Delhi District Court
Sh. Mahinder Singh vs Sh. Nilesh Aggarwal on 11 April, 2023
MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VINOD YADAV,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 423/18
UID/CNR No. DLNT010063072018
1. Sh. Mahinder Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Bharat Lal,
(Husband of deceased Geeta)
2. Baby Ankita,
D/o Sh. Mahinder Singh,
(Minor daughter of deceased Geeta)
Both R/o H. No. 17,
VPO Nangli Poona,
Delhi.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Nilesh Aggarwal,
S/o Sh. Sumit Aggarwal,
R/o H.No. 26, Mohan Kunj,
K.C. Dey Road, Ward No. 10,
Siliguri, Darjling,
West Bengal.
(Driver)
2. Mercury Car Rental Pvt. Ltd.
At Plot No. 92,
Sector - 44, Gurugram,
Haryana.
(Registered owner)
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 1 of 55
MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Dholy Pyau Sagar,
Ratna Building,
3rd Floor,
Janakpuri, Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 422/18
UID/CNR No. DLNT010063092018
Smt. Kamlesh,
W/o Sh. Bharat Lal,
R/o H.No. 17,
VPO Nangli Poona,
Delhi.
(Injured)
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Nilesh Aggarwal,
S/o Sh. Sumit Aggarwal,
R/o H.No. 26, Mohan Kunj,
K.C. Dey Road, Ward No. 10,
Siliguri, Darjling,
West Bengal.
(Driver)
2. Mercury Car Rental Pvt. Ltd.
At Plot No. 92,
Sector - 44, Gurugram,
Haryana.
(Registered owner)
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 2 of 55
MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Dholy Pyau Sagar,
Ratna Building,
3rd Floor,
Janakpuri, Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 424/18
UID/CNR No. DLNT010063102018
1. Smt. Bimla,
W/o Late Sh. Rai Singh,
(Widow of deceased)
2. Smt. Usha,
D/o Late Sh. Rai Singh,
R/o 952, Dhiman Basti,
Chulkana (118),
Panipat, Haryana.
(Daughter of deceased)
3. Smt. Raj Bala,
D/o Late Sh. Rai Singh,
R/o H.No. 283, Mukhmelpur
Delhi.
(Daughter of deceased)
4. Smt. Nisha,
D/o Late Sh. Rai Singh,
R/o H.No. 93, Nangal Kalan(43),
Sonepat, Haryana.
(Daughter of deceased)
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 3 of 55
MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
5. Sh. Vijay Pal,
Late Sh. Rai Singh,
(Son of deceased)
6. Sh. Gopal,
Late Sh. Rai Singh,
(Son of deceased)
Petitioners no. 1, 5 & 6 R/o H.No. 893,
Purani Phirni Road,
Village Alipur,
Delhi.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Nilesh Aggarwal,
S/o Sh. Sumit Aggarwal,
R/o H.No. 26, Mohan Kunj,
K.C. Dey Road, Ward No. 10,
Siliguri, Darjling,
West Bengal.
(Driver)
2. Mercury Car Rental Pvt. Ltd.
At Plot No. 92,
Sector - 44, Gurugram,
Haryana.
(Registered owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Dholy Pyau Sagar,
Ratna Building,
3rd Floor,
Janakpuri, Delhi.
(Insurer)
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 4 of 55
MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 425/18
UID/CNR No. DLNT010063082018
Smt. Rekha,
W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar,
R/o H.No. 17,
VPO Nangli Poona,
Delhi.
(Injured)
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Nilesh Aggarwal,
S/o Sh. Sumit Aggarwal,
R/o H.No. 26, Mohan Kunj,
K.C. Dey Road, Ward No. 10,
Siliguri, Darjling,
West Bengal.
(Driver)
2. Mercury Car Rental Pvt. Ltd.
At Plot No. 92,
Sector - 44, Gurugram,
Haryana.
(Registered owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Dholy Pyau Sagar,
Ratna Building,
3rd Floor,
Janakpuri, Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 5 of 55
MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
Date of Institution : 10.07.2018
Date of Arguments : 24.03.2023
Date of Award : 11.04.2023
APPEARENCES
Sh. Parmod Kumar, Ld. Counsel for petitioner(s)/Lrs of
deceased Geeta, injured Kamlesh and Rekha.
Ms. Soniya Kumari, Ld. Counsel for petitioner(s)/Lrs of
deceased Rai Singh.
Sh. Manish Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for driver.
Sh. Milind Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for registered owner.
Sh. Vikas Shokeen, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD:
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of all the four Detailed
Accident Reports (DAR) with regard to fatal injuries sustained by Smt.
Geeta (deceased in MACP No. 423/18), Sh. Rai Singh (deceased in MACP
No. 424/18), Smt. Kamlesh (injured in MACP No. 422/18) and
Smt. Rekha(injured in MACP No. 425/18) in Motor Vehicular Accident
which occurred on 01.03.2018 at about 6:30 pm in front of Siraspur
Gurudwara, Upper GTK Road, Delhi, involving Innova Car bearing
registration no. DL1N7438 (offending vehicle) being driven in a rash and
negligent manner by its driver(Respondent no. 1).
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 6 of 55
MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
2. All the four DARs were consolidated for the purpose of
recording of evidence vide order dated 07.09.2018, passed by my
Ld. Predecessor and MACP No. 423/18 titled as "Mahender Singh & Ors.
Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors" was treated as the leading case.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. According to DAR filed in all the cases, on 01.03.2018, petitioner Sh. Mahinder alongwith his wife Smt. Geeta (deceased), mother Smt. Kamlesh (injured) and Smt. Rekha (injured) and one another old person Sh. Rai Singh (deceased) not connected to their family were crossing the road in front of Siraspur Gurudwara, Upper GTK Road, Delhi and in the meantime, offending vehicle which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner came from front side and hit with a great force all the aforesaid persons except the petitioner Sh. Mahinder. Due to the said impact, Smt. Geeta died at the spot and other persons received grievous injuries. They all were taken to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where all were medically examined. FIR No. 187/18 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS. S.P. Badli, with regard to the said accident. It is claimed that offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd./respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 7 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
4. In his identical but separate Written Statements filed in all the cases, the driver/respondent no. 1 has raised the preliminary objection that accident had not taken place with the offending vehicle and he had been falsely implicated in the present case. On merits, he denied the averments made in the DAR and prayed for its dismissal.
5. In its identical but separate Written Statements filed in all the cases, the respondent no. 2 i.e. registered owner claimed that offending vehicle was registered in its name i.e. M/s. Mercury Car Rentals Pvt Ltd and the same was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident. It has been further claimed that the respondent no. 1 was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It has been also claimed that offending vehicle was having valid and effective permit at the time of accident and as such, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
6. In its identical but separate Written Statements filed in all the cases, the respondent no. 3 i.e. insurance company claimed that offending vehicle was a commercial vehicle, whereas respondent no. 1 was having valid driving licence for LMVNT and as such, respondent no. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and as such, it has been claimed that it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. However, it has been admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it at the time of accident.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 8 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
7. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18 separately by L d. Predecessor vide order dated 07.09.2018 :
1) Whether the deceased Geeta and Rai Singh and injured Smt. Kamlesh and Smt. Rekha died and suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 01.03.2018 at 18:30 hrs, in front of Gurudwara Siraspur, Upper GTK Road, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. S.P. Badli due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL1N7438 by its driver namely Nilesh Aggarwal/R1, owned by Mercury Car Rental Pvt. Ltd./R2 and was insured with Reliance General Insurance Co.
Ltd.? OPP.
2) Whether the Lrs of deceased/injured entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
8. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined five witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Mahender Singh (husband of deceased Geeta), PW2 Smt. Rekha (injured as well as eyewitness), PW3 Smt. Kamlesh(injured as well as eyewitness), PW4 Sh. Gopal (son of deceased Rai Singh) and PW5 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Specialist Orthopedic, Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi and their evidence was closed vide order dated 11.11.2022. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by any of the respondents.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 9 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
9. I have heard the arguments addressed by ld counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the record. My findings on the issues are as under: ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN ALL THE CASES)
10. For the purpose of this issue, the testimonies of PW1 as well as both the injured persons i.e. PW2 & PW3 are relevant. They all deposed in their respective evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A, PW2/A & Ex. PW3/A respectively) on the lines of averments made in the DAR.
11. PW1 Sh. Mahender Singh has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. DAR Ex PW1/1(colly)
2. Copy of election I card of Ex.PW1/2 deceased
3. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/3
4. Copy of Birth Certificate and Ex. PW1/4(colly) Aadhaar Card of daughter of deceased
12. During his crossexamination on behalf of registered owner, he deposed that there was zebra crossing at the place of accident and all were crossing the road therefrom. He further deposed that there was no traffic on the road. He further deposed that he had seen the offending Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 10 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 vehicle from a distance of about 500 meter prior to the accident and had given signal to the driver of the offending vehicle to stop his vehicle. He further deposed that they were in the mid way of the road when the accident had taken place. During his crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that there was no red light signal at the place of accident. He further deposed that there was no railings on the divider of the road. He denied the suggestion that there was railing between the divider of the road and they had been crossing the road in violation of the traffic rules. He denied the suggestion that the accident had not been caused by the offending vehicle. He admitted that driver of the offending vehicle had accompanied them to the hospital. He denied the suggestion that driver of the offending vehicle helped them on humanitarian grounds and later on they have falsely implicated him. He further denied the suggestion that they have falsely implicated the offending vehicle and its driver as some unknown vehicle had hit them. He denied the suggestion that since the unknown vehicle could not be traced out, they had in collusion with the police officials and owner of the offending vehicle, falsely shown the involvement of the offending vehicle.
13. PW2 Smt. Rekha has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. DAR Ex PW1/1(colly)
2. Her original treatment record Ex.PW2/1(colly)
3. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex. PW2/2 Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 11 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
4. Copy of her PAN Card Ex. PW2/3
5. Copy of her diploma in Ex. PW2/4 respect of her stitching course
14. During her crossexamination on behalf of registered owner, she deposed that there was zebra crossing on the road where the accident had taken place. She further deposed that there was red light signal also at the said spot. During her crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, she stated that she had seen the offending vehicle before the accident, however, she could not tell the distance from which she had seen the same coming towards them. She further deposed that she did not remember the colour of offending vehicle. She denied the suggestion that the accident was not caused by the offending vehicle. She admitted that driver of the offending vehicle had accompanied them to the hospital. She denied the suggestion that driver of the offending vehicle helped them on humanitarian ground and later on they have falsely implicated him. She further denied the suggestion that they have falsely implicated the offending vehicle and its driver as some unknown vehicle had hit them. She denied the suggestion that since the unknown vehicle could not be traced out, they had in collusion with the police officials and owner of the offending vehicle, falsely shown the involvement of the offending vehicle.
15. PW3 Smt. Kamlesh has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Her original disability Ex PW3/1 Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 12 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 certificate
2. Her original treatment record Ex.PW3/2(colly) and receipt of medicines/medical bills and taxi bills
3. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex. PW3/3
4. Copy of her PAN Card Ex. PW3/4
5. Copy of Certificate issued by Ex. PW3/5 Women Association
16. During her crossexamination on behalf of registered owner and insurance company, she deposed that on the date and time of accident, she was going to Peer Baba, near Gurudwara, Siraspur Village, Delhi. She further deposed that she had seen the offending vehicle from a distance of about 15 meters before the accident. She deposed that at the spot of accident, there was zebra crossing. She further deposed that she had crossed the entire road when the accident had taken place. She denied the suggestion that accident had occurred due to her own negligence.
17. The careful perusal of testimonies of aforesaid witnesses i.e. PW1 to PW3 would go on to show that the respondents have not been able to impeach their testimonies through litmus test of crossexamination. Even otherwise, the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses i.e. PW2 & PW3 inspires confidence as they themselves shown to have sustained injuries due to the accident. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 187/18 u/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS. S.P. Badli with regard to accident Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 13 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of DAR), would show that same was registered on 01.03.2018 i.e. on the date of accident itself on the statement of PW1 Sh. Mahender who was also accompanying the deceased Geeta and injured persons at the time of accident. He had specifically mentioned the registration number of offending vehicle therein. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. The contents of said FIR would show that he had disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident as deposed by PW1 to PW3 during their evidence. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of aforesaid witnesses made on oath.
18. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him.
19. The very fact that respondent no. 1 Sh. Nilesh Aggarwal was chargesheeted(which is part of DAR) by the police for offences punishable u/s. 279/338/304A IPC would further show that Investigating Agency also concluded after completion of the investigation that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 14 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 driver/respondent no. 1. Same also points out towards the fact that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no.1.
20. Copy of MLCs (which are part of criminal case record) of Smt. Geeta and Sh. Rai Singh (both deceased) and injured persons namely Smt. Rekha and Smt. Kamlesh would show that they had been removed to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi with alleged history of RTA on 01.03.18 at 7:17 PM. They are shown to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. As per the MLCs, petitioners namely Smt. Kamlesh and Smt. Rekha had sustained grievous injuries. Not only this, postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased Smt. Geeta and Sh. Rai Singh. The copy of PM Report (which is also part of DAR) of deceased Smt. Geeta, would show that cause of her death was hemorrhagic shock consequent to multiple injuries to the body. The copy of PM Report (which is also part of DAR) of deceased Sh. Rai Singh, would show that his cause of death was head injury. All the injuries were antemortem in nature, fresh in duration and could be caused in road traffic accident. The external injuries as mentioned in the relevant column correspond with the injuries which occur in Motor Vehicular Accident. Said documents have not been disputed from the side of respondents.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 15 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that Smt. Geeta and Sh. Rai Singh had sustained fatal injuries whereas Smt. Kamlesh and Smt. Rekha had sustained injuries in the road accident which took place on 01.03.2018 at about 6:30 pm in front of Siraspur Gurudwara, Upper GTK Road, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no. 1. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
22. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
Compensation in MACP No. 423/18 (Deceased Smt. Geeta) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
23. The claimants/petitioners are the husband and one minor daughter of deceased. PW1 Sh. Mahender (husband of deceased) has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that deceased aged about 28 years was doing the work of Beautician and earning Rs. 25,000/ per month at the time of accident. He further deposed that both the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased at the time of Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 16 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 accident. It has been argued on behalf of petitioners that deceased was also doing all the household work and rendering other useful services to the family members at the time of accident.
24. During his cross examination on behalf of registered owner, he deposed that at the time of accident, he was unemployed. He deposed that deceased was studied upto 5th class. He further deposed that deceased was working as Beautician from the 5 years prior to the accident. He further deposed that he had no documentary proof in respect of working and earning of deceased as Beautician. During his crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he denied the suggestion that deceased was unemployed and was dependent upon him at the time of accident. He deposed that he had not filed any proof of his marriage with deceased. He denied the suggestion that deceased was not his wife.
25. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for petitioners fairly conceded that for want of any cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners regarding monthly income of deceased, her income should be considered as per Minimum Wages Act in order to calculate the loss of dependency. He however argued that future prospects may also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
26. As already noted above, PW1 Sh. Mahinder who is husband of deceased deposed in his evidence that deceased was earning Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 17 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 Rs. 25,000/ per month at the time of accident. However, he has not filed any documentary evidence in this regard. Petitioners have also failed to file any educational qualification documents of deceased. Hence, it is held that the petitioners have failed to prove that deceased was employed or earning any amount at the time of accident.
27. In case titled Kirti & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2021) 2 SCC 166, 3Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing and highlighting the services rendered by housewife/homemaker and assessment of her notional income as per minimum wages prescribed for the State observed as under:
xxxxx " Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 18 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. The granting of future prospects,on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation"
xxxxx
28. In the matter titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manmeet Singh & Ors.", reported at 2012 ACJ 721 (Delhi), it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the services rendered by a housewife can not be counted; cooking, washing, ironing clothes and stitching clothes (in some cases) for the husband and children, teaching and guiding children, working as a nurse whenever the husband and child/children are sick, are some of the major activities of a housewife. She has no fixed hours of work; she is always in attendance to take care of each and every need of the whole family at the cost of her personal comfort and health. The services rendered by a housewife may differ from case to case considering her qualification, financial strata and social status of the family to which she belongs.
29. It is also relevant to note here that while deciding claim petition under M.V Act, it is the duty of Claims Tribunal to follow the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and to adopt more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that loss of dependency has to be assessed while taking the income of a skilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 19 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 16,468/ per month at the time of accident in question, which had occurred on 01.03.2018.
30. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Smt. Geeta was aged about 33 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have relied upon copy of Voter I Card (Ex. PW1/2) of deceased wherein her age is mentioned as 18 years as on 01.01.2003. Thus, she was aged about 33 years at the time of accident(date of accident being 01.03.2018). Thus, the age of deceased is accepted as 33 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 16 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
31. Considering the age of deceased, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
32. PW1 has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/B) that all the petitioners were dependent upon the Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 20 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 deceased. It is argued on behalf of insurance company that husband of deceased was not dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. Even if we assume that husband of deceased was not dependent upon her at the time of accident, it can not be denied that he was dependent upon the household services of his wife. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that there were two dependents upon the deceased i.e. husband and one minor daughter of deceased at the time of accident and there has to be deduction of one third as held in the case of Sarla Verma mentioned supra. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 29,51,065.60/ (Rs. 16,468/ X 2/3 X 140/100 X 12 X 16). Hence, a sum of Rs. 29,51,000/ (rounded off) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION
33. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 21 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
34. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020 I am of the considered opinion that both the petitioners are entitled for payment of Rs. 44,000/ each towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 88,000/ is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
35. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 16,500/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 29,51,000/
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 88,000/
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 33,000/ Expenses Total Rs. 30,72,000/ Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 22 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 Compensation in MACP No. 422/18 (Injured Smt. Kamlesh) MEDICAL EXPENSES
36. Petitioner has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A) that after the accident, she was taken to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where she was medically examined and thereafter, she was referred to Sushruta Trauma Centre where she remained admitted from 02.03.2018 to 05.06.2018. She further deposed that she was treated for the injuries suffered by her in Sushruta Trauma Centre and surgery was done in the said hospital. She deposed that she had spent considerable amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ on her treatment and her treatment was still continued at that time. During her crossexamination on behalf of registered owner and insurance company, she denied the suggestion that she had not sustained injuries due to the accident in question. She denied the suggestion that she had not incurred a sum of Rs. 5 lacs on his treatment as mentioned in para no. 6 of his affidavit.
37. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical bills amounting to Rs. 60,310/ only, which are Ex. PW3/2 (colly). It is quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 60,310/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 23 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 LOSS OF INCOME
38. Petitioner has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW3/A) that she was tailor and earning Rs. 18,000/per month at the time of accident. She further deposed that due to the injuries suffered by her in the accident, she could not work for considerable period. During her crossexamination on behalf of registered owner and insurance company, she admitted that she had not filed any proof of income. She deposed that she had not filed any document i.e. diploma and training certificate for tailoring work. She further deposed that she had not filed any bills of tailoring assignments. She denied the suggestion that neither she was working nor she was earning Rs. 18,000/ per month at the time of accident. She denied the suggestion that she could perform her day to day activities easily.
39. The Discharge Summary (which is part of Ex. PW3/3 colly) of Sushruta Trauma Centre, in respect of petitioner/injured, would reveal that she was admitted in the said hospital on 02.03.2018 and discharged on 30.03.2018. As per the said record, the petitioner had sustained fracture acetabulam left with fracture both bones leg left. The Discharge Summary (which is part of Ex. PW3/3 colly) of Lok Nayak Hospital, in respect of petitioner/injured, would reveal that she was admitted in the said hospital on 30.03.2018 and discharged on 06.05.2018. As per the said record, the case of the petitioner was one month old B/L Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 24 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 superior and inferior public rami fracture with left acetabulam fracture left with segmental BBLEF fracture left.
40. Apart from the aforesaid documents produced by petitioner, she has failed to file any other medical treatment record in order to show the exact period upto which she had received the medical treatment. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and in view of the treatment record brought on record, it is presumed that she would not have been able to work atleast for a period of eight months or so.
41. Apart from the bald statement made by the petitioner that she was earning Rs. 18,000/ per month, no definite evidence whatsoever has been brought on record to prove her monthly income at the time of accident in question. Mere bald testimony of petitioner in this regard, would not suffice. The petitioner has also failed to file any document in respect of her educational qualification.
42. The law laid down in case Kirti (supra) shall also be applicable here.
43. It is also relevant to note here that while deciding claim petition under M.V Act, it is the duty of Claim Tribunal to follow the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and to adopt more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach. It is pertinent to mention here that though, the working Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 25 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 and earning of the petitioner has not been proved by her, however, it can not be denied that women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. Thus, loss of income of injured has to be assessed while taking the income of a skilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 16,468/ per month at the time of accident in question, which had occurred on 01.03.2018. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,31,744/(16,468/ x 8) is awarded in favour of petitioner and against the respondent under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
44. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under: " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 26 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
45. Petitioner has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex PW3/A) that she had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 75% in relation to her left lower limb. Thus, she would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by her, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
46. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 75% in relation to her left lower limb. Thus, she would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question and her quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by her and her continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 75,000/ towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 27 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
47. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that petitioners had spent considerable amount on special diet and conveyance and attendant charges but she has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by her under the aforesaid heads. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that she had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 75% in relation to her left lower limb. Thus, she would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for her regular check up & follow up during the period of her medical treatment. She would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from her family, to perform her daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of her medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 20,000/ for conveyance charges and Rs. 15,000/ each for special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
48. The petitioner is shown to have sustained 75% permanent disability in relation to her left lower limb. Same is quite evident from Unique Disability ID Card (Ex. PW3/1).
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 28 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
49. As per the testimony of PW5 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Specialist Orthopedic Surgeon, Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Delhi, the petitioner was found to have suffered 75% permanent disability in relation to her left lower limb in terms of Disability Certificate (Ex. PW3/1). He deposed that the said disability was permanent in nature and thus, reassessment was not recommended. He deposed that petitioner would have difficulty in squatting, in climbing stairs, in crossleg sitting. He further deposed that petitioner would also have difficulty in lifting heavy objects. During his cross examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was not the treating doctor of petitioner. He further deposed that he could not tell the functional disability of petitioner in relation to whole body. He denied the suggestion that the disability suffered by petitioner had no corelation with the injuries sustained by him due to the accident.
50. It is relevant to note that the petitioner was stated to be doing the job of tailoring at the time of accident. Since, she is shown to have sustained 75% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb which plays pivotal role in everyone's life, it would be quite difficult for her to do any type of work with ease with aforesaid kind of disability. It would also be difficult for her to perform her day to day activities. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner and her nature of work at the time of accident, her functional disability is taken as 40% with regard to whole body.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 29 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
51. In copy of Aadhaar Card and PAN Card (Ex. PW3/4 & Ex. PW3/5 respectively) of petitioner, her year of birth is mentioned as 1973. The date of accident is 01.03.2018. Thus, the petitioner was aged about 45 years on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 14 in view of judgment passed in case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. The monthly income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 16,468/ per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 6587.20 (Rs. 16,468/ x 40/100 ). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 13,83,312/ (Rs. 6587.20 x 125/100 x 12 x
14). Thus, a sum of Rs. 13,83,000/ (rounded off) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical expenses Rs. 60,310/
2. Loss of income Rs. 1,31,744/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,50,000/
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 75,000/ enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 50,000/ attendant charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 13,83,000/ Total Rs. 18,50,054/ Rounded off to Rs. 18,50,000/ Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 30 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 Compensation in MACP No. 424/18 (Deceased Rai Singh) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
52. PW4 Sh. Gopal has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW4/A that deceased (aged about 66 years) was living a healthy and peaceful life and was getting monthly pension of Rs. 13,950/ at the time of accident. He further deposed that after the retirement from government department, deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs. 15,000/ per month. He deposed that all the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. He has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copies of Aadhaar Card of all Ex PW4/1(colly) the six petitioners
2. Copy of pension payment Ex.PW4/2 order of deceased
3. Copy of bank passbook of Ex. PW4/3 widow of deceased
53. During his crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he admitted that all the Lrs of deceased were major. He deposed that his mother Smt. Bimla Devi had already expired on 29.12.2021 and after her death, no family pension was being received by them. He further deposed that he did not have any documentary proof to show that deceased used to work as a mason and petty Contractor. During his crossexamination on Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 31 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 behalf of registered owner, he admitted that he was working and married at that time. He further admitted that his brother Vijay was also working and married at that time. He denied the suggestion that none of the Lrs of deceased were financially dependent upon him at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that deceased was not earning Rs. 15,000/ per month at the time of accident.
54. Ld. Counsel for petitioners fairly conceded during the course of arguments that deceased was retired from government job and widow of deceased was getting monthly family pension from his department after the death of deceased. He further argued that family pension of deceased got also stopped after the death of widow of deceased on 29.12.2021 i.e. during the pendency of present case. It is relevant to mention here that during life time of deceased, he was getting monthly pension of Rs. 13,950/ as per the copy of bank passbook of deceased Ex. PW4/3(colly), however, after the accident, widow of deceased was getting monthly family pension of Rs. 16,754/(as per copy of bank passbook of widow of deceased which is also part of Ex. PW4/3 colly). It may be noted here that bare perusal of copy of bank passbook of deceased reveals that she was getting monthly family pension of Rs. 16,754/ till 29.06.2019 and thereafter, she was receiving pension of Rs. 12,108/ till 31.10.2019. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners have failed to file any document in respect of getting of monthly family pension by widow of deceased after 31.10.2019 till the date of her death. There is nothing on Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 32 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 record which can show that as to how much family pension was being received by the widow of deceased till her death.
55. Similar question arose before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Devi & Ors." MAC. APP. 312/2011, decided on 30.03.2016. In the said case, Hon'ble High Court had the occasion to deal with the issue as to whether the computation of loss of dependency was to be done by addition of entire pension receivable by the deceased during his life time to the earnings or not. The relevant paragraphs related to the issue in hand are reproduced as under: xxxxx " 2. Having been fastened with the liability, the insurer has come up in appeal questioning the computation of loss of dependency by addition of the entire pension receivable by the deceased during his lifetime to the earnings. The objection essentially is that, after his death, his widow has been in receipt of family pension from army, a fact which was admitted by Avinash Dubey (PW1) one of the claimants, he being the son of the deceased. The family pension, under the normal service rules, would be half of the pension that the retired government servant is entitled to. In these circumstances, the value of the family pension that would have been received by the widow after the death would be in the sum of `4,371. This cannot treated as loss of dependency. It is the balance of `4,371/ by which the income from pension for the purposes of the family has been reduced which only deserved to be added to the calculations.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 33 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
3. Thus, the loss of dependency needs to be recomputed on the earnings on (8,190 + 4,371) `12,561/ per month. Given the age of 59 years, the tribunal rightly declined to add the element of future prospects. One fourth of the income was deducted towards personal and living expenses, and rightly so, since the number of dependents is five. In this view, the loss of monthly dependency is worked out as (12,561 x 3 ÷ 4) `9,421/. On the multiplier of 9, the total loss of dependency comes to (9,421 x 12 x 9) `10,17,468/."
xxxxx
56. In the matter titled as "ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Adesh Sharma & Ors." MAC. APP. 418/2010, decided on 21.03.2016, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had the occasion to deal with the similar issue as involved in the present case as to whether the computation of loss of dependency was to be done by addition of entire pension receivable by the deceased during his life time to the earnings or not. The relevant paragraph related to the issue in hand is reproduced as under: xxxx "8. Further, the addition of pension of ₹9,735/to the loss of earnings was erroneous. As pointed out by the counsel for the insurance company, under the normal rules, the claimant widow would still be in receipt of family pension, as was admitted by her during her crossexamination. Since family pension is computed normally at 50% of the pension earned by the government servant, she would still be in receipt of an amount of ₹4,867/50 towards pension.
Therefore, the loss of earnings on such count would Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 34 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 be equivalent to the said amount rounded off to ₹4,868/per month. "
xxxxx
57. It is clear from the aforequoted cases that loss of dependency should be calculated by keeping in mind the actual loss suffered by the claimants on account of death of deceased. It is an admitted fact that after death of a government servant, his/her pension is reduced to half by the concerned department/authorities and as such, family of the deceased is entitled to 50% of the family pension meaning thereby that there is not complete loss of the family pension.
58. Now reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is relevant to mention here that as per the documents i.e. copy of bank passbook of widow of the deceased, after the death of deceased, widow of deceased lastly received monthly pension of Rs. 12,108/ in the month of September 2019 and October, 2019. However, there is nothing on record to show as to how much monthly family pension was being received by widow of deceased till her death i.e. 29.12.2021. It is a matter of common knowledge that an old aged person has tendency to spend less on him. This is more so when he is at the age of 66 years. In other words, a person at such an old age, would be saving more than the amount he would be spending towards his personal and living expenses. In these facts and circumstances, I am inclined to take one half of the monthly pension of deceased, which comes out to Rs. 7,000/ (rounded off) as his monthly savings. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 35 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 that loss of dependency has to be assessed while taking the income of a skilled person (deceased being Gestetner Operator in Delhi University) under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 16,468/ per month at the time of accident in question, which had occurred on 01.03.2018. Thus, total loss of income would come out to be Rs. 23,468/ per month (Rs. 16,468/ plus Rs. 7,000/ loss of pension).
59. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Sh. Rai Singh was aged about 66 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have filed particulars of service record of deceased (which is part of Ex. PW4/2 colly), wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 12.08.1952. Thus, he was aged about 66 years at the time of accident(date of accident being 01.03.2018). Thus, the age of deceased is accepted as 66 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 5 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
60. PW4/son of deceased has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that all the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased. It is argued on behalf of insurance company that only Smt. Bimla (widow of deceased) was dependent upon the deceased at and remaining petitioners were major and earning at the time of accident and as such, the can not be considered as dependent upon deceased.Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 36 of 55
MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
61. Considering the fact that deceased was about 66 years old at the time of accident, no future prospects shall be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017.
62. It is relevant to note here that as per the case of petitioners there were five petitioners in the present case i.e. widow and five major married children of deceased at the time of accident. Now, a question arises that whether the major sons/daughter of the deceased who are married who are also married gainfully employed or earning, are entitled for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or not. In case titled "
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Birender & Ors.", passed in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 242243 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 976977 of 2020), decided on 13.01.2020 by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Court discussed the said fact and has been pleased to hold has under:
63. Section 166 of the Act provides for filing of application for compensation by persons mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub Section (1) thereof. Section 166 of the Act, as applicable at the relevant time, reads thus:
"Section 166. Application for compensation: (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in subsection (1) of section 165 may be made Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 37 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
64. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully Dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. Reliance is placed on Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Appeal (civil) 1702 of 2007, decided on 30.03.2007. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative.
Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed as under: "9. In terms of clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition.
The proviso to said subsection makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 38 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.
10. The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g).
65. In view of the same, it is held that there were six dependents upon the deceased at the time of accident and there has to be deduction of one fourth as held in the case of Sarla Verma mentioned supra. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 10,56,060/ (Rs. 23,468/ X 3/4 X 12 X 5). Hence, a sum of Rs. 10,56,000/ (rounded off) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 39 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
66. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
67. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020 I am of the considered opinion that all the six petitioners are entitled for payment of Rs. 44,000/ each towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 2,64,000/ is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 40 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
68. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 16,500/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 10,56,000/
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 2,64,000/
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 33,000/ Expenses Total Rs. 13,53,000/ Compensation in MACP No. 425/18 (Injured Smt. Rekha) MEDICAL EXPENSES
69. PW2 Smt. Rekha has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that after the accident, she was taken to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where she was medically examined and thereafter, she was referred to Sushruta Trauma Centre where she remained admitted from 01.03.2018 to 28.03.2018. She deposed that she had spent an amount of about Rs. 1,00,000/ on her treatment and her treatment was still continued at that time. During her crossexamination on behalf of registered owner and insurance company, she denied the Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 41 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 suggestion that she had not incurred a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ on her medical treatment.
70. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical bills amounting to Rs. 2,570/ only, which are Ex. PW2/1 (colly). It is quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2,570/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
71. PW2 has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW2/A) that she was tailor and earning Rs. 20,000/per month at the time of accident. She further deposed that due to the injuries suffered by her in the accident, she could not work for considerable period. During her crossexamination on behalf of registered owner and insurance company, she deposed that she was Tailor by profession. She further deposed that she had studied upto 6th class. She further deposed that she had no documentary proof in respect of her working as Tailor and earning thereof. She denied the suggestion that neither she was working as Tailor nor she was earning Rs. 20,000/ per month at the time of accident.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 42 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
72. The Discharge Summary (which is part of Ex. PW2/2 colly) of Sushruta Trauma Centre, in respect of petitioner/injured, would reveal that she was admitted in the said hospital on 01.03.2018 and discharged on 28.03.2018. As per the said record, the petitioner had grievous injuries due to the accident.
73. Apart from the aforesaid documents produced by petitioner, she has failed to file any other medical treatment record in order to show the exact period upto which she had received the medical treatment. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and in view of the treatment record brought on record, it is presumed that she would not have been able to work atleast for a period of 3 months or so.
74. Apart from the bald statement made by the petitioner that she was earning Rs. 20,000/ per month, no definite evidence whatsoever has been brought on record to prove her monthly income at the time of accident in question. Moreover, the petitioner has filed copy of Vocational Training Certificate (Ex. PW2/4). As per the said certificate, petitioner had done course of tailoring in the year 2002. The petitioner has also failed to file any document in respect of her educational qualification.
75. The law laid down in case Kirti (supra) shall also be applicable here.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 43 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
76. It is also relevant to note here that while deciding claim petition under M.V Act, it is the duty of Claim Tribunal to follow the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and to adopt more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach. It is pertinent to mention here that though, the working and earning of the petitioner has not been proved by her, however, it can not be denied that women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. Thus, loss of income of injured has to be assessed while taking the income of a skilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 16,468/ per month at the time of accident in question, which had occurred on 01.03.2018. Thus, a sum of Rs. 49,404/(16,468/ x 3) is awarded in favour of petitioner and against the respondent under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
77. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under: " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 44 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
78. Petitioner has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex PW3/A) that she had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. Thus, she would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by her, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
79. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, she would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question and her quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by her, I award a notional sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 45 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
80. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that petitioners had spent considerable amount on special diet and conveyance and attendant charges but she has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by her under the aforesaid heads. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that she had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. Thus, she would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for her regular check up & follow up during the period of her medical treatment. She would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from her family, to perform her daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of her medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 10,000/ for conveyance charges and Rs. 15,000/ each for special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical expenses Rs. 2,570/
2. Loss of income Rs. 49,404/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 50,000/ Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 46 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 40,000/ attendant charges Total Rs. 1,91,974/ Rounded off to Rs. 1,92,000/
81. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no.3/insurance company has denied its liability to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners on the ground that the respondent no.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident as he was holding driving licence to drive LMVNT whereas the offending vehicle was a commercial vehicle. The respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence in this regard.
82. The position in law has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.", 2017 (7) SCALE 731, wherein it has been held that even where the driver was holding a driving licence which was vallid for LMV, whereas the vehicle involved is light goods vehicle (LGV), the insurance company is not entitled to any recovery rights. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Subhash Rastogi & Ors.", MAC APP No. 438/2009 decided on 25.07.17 and in another Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 47 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 decision in the case of " Ram Narayan Verma Vs. Rajani & Ors. (Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.), MAC APP No. 478/2017 decided on 27.07.17.
83. Furthermore, the difference between the category of LMV(NT) and that of LMV (Commercial) has been done away with by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India vide its Circular No. RT11021/44/2017MVL dated 16.04.2018, while following the dictum of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra). That being so, the insurance company is held liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. It cannot be allowed to escape from its liability to indemnify the insured so far as payment of compensation amount is concerned. Hence, it is held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount as it is duty bound to indemnify the insured under the law. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
84. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, following order is passed after relying upon judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016.
a) A sum of Rs. 30,72,000/(Rupees Thirty Lakhs and Seventy Two Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 48 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 in MAC Petition No. 423/18 alongwith interest @ 7% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 10.07.18 till the date of its realization.
b) A sum of Rs. 18,50,000/(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 422/18 alongwith interest @ 7% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 10.07.18 till the date of its realization.
c) A sum of Rs. 13,53,000/(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Fifty Three Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 424/18 alongwith interest @ 7% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 10.07.18 till the date of its realization.
d) A sum of Rs. 1,92,000/(Rupees One Lakh and Ninety Two Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 425/18 alongwith interest @ 7% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 10.07.18 till the date of its realization.
Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 49 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 APPORTIONMENT
85. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 20.01.2023 in all the cases. It is relevant to mention here that in case MACP No. 424/18, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Bimla i.e. widow of deceased Sh. Rai Singh has been expired. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 423/18, the petitioner no. 1 Sh. Mahinder Singh shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 10,72,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Seventy Two Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 2 Ankita shall be entitled to remaining share amount of Rs. 20,00,000/ (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
86. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 424/18, the petitioner no. 2 Smt. Usha shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 3 Smt. Raj Bala shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 4 Smt. Nisha shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 5 Sh. Vijay Pal shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 4,51,500/ (Rupees Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 50 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 Four Lakhs and Fifty One Thousand and Five Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 6 Sh. Gopal shall be entitled to remaining share amount of Rs. 4,51,500/ (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty One Thousand and Five Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
87. in MAC Petition No. 423/18, a sum of Rs. 3,61,000/(Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty One Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner no. 1 Sh. Mahinder Singh through his saving bank account no. 50456003602, Indian Bank, Alipur Village, having bank code 210164 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 35,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
88. In MACP No. 423/18, the entire share amount alongwith proportionate interest of petitioner no. 2 be kept in FDR for the period till She attains the age of majority and thereafter a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ shall be released to her and remaining amount alongwith interest be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/ each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The petitioner no. 2 is at liberty to withdraw her monthly interest in order to meet her educational expenses through her father.
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 51 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
89. In MAC Petition No. 422/18, a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/(Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner Smt. Kamlesh through her MACT bank account only and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 35,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
90. In MACP No. 424/18, the entire respective share amounts of petitioners no. 2 to 6 alongwith interest shall be immediately released to them through their respective bank accounts, as per rules.
91. In MACP No. 425/18, the entire award amount of Rs. 1,92,000/ (Rupees One Lakh and Ninety Two Thousand Only) alongwith interest shall be immediately released to petitioner Smt. Rekha through her saving bank account no. 37983295718 with State Bank of India, Alipur, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code SBIN0017884.
92. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 52 of 55MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 53 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
93. Respondent no.3/Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amount immediately to aforesaid petitioner in her aforesaid saving bank account, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form XV, XVI & XVII in terms of Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 54 of 55 MACP Nos. 423/18, 422/18, 424/18 & 425/18; FIR No. 187/18; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 11.04.2023 MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in the open Court on 11.04.2023 (VINOD YADAV) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Certified that above award contains 55 pages and each page is signed by me.
(VINOD YADAV) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Mahender Singh & Ors., Kamlesh, Bimla & Ors. & Rekha Vs. Nilesh Aggarwal & Ors. Page 55 of 55