Delhi District Court
Salma @Wasgar vs . Vijay & Ors. on 6 June, 2022
Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG : PRESIDING OFFICER :
MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 75464/16
1. Salma@ Wasgar
W/o Late Sh. Eid Mohmmad
2. Shahid @ Shahid Saifi
S/o Late Sh. Eid Mohmmad
3. Tamanna
D/o Late Sh. Eid Mohmmad
4. Rukhsar
D/o Late Sh. Eid Mohmmad
Petitioner no.(s) 14 resident of
A164, Durga Vihar
Devali, New Delhi
5. Hakeem @Hakeemuddin
S/o Late Sh. Bundu Khan
6. Hazra W/o Sh. Hakeem
Petitioner no.(s) 56 Resident of
131D, Patti Musalman,
Mohalla, Akbrabad, Siyana,
Bulandshaher, UP 245412 ......petitioners
Petition No. : 373/17
1. Reshma
W/o Ikram Khan @ Ikramuddin
2. Ikramuddin @ Ikram Khan
S/o Abdul Hakim
Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.1/40
Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
Both resident of:
A186A, Masjid Eastrit,
Durga Vihar, Devli,
New Delhi 110062 ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Vijay
S/o Sh. Chandrapal,
R/o Village Nandpuri Siyana,
Siyana, Bulandshaher,
Uttar Pradesh ...Driver
2. Sh. Manoj Yadav
S/o Sh. Jayveer Yadav
R/o H.No. 115, Village Khora Colony
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad,
UP ..... owner
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Ltd.
ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg
Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai ..... (Insurance Co.)
.....Respondents
Date of Institution : 27.05.2015 (Petition No. 75464/16)
19.07.2017 (Petition No. 373/17)
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 10.05.2022
Date of pronouncement : 06.06.2022
JUDGMENT:
1. These are the two claim petitions bearing no.(s) 75464/16 and 373/17 filed by LRs of deceased Eid Mohammad and Mohd. Tayab as well as LRs of the deceased Ashad. Both the petitions have been arisen out of the same accident. The petitioners had filed the claim petition claiming the damages / compensation under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') for the injuries sustained in a road accident occurred on 28.03.2015 at about 10.30 Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.2/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
AM at left side of road at Baroli, Vasudevpur, Siyana, Bulandshahar, UP, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UP14DT1946 by the respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3.
2. Facts of the case need not having big canvas.
"On 28.03.2015 in the morning, the deceased Sh. Eid Mohammad with his wife Salma @ Wasgar and Son Mohd. Tayab were going on the motorcycle bearing no. DL3SBY5772 from Siyana to Bulandshaher. At around 10.30 AM when they reached village Baroli Vasudevpur, he saw his younger sisterinlaw namely Reshma alongwith her 3 months old son namely Asad standing on the side of the road, so he took off down his motorcycle on the left side of the road to talk with her and meet with three months old child. When they were talking, respondent no. 1 driver of offending vehicle Indica Car bearing no. UP14DT1946 driven the offending vehicle with high speed in rash and negligent manner from wrong side and hit the motorcycle standing on the left side of the road and also hit all the persons standing there and they all sustained grievous injuries due to forceful impact. They all were admitted to Babu Banarasi Dass Govt. Hospital Bulandshaher, UP where Mohd. Tayab was declared brought dead and injured Eid Mohammad, Salma @ Wasgar, Reshma and Asad was referred to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi for better treatment.
Asad (3 months) was declared brought dead in the AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi and lateron Eid Mohammad take his last breath in the AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi on the same day i.e. 28.03.2015. Salma and Reshma, both are under treatment due to the serious grievous injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident.Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.3/40
Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
3. Notice of the petitions were issued to the respondents. Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed their written statements.
4. The respondent no. 2 filed his written statement and stated that driver Vijay was driving a Maruti Suzuki Swift Dezire bearing no. UP14ET0024 which was being allotted to him by the owner / respondent no. 2 on 27.03.2015 at 6.00 AM till 28.03.2015 till 3.30 AM and then parked the said car allotted to him at the car stand of the respondent no. 2 where the alleged offending vehicle Tata Indica bearing no. UP14DT1946 was also parked. At around 4.00 AM on 28.03.2015 the respondent no. 1 has grabbed the keys and took the offending vehicle without any permission, information or knowledge of the owner of the alleged offending vehicle. At around 10.30 AM to 11.00 AM on 28.03.2015 the owner of the offending vehicle came to know about the missing of his vehicle bearing no. UP14DT1946 at Bairauli, Bulandshaher, UP and two persons have died on spot. On 30.03.2015, the respondent no.2 approached the PS Siyana, District Bulandshaher, UP for further enquiry, which has to held and also in order to release of the alleged offending vehicle. The alleged offending vehicle bearing no. UP14DT1956 is duly insured bearing insurance cover note no. 101179012 of third party interest from ICICI Lombard Co.
5. The respondent no. 3 in its written statement stated that the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner as the vehicle bearing no. UP14DT1948 which was involved in the accident is not insured with the respondent no. 3 on the day of accident. It is further submitted that the accident took place on 28.03.2015 and the abovesaid vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 from 03.04.2015 to 02.04.2016 vide insurance policy bearing no.
Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.4/40Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
3004/A/101179012/00/B00 and the date of accident does not fall within the coverage period. It is stated that there is forgery /manipulation in the copy of insurance policy. The date of accident is not covered under this period and vehicle was not insured. Therefore, there is no liability to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
6. For just adjudication of the case, issues were framed on 18.04.2016 in MACT no. 75464/16, however, the present petition is with respect to two fatal cases and one injury case but the issue framed is with respect to only one fatal case. The issues have also been reframed on 17.08.2016 as follows :
◦ Whether Eid Mohammad and Mohd Tayab succumbed to the injuries and Salma sustained injuries in a road accident on 28.03.2015 at about 10.30 AM at left side of road at Baroli, Vasudevpur, Siyana, Bulandshahar, UP due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UP14DT1946 by the respondent no.
1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? ◦ To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled and from whom?
◦ Relief.
7. The following issues were framed in MACT no. 373/2017 vide order dated 15.05.2018 as follows :
◦ Whether injured Reshma and deceased Ashad succumbed to the injuries in a road accident on 28.03.2015 at about 10.30 AM at left side of road at Baroli, Vasudevpur, Siyana, Bulandshahar, UP due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UP14DT1946 being driven by Vijay, owned by Manoj Yadav and insured with ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.? (OPP) ◦ To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled and from whom?
◦ Relief.
8. In MACT no. 75464/16, the petitioner examined two witnesses. PW Ms. Salma @ Wasgar was examined as PW1. She tendered her affidavit of evidence as Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.5/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
PW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/27. PW2 Zakir was the summoned witness.
9. In MACT No. 373/17, the petitioner examined only one witness i.e. Ms. Reshma. She tendered her affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/16.
10. The respondents no.(s) 1 and 2 were examined themselves as R1W1 and R2W1. They tendered their affidavit of evidence as Ex.R1W1/A and R2W1/A.
11. The respondent no. 3 examined Sh. Manish Gupta, Sales Manager as R3W1.
I S S U E No. 112. Needless to say that for making someone entitled U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle needs to be proved and to prove the same the Tribunal need not go into the technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just, rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. It is an admitted legal position that the negligence on part of the driver with respect to use of the vehicle needs to be established and the same is to be established on the principle of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III (2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
13. In MACT 75464/16, PW1 Salma @ Wasgar has stated that on 28.03.2015 in the morning, deceased Eid Mohammad with his wife Salma @ Wasgar anad Son Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.6/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
Mohd. Tayab were going on the motorcycle bearing no. DL3SBY5772 from Siyana to Bulandshaher. At around 10.30 am, when they reached Village Baroli Vasudevpur, he saw her younger sisterinlaw namely Reshma alongwith her 3 months old son namely Asad standing on the offside of the road so the deceased Eid Mohammad took off down his motorcycle on the left side of the road to talk with her and meet with the three months old child namely Asad. When they were talking with Reshma , the respondent no. 1 i.e. Driver of the offending vehicle indica car bearing no. UP14DT1946 driven the offending vehicle with high speed in rash and negligent manner come from wrong side and hit the motorcycle standing in the stationery position on the left side of the road and also hit all of them. They all sustained grievous injuries due to forceful impact of hit due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1 and they all were admitted to Babu Banarasi Dass Govt. Hosptial, Bulandshaher UP where Mohd. Tayab (younger son of Salma) was declared brought dead and injured Eid Mohammad, Reshma and Asad was referred to AIIMS Trauma Centre for better treatment. Asad (3 months) was declared brought dead in the AIIMS Trauma Center and lateron her husband Eid Mohammad took his last breath in the AIIMS on the same day i.e. 28.03.2015. She further stated that Eid Mohammad was having a monthly income of Rs.18000/. The deceased was the only earning member of his family.
In her crossexamination, she stated that her deceased husband had studied up to class 8 th and used to do welding work and was earning around Rs. 20,000/ per month.
14. PW2 Sh. Zakir was the summoned witness. He states that deceased Eid Mohd. was working in his company since last 5 years prior to the accident. They were paying Rs.600/ per day to him as he was working as a welder.
Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.7/40Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
15. In MACT/373/17, PW1 Reshma stated that on 28.03.2015 in the morning, deceased Eid Mohammad with his wife Salma @ Wasgar and Son Mohd. Tayab were going on the motorcycle bearing no. DL3SBY5772 from Siyana to Bulandshaher. At around 10.30 AM when they reached village Baroli Vasudevpur, they saw her alongwith her three months old son namely Asad standing on the offside road so deceased Eid Mohammad took off down his motorcycle on the left side of the road to talk with her and meet with three months old child namely Asad. When they were talking with each other, the respondent no. 1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle bearing no. UP14DT1946 driven the offending vehicle with high speed in rash and negligent manner came from wrong side and hit the motorcycle standing in the stationery position on the left side of the off side of road and also hit all of them and they all sustained injuries due to forceful impact of hit. They all were admitted to Babu Banarasi Dass Govt. Hospital, Bulandshaher where Tayab was declared brought dead and injured Eid Mohammad, Salma and Ashad were referred to AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi for better treatment and Ashad was declared brought dead in the AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi and lateron Eid Mohammad took his last breath in the AIIMS on the same day i.e. 28.03.2015.
In her crossexamination, she stated that she do not have any documentary proof in respect of her income of Rs.300/ per day from house embroidery work.
16. R1W1 Vijay (driver) states that at the time of alleged accident, the respondent no. 1 was having valid and effective driving licence no. NT9861 issued by the Transport Authority, Bulandshahar, UP and the vehicle of the respondent no. 1 was insured with the respondent no. 3 i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. On 28.03.2015 in the morning, R1W1 was riding the vehicle bearing no. UP14DT1946 and when he reached at Village Baroli Vasudevpur, then suddenly a Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.8/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
motorcycle which was in front of him and then he used his break and due to the dis balance of the motorcycle as the petitioner was having total five person on the said motorcycle and due to the same the said motorcycle was slipped and hit the vehicle of the respondent no. 1 due to which he also received injuries. He further stated that the said vehicle was not liable or responsible for this accident, because he was driving the said vehicle in proper manner and due to the negligence of the petitioner the said accident took place.
In his crossexamination, he admitted that public persons caught him and his vehicle no. UP14DT1946 at the spot itself. He admitted that motorcycle was coming from his front side and the same was not going infront of my vehicle.
17. R2W1 Manoj Yadav deposed that respondent no. 1 without any knowledge and permission, took the vehicle at around 4.00AM and drove it along from parking stand. On 28.03.2015 at around 10.30 AM to 11.00 AM he came to know about the missing of his vehicle TATA Indica bearing no. UP14DT1946 and he received a phone call that an accident has happened from his car at Barauli, Bulandshaher, UP and two persons have died on spot. And the said car was driven by the defendant no. 1 Sh. Vijay .
In his crossexamination, he stated that he got the insurance policy of the offending vehicle through one agent Rajesh Kumar. He did not know the address and phone number of said Rajesh Kumar. He took the insurance policy on 23.03.2015. he made cash payment for the policy. (crossexamination of this witness was deferred to bring the complete record from the date of purchase of this vehicle as well as insurance certificate issued prior to the disputed insurance, however he failed to do so).
18. R3W1 Sh. Manish Gupta has stated that he is the authorized Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.9/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
representative of the insurance company. He has brought the certified copy of insurance policy bearing No. 3004/A/101179012/00/B00 for the vehicle bearing no. UP14DT1946 issued in the name of Manoj Yadav, valid from 03.04.2015 to 02.04.2016 as a passenger carrying vehicle. The said policy alongwith the terms and conditions is Ex.R3W1/1. The office copy of the said notices are Ex.R3W1/2 and Ex.R3W1/3 respectively. It is stated that date of accident does not fall within the coverage period i.e. 03.04.2015 to 02.04.2016. There is no privity of contract between the respondent no. 2 Manoj Yadav and the insurance company. In the present case, the insurance company has not received any premium for the said risk to be covered. Therefore, the respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation whatsoever. The date of accident is not covered under the coverage period and the vehicle was not insured on 28.03.2015.
In his crossexamination, he stated that the date of accident does not fall within the coverage period i.e. 03.04.2015 to 02.04.2016. There is a forgery/manipulation in the copy of insurance policy.
19. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioners have filed the certified copies of criminal record which comprises of Final Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., FIR, site plan, postmortem report etc., in support of its contention that accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1.
20. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 states that he is not liable to pay any compensation as the date of accident does not fall within the coverage period.
21. From the record as well statements of PW1 Salma (in MACT no. 75464/16) and PW1 Reshma (in MACT no. 373/2017), it has been established that Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.10/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of driving of the respondent no. 1. The petitioners have also placed on record certified copy of criminal record which includes FIR, site plan etc. During their crossexamination nothing material has come out which goes against their version. Their testimonies can be safely relied upon. Even the charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is established that Reshma and Salma received injuries and Eid Mohammad, Mohd. Tayab and Ashad succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road accident happened on 28.03.2015 at about 10.30 AM at left side of road at Baroli, Vasudevpur, Siyana, Bulandshahar, UP, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UP14DT1946 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3.
Therefore, this issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
I S S U E No. 222. The petitioners have claimed compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them. In a road accident a person is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
23. Let me assess the compensation which the claimants are entitled for under different heads.
IN MACT NO. 75464/16 (Salma @ Wasgar & Anr) IN CASE OF SALMA MEDICAL EXPENSES :
24. The injured Salma has filed medical bills of Rs.27,689/. As per the MLC, the injuries on her person were grievous in nature. Having regard to all the facts, I Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.11/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
award round off Rs.28,000/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
25. As per the discharge summary the injured was diagnosed with RTI with Left Hemothorax with Pelvic fracture with right. She remained hospitalised from 28.03.2015 to 08.05.2015. The injuries on her person were grievous in nature. She has suffered 29% permanent disability in relation to her both Lower Limbs & pelvis. Having regard to the injuries and disability of the injured, I award Rs.1,00,000/ to her towards pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
26. The injuries on the person of the injured were such that she must have been advised special diet for her early recovery. The injured has not placed on record any conveyance bills, however she has definitely visited to hospital many times. Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs. 30,000/ to the injured towards special diet, attendant and conveyance charges.
LOSS OF INCOME / FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :
27. The petitioner stated that at the time of accident she was doing stitching and embroidery work at the home and was earning Rs.300/ per day. However she has not placed any record. She had admitted in her cross examination that she has does not have any proof of her income from stitching and embroidery work. No documentary evidence has been filed on record in this respect. Therefore, it is assumed that the petitioner has not been employed and she is a housewife.
28. There is no standard formula evolved for ascertaining the income of a Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.12/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
housewife, yet at least for giving a respect to a household affair, minimum wages of an unskilled labour would be taken for her future loss of income. The petitioner/ claimant Salma has claimed she had lost her work for nineteen months due to injury. She has deposed that she was housewife and doing stitching and embroidery work at the home and was earning Rs.300/ per day. However nothing has been brought by her that she has been doing any stitching or embroidery work. No doubt she has been on bed for quite sometime. However petitioner has not brought any evidence on record that she has been doing any job. Therefore, it is assumed that she has occurred no loss of income due to this injury and for pain and suffering the court has already awarded her just amount.
29. So far so, the future loss of the income of the victim/ petitioner Salma is concerned, here, in the present case also the injured is a housewife and does not have any permanent income but she had been rendering gratuitous services to her family. One has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered by a woman in the household sustain a supply of labour to the economy and keep the human societies by weaving the social fabric and keep it in good repair. As per the disability certificate the petitioner has suffered 29% permanent physical impairment in relation to her both lower limbs and pelvis. As per the Aadhar card, the year of birth of the injured Salma is 1986 and the accident took place on 28.03.2015. Therefore, the age of the injured was 29 years at the time of accident. I am of the view that the injury will affect her future working/prospects as well as her day to day movement. As a matter of rule the half of the functional disability of anyone of the limb has to be taken off for the purpose of calculation of future prospects. Though the aadhar card of the petitioner shows her address of Delhi, but the accident had also taken place in UP. Therefore, the minimum wages of unskilled person in UP is taken. The minimum wages of an unskilled person in UP Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.13/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
on 28.03.2015 was Rs.246/ per day (Rs.7380/p.m.). Taking a multiplier of 17 and minimum wages of unskilled person prevailing in Uttar Pradesh in the year 2015, the future loss of income comes to Rs.10,332/ (7380/ + 7380/ x 40/100) x 12 x 17 x 29% = Rs.6,11,241/. I therefore, award Rs.6,11,241/ to the petitioner towards Future Loss of Income on account of permanent disability.
The total compensation in favour of petitioner is assessed as under :
MEDICAL EXPENSES : Rs. 28,000/
PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE : Rs. 1,00,000/
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT : Rs. 30,000/
CHARGES
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME : Rs.6,11,241/
==========
TOTAL : Rs.7,69,241/
==========
IN CASE OF MOHD. TAYAB
30. How does one assess a compensation in such a case? No amount of money can compensate the death of the child under Motor Vehicle Act. The Act has provided the compensation for the death of child to the claimant who might be mother, parent, brother and sister. No Yardstick have been given in the act except that the determination of payment of compensation should be just compensation. It is the duty of the court to ensure that compensation has been determined which is just.
31. Now the question arises as to what compensation can be given to the claimant who claim the compensation on account of the death of the deceased. Since, it is an admitted fact that since the deceased was child of 3 years of age, therefore, it is concluded that deceased was minor at the time of accident. Therefore, this Court is guided by the judgment titled as Rajendra Singh and others Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.14/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
Vs National Insurance Company Limited and others in Civil Appeal no(s). 2624 of 2020 with Civil Appeal no(s). 2625 of 2020 Rajendra Singh Vs National Insurance Company Limited and others. whereby it was held as follows: The second deceased was a school going child aged about 12 years. She had a whole future to look forward in life with all normal human aspirations. She died prematurely due to the accident at a very tender age for no fault of hers even before she could start to understand the beauty and joys of life with all its ups and downs. The loss of a human life untimely at childhood can never be measured in terms of loss of earning or monetary loss alone. The emotional attachments involved to the loss of the child can have a devastating effect on the family which needs to be visualised and understood. Grant of non−pecuniary damages for the wrong done by awarding compensation for loss of expectation in life is therefore called for. Undoubtedly the injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of the child is very difficult to quantify. The future also abounds with uncertainties. Therefore, the courts have used the expression just compensation to get over the difficulties in quantifying the figure to ensure consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation. This determination shall not depend upon financial position of the victim or the claimant but rather on the capacity and ability of the deceased to provide happiness in life to the claimants had she remained Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.15/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
alive. The compensation is for loss of prospective happiness which the claimant would have enjoyed had the child not died at the tender age. Since the child was studying in a school and opportunities in life would undoubtedly abound for her as the years would have rolled by, compensation must also be granted with regard to future prospects. It can safely be presumed that education would have only led to her better growth and maturity with better prospects and a bright future for which compensation needs to be granted under non−pecuniary damages. (See R.K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal, (2009) 14 SCC 1).
32. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.(s) 1 and 2 have stated that in case of the death of the child, this court would be bound by the judgment of R.K. Malik where certain amount has been fixed.
33. Now come to the present case. Here admittedly the deceased was less than 15 years of age. The income of the minor son child is incapable of precise fixation. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty.
Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.16/40Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
34. As the age of the deceased was below 15 years, Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation. The determination of a just and proper compensation to the petitioner with regard to the deceased child, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/− is granted as compensation under the separate head of future prospects. The petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/ each towards filial consortium and Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses. There are six persons as per the affidavit of the petition who are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium.
35. The following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the following heads: Sl. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1. Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,40,000/ (Rs. 40,000/ x 6)
2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/
3. Future prospects Rs. 5,00,000/ Interim order dated 25.07.2018 Rs. 50,000/ Total Rs.7,05,000/ IN CASE OF EID MOHAMMAD
36. Admittedly, deceased Eid Mohammad was died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which was occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Eid Mohammad. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.17/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the following heads : Sl. No. Head Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of consortium 2,40,000/ [40,000x6(claimants)] 2 Funeral Expenses 15,000/ 3 Loss of Estate 15,000/
37. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased was married, who left behind his wife, children and old aged parents as his legal heirs. As per the postmortem report, the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '17'.
38. PW1 stated that the deceased at the time of accident was working as Welder and Fabricator with M/s M.T. Steel Works at A174, Durga Vihar, Delhi on a monthly salary of Rs.18000/. During crossexamination she stated that she has Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.18/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
not filed any document to show any income and occupation of her deceased husband.
39. In the present case, the petitioners have not placed on record any document with regard to the occupation and income of the deceased, therefore, this Tribunal has no option but to take minimum wages of unskilled person. Therefore, the minimum wages of unskilled person in UP is taken. The minimum wages of an unskilled person in UP at the time of accident i.e. 28.03.2015 was Rs.246/ per day (Rs.7380/p.m.).
40. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of income. The deceased was 30 years of age therefore, an addition of 40% as future prospects has to be made. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.10,332/ (7,380 + 7,380 x 40/100). There are six petitioners on record, therefore, therefore, onefourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,749/. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,80,796/ (Rs.7,749/ x 12 x
17). I therefore, award Rs.15,80,796/ to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
41. The total compensation in favour of the petitioners comes as under : LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs.15,80,796/ LOSS OF CONSORTIUM [40,000x6(claimants)] = Rs. 2,40,000/ FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 15,000/ LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 15,000/ Interim order dated 25.07.2018 = Rs.50,000/ ============ TOTAL = Rs.18,00,796/ ============ Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.19/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
IN MACT NO. 373/17IN CASE OF RESHMA MEDICAL EXPENSES :
42. The injured Reshma has filed medical bills of Rs.32,176/. As per the MLC, the injuries on her person were grievous in nature. Having regard to all the facts, I award Rs.32,176/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
43. As per the discharge summary the injured was diagnosed with both column fracture left acetabulum. She remained hospitalised for several days. The injuries on her person were grievous in nature. She has suffered 3% permanent disability in relation to left Lower Limb. Having regard to the injuries and disability of the injured, I award Rs.70,000/ to her towards pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
44. The injuries on the person of the injured were such that she must have been advised special diet for her early recovery. The medical record shows that she visited the hospital as an OPD patient also. Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs. 20,000/ to the injured towards special diet, attendant and conveyance charges.
LOSS OF INCOME / FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :
45 The petitioner stated that at the time of accident she was doing stitching and embroidery work at the home and was earning Rs.300/ per day. However she Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.20/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
has not placed any record. She had admitted in her cross examination that she has does not have any proof of her income from stitching and embroidery work. No documentary evidence has been filed on record in this respect. Therefore, it is assumed that the petitioner has not been employed and she is a housewife.
46. There is no standard formula evolved for ascertaining the income of a housewife, yet at least for giving a respect to a household affair, minimum wages of an unskilled labour would be taken for her future loss of income. The petitioner/ claimant Reshma has claimed she had lost her work for twelve months due to injury. She has deposed that she was housewife and doing stitching and embroidery work at the home and was earning Rs.300/ per day. However nothing has been brought by her that she has been doing any stitching or embroidery work. No doubt she has been on bed for quite sometime. However, petitioner has not brought any evidence on record that she has been doing any job. Therefore, it is assumed that she has occurred no loss of income due to this injury and for pain and suffering the court has already awarded her just amount.
47. So far so, the future loss of the income of the victim/ petitioner Reshma is concerned, here, in the present case also the injured is a housewife and does not have any permanent income but she had been rendering gratuitous services to her family. One has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered by a woman in the household sustain a supply of labour to the economy and keep the human societies by weaving the social fabric and keep it in good repair. As per the disability certificate the petitioner has suffered 3% permanent physical impairment in relation to her left lower limb. As per the Aadhar card, the date of year of the injured Reshma is 01.01.1995 and the accident took place on 28.03.2015. Therefore, the age of the injured was 20 years at the time of accident. Though, the 3% Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.21/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
permanent disability in relation to her Left Lower Limb does not effect functional disability. The petitioner Reshma has stated in her examinationinchief that she used to work stitching and embroidery, however, she has not placed on record any documents and disability in her left lower limb certainly effect for doing the job or household work.
48. Looking into these aspects, I grant a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,25,000/ towards permanent disability which certainly effect her job/ household work.
The total compensation in favour of petitioner is assessed as under :
MEDICAL EXPENSES : Rs. 32,176/
PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE : Rs. 70,000/
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT : Rs. 20,000/
CHARGES
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME : Rs.1,25,000/
==========
TOTAL : Rs.2,47,176/
==========
IN CASE OF ASHAD
49. How does one assess a compensation in such a case? No amount of money can compensate the death of the child under Motor Vehicle Act. The Act has provided the compensation for the death of child to the claimant who might be mother, parent, brother and sister. No Yardstick have been given in the act except that the determination of payment of compensation should be just compensation. It is the duty of the court to ensure that compensation has been determined which is just.
50. Now the question arises as to what compensation can be given to the Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.22/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
claimant who claim the compensation on account of the death of the deceased. Since, it is an admitted fact that since the deceased was child of 3 months, therefore, it is concluded that deceased was minor at the time of accident. Therefore, this Court is guided by the judgment titled as Rajendra Singh and others Vs National Insurance Company Limited and others in Civil Appeal no(s). 2624 of 2020 with Civil Appeal no(s). 2625 of 2020 Rajendra Singh Vs National Insurance Company Limited and others. whereby it was held as follows: The second deceased was a school going child aged about 12 years. She had a whole future to look forward in life with all normal human aspirations. She died prematurely due to the accident at a very tender age for no fault of hers even before she could start to understand the beauty and joys of life with all its ups and downs. The loss of a human life untimely at childhood can never be measured in terms of loss of earning or monetary loss alone. The emotional attachments involved to the loss of the child can have a devastating effect on the family which needs to be visualised and understood. Grant of non−pecuniary damages for the wrong done by awarding compensation for loss of expectation in life is therefore called for. Undoubtedly the injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of the child is very difficult to quantify. The future also abounds with uncertainties. Therefore, the courts have used the expression just compensation to get over the difficulties in quantifying the figure to ensure consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation.
Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.23/40Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
This determination shall not depend upon financial position of the victim or the claimant but rather on the capacity and ability of the deceased to provide happiness in life to the claimants had she remained alive. The compensation is for loss of prospective happiness which the claimant would have enjoyed had the child not died at the tender age. Since the child was studying in a school and opportunities in life would undoubtedly abound for her as the years would have rolled by, compensation must also be granted with regard to future prospects. It can safely be presumed that education would have only led to her better growth and maturity with better prospects and a bright future for which compensation needs to be granted under non−pecuniary damages. (See R.K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal, (2009) 14 SCC 1).
51. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.(s) 1 and 2 have stated that in case of the death of the child, this court would be bound by the judgment of R.K. Malik where certain amount has been fixed.
52. Now come to the present case. Here admittedly the deceased was less than 15 years of age. The income of the minor son child is incapable of precise fixation. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.24/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty.
53 As the age of the deceased was below 15 years, Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation. The determination of a just and proper compensation to the petitioner with regard to the deceased child, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/− is granted as compensation under the separate head of future prospects. The petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/ each towards filial consortium and Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses. There are two persons as per the affidavit of the petition who are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium.
54. The following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the following heads: Sl. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1. Loss of Consortium Rs. 80,000/ (Rs. 40,000/ x 2)
2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/
3. Future prospects Rs. 5,00,000/ Total Rs. 5,95,000/ LIABILITY
55. In the present case, the respondent no. 2 in its written statement has stated that offending vehicle was insured on 28.03.2015 bearing insurance cover note no. 101179012 of third party interest from ICICI Lombard Co., however the Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.25/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
respondent no. 2 has not brought on record any documents pertaining to the purchase of the property till its continuous insurance despite the directions issued. The offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. Insurance company has stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 from 03.04.2015 to 02.04.2016. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The respondent no.(s) 1 and 2 are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation.
56. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF
57. In view of my findings, in MACT no. 75464/16, I award Rs.7,69,241/ (Rupees Seven Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Forty One) to the injured Salma. Rs.7,05,000/ (Rupees Seven Lacs Five Thousand only) is awarded to the LRs of Mohd. Tayab. Rs.18,00,796/ (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Seven Hundred Ninety Six only) is awarded to the LRs of the deceased Eid Mohammad as compensation alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
In MACT No. 373/17, I award Rs.2,47,176/ (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred Seventy Six only) is awarded in the injury case of Reshma. Rs.5,95,000/ (Rupees Five Lacs Ninety Five Thousand only) is awarded to the LRs of deceased Ashad as compensation alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
IN MACT NO. 75464/16 (Salma @ Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.) (Realization of Awarded amount in case of injured Salma)
58. A sum of Rs.7,69,241/ (Rupees Seven Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Forty One only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.26/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
injured Salma. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.7,00,000/ (Rupees Seven Lacs only) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 01 year.
• Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 02 year.
• Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 03 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 04 years.
Realization of Awarded amount in the death case of Mohd. Tayab (In the share of petitioner no.1 Salma@ Wasgar, mother of deceased)
59. A sum of Rs.3,05,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs Five Thousand only) is awarded to the petitioner no.1 Salma @ Wasgar being mother of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs only) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 01 year.
• Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 02 years.
(In the share of petitioner no(s).2, 3 and 4 i.e. Shahid @ Shahid Saifi, Tamanna and Rukhsar being sisters and brother of deceased)
60. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac each ) each is awarded to the petitioner no(s). 2, 3 and 4 being the brother and sisters of the deceased. The said amount is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit for five years.
(In the share of Petitioner no.(s) 5 and 6 i.e. Hakeem and Hazra being grandparents of the deceased)
61. A sum of Rs.50,000/ each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no(s). 5 and 6 being grand Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.27/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
parents of the deceased.
Realization of Awarded amount in the death case of Eid Mohammad (In the share of Petitioner no. 1 Smt. Salma @ Wasgar i.e. wife of the deceased)
62. A sum of Rs.9,00,796/ (Rupees Nine Lacs Seven Hundred Ninety Sixonly) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/ (Rupees Eight Lacs only) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 01 year.
• Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 02 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 03 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 04 years.
(In the share of Petitioner no(s). 2 to 4 i.e. Shahid, Tamanna and Rukhsar)
63. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/each (Rupees One Lac) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no(s). 2 to 4 being son and daughters of the deceased.
The said amount is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit for five years.
(In the share of Petitioner no.(s) 5 and 6 i.e. Hakeem and Hazra being parents of the deceased)
64. A sum of Rs.3,00,000/ each (Rupees Three Lacs only) alongwith the Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.28/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no(s). 5 and 6 being parents of the deceased.
In MACT No. 373/17 (Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.) Realization of Awarded amount in case of injured Reshma
65. A sum of Rs.2,47,176/ (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred Seventy Six Only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the injured Reshma. Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.2 Lacs is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 01 year.
• Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 02 years.
Realization of Awarded amount in case of Ashad (In the share of petitioner no.1 Reshma, mother of deceased)
66. A sum of Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs only) is awarded to the petitioner no.1 Reshma being mother of the deceased. Amount is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 01 year.
• Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 02 years.
(In the share of petitioner no.2 Ikramuddin @ Ikram Khan, father of deceased)
67. A sum of Rs.2,95,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs Ninety Five Thousand only) is awarded to the petitioner no.2 Ikramuddin @ Ikram Khan being father of the deceased. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs only) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.29/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
manner :
• Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 01 year.
• Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 02 years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
68. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no(s). 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no(s) 1 and 2 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
69. The respondent no(s) 1 and 2 are directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the Ld. counsel for the respondent no.(s) 1 and 2.
70. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING A/c 35195787436 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
71. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.30/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
72. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :
1. The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
2. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
3. No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
4. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
5. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
7. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
8. On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
9. Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
10. The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
11. The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period.
12. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.31/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 4112541127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No(s). 1 and 2 • The Respondent no(s). 1 and 2 are directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
• The Respondent no(s). 1 and 2 are directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed. • The Respondent no(s). 1 and 2 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
• Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no(s). 1 and 2. • The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no(s).1 and 2 for 06.07.2022.
FORM IVB Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.32/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY OF SALMA TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1) Date of accident : 28.03.2015
2) Name of the injured : Salma @ Wasgar
3) Age of the injured: 29 years
4) Occupation of the injured : Housewife
5) Income of the injured : Minimum Wages
6) Nature of injury : Grievous
7) Medical treatment taken by the injured : RTI with Left Hemothorax with Pelvic Fracture with right.
8) Whether any permanent disability? : 29%
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
I Expenditure on treatment Rs.28000/
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.30,000/
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity
iv Loss of Income Rs.6,11,241/
v Any other loss which may require any special
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
2 NonPecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock ii Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/ iii Loss of amenities iv Disfiguration and marriage prospects v Loss of marriage prospects vi Compensation on account of permanent disability Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.33/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.7,69,241/ 5 INTEREST AWARDED 6% 6 Total amount of interest Rs.3,28,850/ 7 Total amount including interest Rs.10,98,091/ 8 Award amount released Rs.3,98,091/ 9 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.7,00,000/ 10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Some amount is the claimant(s) directed to be released to the petitioners and some amount is directed to be kept in fixed deposit.
11 Next date for compliance of the award. 06.07.2022 FORM IVB SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident : 28.03.2015
2. Name of the deceased : Mohd. Tayab
3. Age of the deceased : 3 years (at the time of accident)
4.Occupation of the : deceased
5) Income of the deceased : Nil Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased :
S.No Name Age Relation 1. Salma @ Wasgar 36 years Mother 2. Shahid @ Shahid Saifi 19 years Brother Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.34/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors. Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors. 3. Tamanna 16 years Sister 4. Rukhsar 15 years Sister 5. Hakeem @ Hakeemuddin 66 years Grandfather 6. Hazra 63 years Grandmother Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal 7 Income of the deceased 8 Add Future Prospects Rs. 5,00,000/ 9 Less Personal expenses of the deceased 10 Monthly loss of dependency 11 Loss of Estate 12 Multiplier (E) 13 Total loss of Estate/ dependency 14 Medical Expenses (G) 15 Compensation for loss of Rs.2,40,000/ consortium (H) 16 Compensation for loss of estate (I) 17 Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/ expenses (J) 18 Interim order dated 25.07.2018 Rs.50,000/ 19 TOTAL COMPENSATION (K) Rs.7,05,000/ 20 RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 6% 21 Interest amount upto the date of Rs.3,01,387/ award (L) 22 Total amount including interest Rs.10,06,387/ (K+L) 23 Award amount released Rs.4,06,387/ 24 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.6,00,000/ 25 Mode of disbursement of the award Some amount is directed to be amount to the claimant (s). released to the petitioners and some amount is directed to be kept in fixed deposit. 26 Next date of compliance 06.07.2022 Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.35/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors. Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors. FORM IVA
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASE OF DECEASED EID MOHAMMAD TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD Date of accident : 28.03.2015 Name of the deceased : Eid Mohammad Age of the deceased : 30 years Occupation of the deceased : Welder and Fabricator Income of the deceased : minimum wages Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased :
S. Name Age (at the Relation
No. time of
accident)
1 Salma @ Wasgar 36 years Wife
2 Shahid @ Shahid Saifi 19 years Son
3 Tamanna 16 years daughter
4 Rukhsar 15 years daughter
5 Hakeem @ Hakeemuddin 66 years Father
6 Hazra 63 years Mother
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the Claims
No. Tribunal
7 Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 7380/
8 Add Future Prospects (B) Rs. 2952/
9 Less Personal expenses of the Rs. 2583/
deceased (C)
10 Monthly loss of dependency Rs.7,749/
[(A+B)C = D]
11 Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.92,988/
12 Multiplier (E) 17
Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.36/40
Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
13 Total loss of dependency Rs.15,80,796/
(Dx12xE=F)
14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15 Compensation for Loss of Rs.2,40,000/
Consortium (H)
16 Compensation for loss of estate (I) Rs.15,000/
17 Interim order dated 25.07.2018 Rs.50,000/
17 Compensation towards funeral Rs.15,000/
expenses (J)
18 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.18,00,796/
(F+G+H+I+J= K)
19 RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 6%
20 Interest amount upto the date of Rs.7,69,840/
award (M)
21 Total amount including interest Rs.25,70,636/
(M+O)
22 Award amount released Rs.14,70,636/
23 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.11,00,000/
24 Mode of disbursement of the award Some amount is released and
amount to the claimant (s). some amount is directed to be
kept in fixed deposit.
25 Next date for compliance of the 06.07.2022
award
FORM IVB
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY OF RESHMA TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 28.03.2015
2. Name of the injured : Reshma
3. Age of the injured: 20 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Housewife Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.37/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
5. Income of the injured : Minimum Wages
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : Both column fracture left acetabulum.
8. Whether any permanent disability? : 3% Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal 1 Pecuniary Loss :
I Expenditure on treatment Rs.32,176/
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.20,000/
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity
iv Loss of Income Rs.1,25,000/
v Any other loss which may require any special
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
2 NonPecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock ii Pain and suffering Rs.70,000/ iii Loss of amenities iv Disfiguration and marriage prospects v Loss of marriage prospects vi Compensation on account of permanent disability
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.2,47,176/ 5 INTEREST AWARDED 6% Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.38/40 Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
6 Total amount of interest Rs.1,05,667/ 7 Total amount including interest Rs.3,52,843/ 8 Award amount released Rs.1,52,843/ 9 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 2,00,000/ 10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Some amount is the claimant(s) directed to be released to the petitioners and some amount is directed to be kept in fixed deposit.
11 Next date for compliance of the award. 06.07.2022 FORM IVB SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident : 28.03.2015
2. Name of the deceased : Ashad
3. Age of the deceased : 3 months (at the time of accident)
4.Occupation of the : deceased
5) Income of the deceased : Nil Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased :
S.No Name Age Relation
1. Reshma 27 years Mother
2. Ikramuddin @ Ikram Khan 34 years father
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
3 Income of the deceased
4 Add Future Prospects Rs. 5,00,000/
Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.39/40
Salma @Wasgar vs. Vijay & Ors.
Reshma and Ans vs. Vijay & Ors.
5 Less Personal expenses of the
deceased
6 Monthly loss of dependency
7 Loss of Estate
8 Multiplier (E)
9 Total loss of Estate/ dependency
10 Medical Expenses (G)
11 Compensation for loss of Rs.80,000/
consortium (H)
12 Compensation for loss of estate
(I)
13 Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/
expenses (J)
14 TOTAL COMPENSATION (K) Rs.5,95,000/
15 RATE OF INTEREST 6%
AWARDED
16 Interest amount upto the date of Rs.2,54,362/
award (L)
17 Total amount including interest Rs.8,49,362/
(K+L)
18 Award amount released Rs.3,49,362/
19 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.5,00,000/
20 Mode of disbursement of the Some amount is directed to be
award amount to the claimant released to the petitioners and
(s). some amount is directed to be
kept in fixed deposit.
21 Next date of compliance 06.07.2022
Pronounced in open Court today
i.e. 06.06.2022 (ATUL KUMAR GARG)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
Petition No. : 75464/16 & 373/17 Page No.40/40