
73. In view of the above, the respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 6,37,000/-. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 28/33 insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,37,000/-, within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2.
74. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 1153/10
75. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 6,37,000/-. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,37,000/-, within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2. The claimants are entitled to the compensation in the following proportions along with corresponding interest :-
(a) Petitioner No. 1 shall get Rs. 5,09,600/- along with corresponding interest.
(b) Petitioner No. 2 shall get Rs. 1,27,400/- along with corresponding interest.
76. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
77. The share of minor petitioner no. 2 shall be kept in FDR till his attaining age of majority.
78. 50% of the amount awarded to petitioner no. 1 shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years and rest of the amount be released to petitioner no. 1.
M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 29/33AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 1154/10
79. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 1155/10:-
80. In view of the above, the respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 23,350/-. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 23,350/-, within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2.
81. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 1155/10
82. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 23,350/-. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 23,350/-, within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2.
83. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 1156/10:-
84. In view of the above, the respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 30/33 the compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/-, inclusive of interim compensation. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/-, inclusive of interim compensation within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2.
85. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 1156/10
86. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/-, inclusive of interim compensation. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/-, within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2. The claimants are entitled to the compensation in the following proportions along with corresponding interest :-
(a) Petitioner No. 1 shall get Rs. 3,00,000/- along with corresponding interest.
(b) Petitioner No. 2 shall get Rs. 75,000/- along with corresponding interest.
87. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
88. The share of minor petitioner no. 2 shall be kept in FDR till her attaining age of majority.
M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 31/3389. 50% of the amount awarded to petitioner no. 1 shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years and rest of the amount be released to petitioner no. 1.
RELIEF in M.A.C. Petition No. 1157/10:-
90. In view of the above, the respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/-, inclusive of interim compensation. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/-, inclusive of interim compensation within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2.
91. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN M.A.C. Petition No. 1157/10
92. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/-, inclusive of interim compensation. However, the respondent no. 3, insurance company has admitted the policy, the respondent No. 3, insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/-, within one month. The respondent no. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 2. The claimants are entitled to the compensation in the following proportions along with corresponding interest :-
(a) Petitioner No. 1 shall get Rs. 1,00,000/- along with corresponding interest.
(b) Petitioner No. 2 to 4 shall get Rs. 25,000/- (each) along with corresponding interest.M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 32/33
93. Award amount shall be deposited by respondent no. 3 within 30 days from today, in the court.
94. List for reporting compliance on 17.02.2012.
95. A copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for both the parties.
96. Original judgment be kept in M.A.C. Petition No. 1154/10 and a copy in other files. A copy of the award be given free of cost to the parties concerned.
Announced in the (Arvind Kumar)
open court on 17.12.2011 Presiding Officer:MACT
Karkardooma Court
Delhi
M.A.C. Petition No: 1150/10 to 1157/10 Page No. 33/33