Delhi District Court
Smt. Sunita vs Sh. A. K. Madan on 18 December, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARVIND KUMAR: PRESIDING OFFICER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI
MACT No: 278/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0414922007
Presented on : 02.06.2007
Reserved for judgment : 04.12.2010
Judgment delivered on : 18.12.2010
1. Smt. Sunita
W/o Late Sh. Jile Ram
2. Master Ravinesh
S/o Late Sh. Jile Ram
3. Master Nikhil
S/o Late Sh. Jile Ram
4. Master Akhil
S/o Late Sh. Jile Ram
5. Master Vineet
S/o Late Sh. Jile Ram
6. Smt. Phool Wati
W/o Sh. Tirkha Singh
Present address:
Barrack No. 1, PS- Shakarpur,
Delhi- 110092. ... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. A. K. Madan
S/o Sh. K.L. Madan
R/o 12/193, Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110031
MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 1/17
2. Lawrence Convent School,
Geeta Colony Faculty Centre,
Delhi-31.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Division No. 10, Flat No. 101 to 106,
N.I. BMC House, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001. ... Respondents
MACT No: 280/10 Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0354782007 Presented on : 09.05.2007 Reserved for judgment : 04.12.2010 Judgment delivered on : 18.12.2010
1. Sh. Ram Dutt S/o Sh. Tek Chand R/o H. No. 809, Mandoli Extension, Delhi-94. ... Petitioner VERSUS
1. Sh. A. K. Madan S/o Sh. K.L. Madan R/o 12/193, Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031
2. Lawrence Convent School, Geeta Colony Faculty Centre, Delhi-31 Through its Principal/ Managing Director
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Division No. 10, Flat No. 101 to 106, N.I. BMC House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. ... Respondents MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 2/17 JUDG MENT
1. By a common judgment, I am disposing of these two petitions as the claims are arising from the same accident involving the same vehicle. In petition No. 278/10 the claimants have put up a claim for Rs. 50,00,000/-( Rs. Fifty Lacs) towards the death of Sh. Jile Ram (35 years). In MACT No. 280/10, the claimant put up a claim for 8,00,000/-( Rs. Eight Lacs) towards the injuries sustained by the petitioner Sh. Ram Dutt.
2. The brief facts are that on 22.02.2007 petitioner Sh. Ram Dutt and deceased Sh. Jile Ram were on a patrolling duty on government motorcycle bearing No. DL-1S-N-3785. Sh. Jile Ram was driving the motorcycle and Sh. Ram Dutt was sitting as a pillion rider. When they reached near Ramesh Park, Pusta Road, and the motorcycle was to take a turn, a Maruti Van bearing No. DL-1CL- 1421 came from behind and hit the motorcycle as a result of which, both the above said persons fell down and sustained multiple injuries. They were removed to LBS hospital and then referred to Kailash Hospital, Noida, UP. Sh. Jile Ram succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Sh. Jile Ram was working as a constable in Delhi Police and Sh. Ram Dutt was working as Assistant Sub- Inspector, in the Delhi Police.
3. The respondent No. 1 & 2 filed written statement. The case of the respondent No. 1 & 2 is that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased.
4. The respondent No. 3 filed written statement admitting that the vehicle bearing No. DL-1CL-1421 ( Maruti Van) was MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 3/17 insured with the respondent No. 3 vide policy No. 1346895, for the period 01.09.2006 to 31.08.2007.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in the petition No. 278/10.
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased Jile Ram(35) and that he suffered injuries in the road accident dated 22.02.2007, within the jurisdiction of PS- Shakar Pur, Delhi, involving the vehicle No. DL-1CL-1421 and later died on 27.09.2007 and that this accident occurred because of negligence on the part of driver of the said vehicle?
2. Whether the respondent No. 1 & 2 prove that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the motorcycle bearing No. DL-ISN-3785, if so to what extent?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount from whom?
4. Relief.
ISSUES IN THE PETITION NO. 280/10
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the petitioner prove that he suffered injuries in the road accident dated 22.02.2007, within the jurisdiction of PS- Shakar Pur, Delhi, involving the vehicle No. DL-1CL-1421 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner?MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 4/17
2. Whether the respondent No. 1 & 2 prove that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the motorcyclist bearing No. DL-ISN-3785, if so to what extent?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount from whom?
4. Relief.
7. Both the cases were consolidated on 21.10.2008 for recording common evidence.
8. The petitioner examined eleven witnesses. Sh. Satpal, Medical Record-Technician was examined as PW-1, Constable Jaipal Singh as PW-2, Constable Harbir Singh as PW-3, SI Mehruddin as PW-4, Dr. B. K. Sharma, as PW-5, Dr. Aditya Aggarwal as PW-6, Smt. Sunita Devi as PW-7, Sh. Ram Dutt as PW-8, WHC Jatinder Kaur, DCP office East District, as PW-9, Dr. Narender Kumar as PW-10 and Dr. D. R. Tiwari as PW-11. On the other hand, respondents did not examine any witness.
9. I have gone through the material on record and heard counsels for the parties. My findings on the issues are as under :-
Issue No. 1 & 2 in MACT No. 278/10 & 280/10
10. The petitioner deposed that she is the wife of Sh. Jile Ram who had died in the accident and she is mother and natural guardian of petitioner No. 2 to 5. Copy of office I-card of deceased Ex.PW7/18, copy of election I-card Ex.PW7/19, copy of election I-
MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 5/17card of Smt. Sunita Ex.PW7/20, copy of school certificate of Master Amit Kumar is mark A, copy of school certificate of Master Vineet is mark B, copy of ration card of deceased Jile Ram Ex.PW7/ 21. It is clear from the material on record that petitioner Smt. Sunita Devi is the wife of deceased and 2 to 5 are the sons and daughters of the deceased & petitioner No. 6 is the mother of deceased.
11. The PW-8/A Sh. Ram Dutt deposed that on 22.02.2007 he along with constable Jile Ram were on patrolling duty on a government vehicle bearing No. DL-1S-3785. Sh. Jile Ram was driving the said vehicle and he was sitting as a pillion rider. It is further deposed that when they reached near Ramesh Park, Pusta Road, on Shakarpur Chungi, the deceased tried to take turn after giving proper indication, suddenly a Maruti Van bearing No. DL-1CL- 1421 came from behind and hit the motorcycle with great force. Both the persons riding the motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries. The PW-8 exhibited the criminal case record as PX (collectively). During cross-examination, PW-8 Sh. Ram Dutt stated that the motorcycle bearing No. DL-1SN-3785 was belonging to Delhi Police. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place because of the negligence of the deceased Jile Ram.
12. Ld. Counsel for insurance company contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Van and the accident was caused as the deceased took sudden turn without any indication. The contention of the counsel for insurance company is unfounded and not sustainable. The respondent No. 1 & 2 or the insurance company failed to lead any evidence to attribute any negligence on the part of the deceased Sh. Jile Ram.
13. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 6/17 petitioner. The FIR, postmortem report, taken together fully establish the death of the deceased Late Sh. Jile Ram caused by the injuries sustained by him involving Maruti Van bearing registration No. DL- 1CL-1421 in a road accident. Even the cross-examination of the petitioner by the counsel for respondent No. 3 does not create any shadow of doubt on the credibility of the Petitioners' testimony. There is nothing on record to dispel the inference that deceased Sh. Jile Ram died on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident which occurred on 22.02.2007 because of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van bearing registration No. DL-1CL- 1421 being driven by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner in petition No. 278/10 also established that he suffered injuries because of rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruti Van. The petitioner has established that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No. DL-ICL-1421. The respondents did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. There is nothing on record to indicate that there was any negligence on the part of the deceased.
14. The issue No. 1 & 2 are accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No. 3 in MACT No. 278/1015. Smt. Sunita Devi, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW-7 and stated that deceased was 36 years of age at the time of accident. It is deposed by Smt. Sunita Devi that the deceased was working as a constable in Delhi Police and he was earning Rs. 11,400/- per month.
16. The PW-1 Sh. Satpal , Medical Record Technician, MAX MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 7/17 Balaji Hospital, exhibited the discharge summary and medical bills pertaining to Sh. Jile Ram. He stated that Sh. Jile Ram was admitted in the hospital on 22.2.2007 and was discharged on 26.06.2007.
17. PW-5 Sh. Dr. B. K. Sharma, deposed that he conducted postmortem on the body of Sh. Jile Ram on 27.09.2007 vide PMR No. 1262 and cause of death was septicaemia consequent to wounds and bedsores. He further deposed that possibility of injuries caused in the road traffic accident, cannot be ruled out.
18. PW-9 Smt. Jatinder Pal, woman head constable, deposed that the date of birth of Sh. Jile Ram was 15.08.1972. The documents pertaining to last salary drawn by constable Jile Ram was exhibited as Ex. PW-9/1 and revised pay slips was exhibited as Ex.PW9/2. It is also deposed that family members gave medical bills for a sum of Rs. 106730 and out of the said amount, the department has reimbursed the bills for a sum of Rs. 698664/-.
19. PW-10 Dr. Narender Kumar, from the Kailash Hospital, deposed that patient namely sh. Jile Ram was admitted on 02.07.2007 and was discharged on 18.07.2007 He was again admitted on 18.07.2007 and was discharged on 22.07.2007 . It is stated that Sh. Jile Ram was discharged in a vegetative state. Sh. Jile Ram was not responding to any external stimulous. He stated that Sh. Jile Ram never regained consciousness and remained in comatose state.
20. PW-11 Sh. D. R. Tiwari, brought the record pertaining to Sh. Jile Ram. He exhibited the treatment papers as Ex. PW-11/A. MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 8/17
21. It is clear from the record that a sum of Rs. 10,6730/- was incurred in the treatment of deceased. The PW-1 clearly stated that she had incurred a sum of Rs. 9096/- and rest of the amount has been paid by the department i.e. employer of deceased. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the amount paid by them.
22. Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 3 contended that the deceased did not die because of the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident. The contention of counsel for respondent No. 3 is without any basis. It is apparent from the testimony of the PW's and postmortem report that the deceased succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident dated 22.02.2007. The postmortem report clearly records the cause of death as septicimea due to infection caused because of the injuries. There is no contrary evidence. The material on record and testimony of PW's clearly establishes that the deceased died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident.
23. The petitioner was working as a constable in Delhi Police and was getting salary of Rs. 11,904/- per month. Since the deceased was below the age of 40 years, 50% of the salary towards future prospect is added in actual salary. The salary comes to Rs. 11904 + 5952= 17,856/- . The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 17,856 x 12= 2,14,272/-. Interest of justice in the present case would be met if 1/4th (as there are 6 dependents) i.e. 53568/- is deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased. After such deduction the contribution to the family (dependents) is determined as Rs. 1,60,704/-per annum. The multiplier will be 16 having regard to the age of the deceased at the time of the death. Therefore, the total loss on dependency would be Rs. 1,60,704 x 16 = Rs. 25,71,264/-.
MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 9/1724. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 9096/- towards medical bills. The deceased suffered injuries on 22.02.2007 and died on 27.09.2007. The petitioner must have incurred amount on special diet and conveyance as well as on attendant. In my opinion a sum of Rs. 50,000/- would be just amount for special diet, conveyance and attendant.
25. In addition the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The petitioner no. 1 i.e wife of the deceased will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation will be Rs. 25,71,264 + 50,000 + 35,000= 26,56,264/-.
Issue No. 2 in MACT No. 280/1026. PW-2 Sh. Jaipal(constable) brought the service record of Sh. Ram Dutt and exhibited the same as PW-2/A and leave account Ex. PW-2/B. PW-3 brought the attested copies of pay details of Sh. Ram Dutt and exhibited the same as PW-3/A. PW-4 brought the official communication from the ACP pertaining to the reimbursement of the expenses on medical treatment of Sh. Ram Dutt Ex. PW-4/A.
27. PW-8 Sh. Ram Dutt stated that he was working as ASI in Delhi Police. He suffered injuries in the accident and because of the injuries he is not able to do his duty properly and chances of his promotion have been diminished. The petitioner exhibited the disability certificate as Ex. PW-8/1. During cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that he received his salary from the department during the course of his treatment. He stated to have remained in MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 10/17 hospital for 7 days and on leave for five months. PW-6 Dr. Aditya Aggarwal stated that disability of 24% shown in the certificate is with reference to the right lower limb.
28. I have heard counsel for parties and gone through the material on record.
29. It is clear from the OPD ticket issued by LBS hospital that petitioner suffered fracture D/E ( L) radius with fracture of both bones of right leg. Bills are for Rs. 23,936/-. Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that all the bills towards treatment had been reimbursed. The petitioner established that he remained out of work for five months. The petitioner must have required an attendant for two months. It has also come in evidence that petitioner was getting his salary during the period of his treatment and was on leave. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for the compensation towards loss of leaves. Admittedly the petitioner has suffered 24% disability in relation to the right lower limb. The disability in relation to whole body can be taken to be 15%. The petitioner failed to establish that he suffered any loss because of the said disability . The petitioner is 53 years of age and is still in service. However, it cannot be ruled out that petitioner will have to incur more expenses in day to day life, particularly, on conveyance and other routine works due to the disability. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation on this account. In my opinion a sum of Rs. 75,000/- would be the just compensation on this count.
30. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the matter, I consider the following to be just compensation to the petitioner :-
MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 11/171. Pain & Suffering : Rs. 60,000/-
2. Loss of amenities : Rs. 70,000/-
3. Special diet and conveyance : Rs. 15,000/-
4. Compensation towards disability : Rs. 75,000/-
5. Loss of leave ( for 100 days, @ :Rs.46,853/- Rs. 14056/- per month.
6. Attendant charges for two months : Rs. 7000/-
( Rs. 35000/- per month) TOTAL :Rs.2,73,853/-
The said sum is rounded off to Rs. 2,74,000/-, which shall be the just compensation.
LIABILITY
31. Since the respondent No. 3 / insurance company has admitted the policy hence the respondent No. 3 is liable to pay compensation.
32. There being no evidence of violation of the policy condition and there being no evidence to support the permitted defence U/s. 149(2) of the M.V. Act, I am unable to grant the recovery rights. Therefore, insurance company shall make good the compensation in terms of the accepted policy.
RELIEF:-
33. While granting the relief to petitioners in both the cases, I am also to award the interest @ 7.5% p.a on the amount awarded to petitioners from the date of filing of petitions till realization of the amount. The issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 12/1734. In view of the above, I am directing to the respondent No. 3 to pay to the claimants in MACT No. 278/10, a sum of Rs. 26,56,264/- inclusive of interim compensation already awarded along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. The respondent No. 3 has already paid interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence the respondent No. 3, the insurer company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 26,06,264/-(rounded off to Rs. 26,06,000/-) within one month. The respondent No. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners.
35. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD IN MACT NO. 280/1036. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 3, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 2,74,000/-. The respondent No. 3, the insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,74,000/- within one month. The respondent No. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner.
37. Compensation amount may be deposited within one month from today. The respondent No. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner.
MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 13/17 AWARD IN MACT NO. 278/1038. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 3 is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 26,56,264/- inclusive of interim compensation already awarded. The respondent No. 3 has already paid interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence the respondent No. 3, the insurer company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 26,06,264/-(rounded off to Rs. 20,06,000/-) within one month. The respondent No.3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners. The claimants are entitled to the compensation in the following proportions along with corresponding interest :-
(a) Petitioner No. 1 : Rs. 6,64,066/- along with corresponding interest.
(b) Petitioner No. 2: Rs. 3,98,439.6 along with corresponding interest.
(c ) Petitioner No. 3: Rs. 3,98,439.6 along with corresponding interest.
(d) Petitioner No. 4: Rs. 3,98,439.6 along with corresponding interest.
(e)Petitioner No. 5 : Rs.- 3,98,439.6 along with corresponding interest.
(f) Petitioner No. 6: Rs.- 3,98,439.6 along with corresponding interest.
39. The award amount along with interest be deposited by respondent No. 3 with UCO Bank, Nodal Officer through Nodal Officer, Karkardooma Branch, within 30 days in the petitioners' accounts.
MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 14/1740. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the UCO Bank is directed to keep the amount awarded to petitioners in fixed deposit in the following manner :-
Petitioner No. 1i. Fixed deposits of Rs. 1,00,000/- each for a period of one year, two years, three years, four years, five years in the name of petitioner No. 1 and rest of the amount shall be released to the petitioner No.1 with immediate effect by transferring the same to his saving bank account.Petitioner No. 6
ii. Fixed deposit of Rs. 50,000/- each for a period of one year, two years, three years, four years and rest of the amount shall be released to the petitioner No. 6 with immediate effect by transferring the same to their respective saving bank account.
41. The share of minor, petitioner No. 2 to 5 be kept in FDR till they attain majority.
42. The interest on the aforesaid FDR shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the savings account of petitioners.
43. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the petitioners after due verification and the bank shall issue photo identity card of petitioners to facilitate identity.
MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 15/1744. No cheque book be issued to the petitioners without the permission of the court.
45. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the bank in the safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the appellant along with photocopy of the FDRs.
46. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to the petitioner on the expiry of the period of the FDRs.
47. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of the court.
48. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the bank in the court.
49. On the request of the petitioner, the bank shall transfer the saving account to any other branch of UCO bank according to the convenience of the petitioners.
50. The petitioner shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the saving bank account and fixed deposit account to Nodal Officer, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
51. List for reporting compliance on 18.02.2011.
52. A copy of the order be given dasti to the concerned parties.
53. Copy of this order be also sent to Nodal Officer, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Branch, Delhi.
MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 16/1754. Original judgment be kept in MACT No. 278/10 and a copy in other file i.e. MACT No. 280/10. A copy of the award be given free of cost to the parties concerned.
Announced in the open (Arvind Kumar)
court on 18.12.2010 Presiding Officer : MACT
Karkardooma Court/ DELHI
18.12.2010
MACT No: 278/10 & 280/10 Page No. 17/17