Delhi District Court
Master Deepanshu vs Mehta Transport Corporation Of India ... on 31 July, 2024
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 664/18
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-009646-2018
1. Sh. Satveer Bhati,
S/o Late Rajwa,
(Husband of deceased)
2. Baby Kashish @ Kasis,
D/o Sh. Satveer Bhati,
(Minor daughter of deceased)
3. Master Prashant,
S/o Late Rajwa,
(Minor son of deceased)
4. Master Dipanshu,
S/o Late Rajwa,
(Minor son of deceased)
All R/o. Village Badpura,
Post Dadri,
PS. Dadri,
Gautambudh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Petitioner no. 2 to 4 being minor represented through their natural
guardian/father Sh. Satveer Bhati)
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Mehta Transport Corporation of India,
CG192, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
New Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 1 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
2. Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand,
R/o Village Satoda,
Ishwari Dhirpur,
PS. Mohamdabad,
District Fatehgarh,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Sabzi Mandi,
Azadpur,
Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 654/18
UID/CNR No.DLNT01-009637-2018
Baby Kasis,
D/o Sh. Satveer Bhati,
R/o Village Badpura,
Post Dadri,
PS. Dadri,
Gautambudh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mehta Transport Corporation of India,
CG192, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
New Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 2 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
2. Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand,
R/o Village Satoda,
Ishwari Dhirpur,
PS. Mohamdabad,
District Fatehgarh,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Sabzi Mandi,
Azadpur,
Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 655/18
UID/CNR No.DLNT01-009639-2018
Master Prashant,
S/o Sh. Satveer Bhati,
R/o Village Badpura,
Post Dadri,
PS. Dadri,
Gautambudh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mehta Transport Corporation of India,
CG192, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
New Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 3 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
2. Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand,
R/o Village Satoda,
Ishwari Dhirpur,
PS. Mohamdabad,
District Fatehgarh,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Sabzi Mandi,
Azadpur,
Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
MAC Petition No. 656/18
UID/CNR No.DLNT01-009647-2018
Master Dipanshu,
S/o Sh. Satveer Bhati,
R/o Village Badpura,
Post Dadri,
PS. Dadri,
Gautambudh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mehta Transport Corporation of India,
CG192, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
New Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 4 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
2. Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand,
R/o Village Satoda,
Ishwari Dhirpur,
PS. Mohamdabad,
District Fatehgarh,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Sabzi Mandi,
Azadpur,
Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
MAC Petition No. 657/18
UID/CNR No.DLNT01-009642-2018
Sh. Satveer Bhati,
S/o Late Rajwa,
R/o. Village Badpura,
Post Dadri,
PS. Dadri,
Gautambudh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mehta Transport Corporation of India,
CG192, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
New Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 5 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
2. Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand,
R/o Village Satoda,
Ishwari Dhirpur,
PS. Mohamdabad,
District Fatehgarh,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Sabzi Mandi,
Azadpur,
Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
MAC Petition No. 658/18
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-009643-2018
Smt. Sanju,
W/o Late Sh. Manveer,
R/o Village Badpura,
Post Dadri,
District Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mehta Transport Corporation of India,
CG192, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
New Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
2. Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand,
R/o Village Satoda,
Ishwari Dhirpur,
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 6 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
PS. Mohamdabad,
District Fatehgarh,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Sabzi Mandi,
Azadpur,
Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
MAC Petition No. 659/18
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-009644-2018
Smt. Sanju,
W/o Late Sh. Manveer,
R/o Village Badpura,
Post Dadri,
District Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mehta Transport Corporation of India,
CG192, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
New Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
2. Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand,
R/o Village Satoda,
Ishwari Dhirpur,
PS. Mohamdabad,
District Fatehgarh,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 7 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Sabzi Mandi,
Azadpur,
Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
MAC Petition No. 660/18
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-009645-2018
1. Smt. Sanju,
W/o Late Sh. Manveer,
(Widow of deceased)
2. Sh. Rohan,
S/o Late Sh. Manveer,
(Son of deceased)
3. Smt. Bhagwati Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Rajuva,
(Mother of deceased)
All R/o. Village Badpura,
Post Dadri, PS. Dadri,
District Gautambudh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Mehta Transport Corporation of India,
CG192, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
New Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 8 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
2. Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand,
R/o Village Satoda,
Ishwari Dhirpur,
PS. Mohamdabad,
District Fatehgarh,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Sabzi Mandi,
Azadpur,
Delhi.
(Insurer) ........Respondents
MAC Petition No. 661/18
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-009648-2018
Ms. Anjali,
D/o Sh. Karamveer,
R/o Village Badpura,
Post Dadri,
District Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mehta Transport Corporation of India,
CG192, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
New Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
2. Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand,
R/o Village Satoda,
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 9 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
Ishwari Dhirpur,
PS. Mohamdabad,
District Fatehgarh,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Sabzi Mandi,
Azadpur,
Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
MAC Petition No. 662/18
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-009649-2018
Smt. Sanju,
W/o Late Sh. Manveer,
R/o Village Badpura,
Post Dadri,
District Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mehta Transport Corporation of India,
CG192, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
New Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
2. Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand,
R/o Village Satoda,
Ishwari Dhirpur,
PS. Mohamdabad,
District Fatehgarh,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 10 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Sabzi Mandi,
Azadpur,
Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
Date of Institution : 22.10.2018
Date of Arguments : 29.07.2024
Date of Decision : 31.07.2024
APPEARENCES
Sh.S.C. Chhawadi, Ld. Counsel for petitioners/Lrs of deceased
as well as for all the injured persons.
None for driver and owner.
Sh. Sameer K. Tiwary, 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 claim petitions
with regard to fatal injuries sustained by Smt. Nitu, Nisha, Khushi, Manveer
and Arjun and injuries by Kasis, Prashant, Dipanshu, Sanju and Anjali in
Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 15.03.2018 at about 12:30 am
at G.T. Road, Near Fauji Dhaba, Badalpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP,
involving Truck bearing registration no. DL1GC-0945 (offending vehicle)
being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, respondent no.1
herein.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 11 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
2. All these claim petitions were consolidated for the purpose of
recording of evidence vide order dated 31.01.2020, passed by my
Ld. Predecessor and MACP No. 271/17 titled as " Uday Aggarwal Vs.
Shahun & Ors" was treated as the leading case. Accordingly, the evidence
was led on behalf of both the sides in the leading case for the purpose of
these matters.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. As per all the claim petitions on 15.03.2018, Nitu, Nisha, Khushi, Manveer and Arjun (all deceased persons herein) and Kasis, Prashant, Dipanshu, Sanju and Anjali (all the injured persons herein), were coming from Village Badhpura, Dadri District Gautam Budh Nagar in their Wagon R Car bearing registration no. UP16-BN-6388. At about 12:30 am, when they reached at G.T. Road, Near Fauji Dhaba, Badalpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came and suddenly took a turn on the right side, as a result of which all the occupants of the car received serious/grievous injuries. They all were taken to Sarvodaya Superspeciality Hospital & Heart Centre, Ghaziabad, UP. FIR No. 128/18 u/s. 279/338/304A/427 IPC was registered at PS. Badalpur with regard to the said accident. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd./respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 12 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
4. In their identical but separate Written Statements filed in all the ten cases, the respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. registered owner and driver have claimed that no such accident had been caused by the offending vehicle and it has been falsely implicated in the present case. They further claimed that respondent no. 2 was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. They have also admitted that offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident and as such, they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners in the present case. On merits, they simply denied the averments made in claim petitions and prayed for dismissal of all the claim petitions.
5. In its identical but separate Written Statements filed in all the ten cases, the respondent no. 3 i.e. insurance company has raised statutory defence as provided in Section 149(2) of M.V. Act by claiming that offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 2 without holding valid and effective driving licence as well as permit at the time of accident and as such, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners in the present case. It is further claimed that overloading of the vehicle in which deceased and injured persons were travelling, resulted in obstruction to the driver in smooth plying of the vehicle and the same tends to violation of Section 125 of M.V. Act. It is also claimed that present petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the driver, owner and insurance company of the Wagon R Car, are not made parties in the present case. However, it has been admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it at the time of accident. On merits, Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 13 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 it has denied the averments made in the claim petitions and prayed for their dismissal.
6. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in all the ten cases bearing MACP No. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18 separately vide order dated 16.03.2019 :-
1) Whether the injured Baby Kasis, Master Prashant, Master Dipanshu, Sanju Devi and Anjali suffered injuries and Kumari Nisha, Khushi, Manveer and Nitu suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 15.03.2018 at about 12:30 am at G.T. Road, Near Fauji Dhaba, Badalpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, within the jurisdiction of PS. Badalpur due to rashness and negligence on the part of driver Ashwani Kumar who was driving vehicle bearing registration no. DL1GC-
0945, owned by Mehta Transport Corporation of India and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP.
2) Whether the Lrs of deceased as well as injured persons are entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
7. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined six witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Satveer Bhati (husband of deceased Nitu in MACP No. 664/18), PW2 Smt. Sanju (injured in MACP No. 659/18), PW3 Ms. Anjali (injured in MACP No. 661/18), PW4 Sh. Jasveer(alleged Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 14 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 eyewitness), PW5 Sh. Rajiv Kumar and PW6 Dr. Bharat Bhushan and evidence was closed vide order dated 25.04.2023. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by any of the respondents.
8. This Tribunal has carefully perused the claim petition(s) and evidence led by petitioner(s) has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon & proved, considered. Arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner(s) considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable precedents, has been appreciated.
9. It is worth considering that all the victims of the road accident in question have led consolidated evidence and the first issue in each of the three claim petitions involves same material determination to establish whether the alleged offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver/respondent no.2, which caused injuries to the victims of the road accident under consideration. Hence, it shall be trite to avoid unnecessary repetition and give a common finding on issue no.1 as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN ALL THE CASES)
10. For the purpose of this issue, the testimonies of witnesses i.e. PW2 & PW3 are relevant both being the injured in the present case. Both deposed in their respective evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A & Ex. PW3/A respectively) on the on the lines of averments made in the claim petitions.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 15 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
11. PW2 Smt. Sanju has relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex PW2/1
2. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW2/1-2
Manveer
3. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW2/1-3
Arjun
4. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW2/1-4
Khushi
5. Copy of Report Card of Arjun Ex. PW2/1-5
6. Copy of Report Card of Ex. PW2/1-6
Khushi Bhati
7. Handicap Certificate Ex. PW2/3
8. Her medical treatment record Ex. PW2/4(colly)
9. Medical Bills Ex. PW2/5(colly)
10. Certified copy of FIR, Ex. PW2/6(colly)
chargesheet, injury report
11. Postmortem report, wages Ex. PW2/7
certificate and appointment
letter of deceased Manveer
12. Postmortem report of deceased Ex. PW2/8
Arjun
13. Postmortem report of deceased Ex. PW2/9
Khushi
12. During her cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, she deposed that on the date of accident, she was returning from one marriage ceremony from Bhuapur, Delhi in a Wagon R Car. She further deposed that the accident had occurred at about 11:30 pm in the night. She further deposed Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 16 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 that the aforesaid Wagon R car was being driven by her deceased husband at the time of accident. She deposed that her deceased husband was having driving licence at the time of accident. She denied the suggestion that her deceased husband was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. She further denied the suggestion that the Wagon R car dashed from behind against a stationary truck as the said car was being driven by its driver in high speed. She admitted that the accident occurred at G.T.K. Road in the midnight. She denied the suggestion that since it was dark, her husband could not see the stationary truck and dashed the car against the stationary truck. She denied the suggestion that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Wagon R car as it was overloaded comprising 10 occupants. She further denied the suggestion that accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Wagon R Car as the driver of the said car was driving his vehicle at very high speed and lost his control over his vehicle. Respondents no. 1 & 2 did not cross- examine this witness.
13. PW3 Ms. Anjali has relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of Aadhaar Card of her Ex PW3/1
father
2. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex. PW3/1-2
3. Copy of her report card Ex. PW3/1-3
4. Her treatment record Ex. PW3/2(colly)
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 17 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
5. Original medical bills Ex. PW3/3(colly)
6. Certified copy of FIR, Ex. PW3/4(colly)
chargesheet, injury report
14. During her cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, she deposed that on the date of accident, she was returning from one marriage ceremony from Bhuapur, Delhi in a Wagon R Car. She further deposed that except her, there was three more adults in the said car and there were six children also in the said car travelling in the said car at the time of accident. the accident. She further deposed that her deceased uncle Manveer was driving the aforesaid car at the time of accident. She deposed that offending truck was visible to her deceased uncle Manveer. She further deposed that the driver of the offending truck suddenly took a right turn due to which the accident occurred. She denied the suggestion that her deceased uncle Manveer was drunk at the time of accident. She further denied the suggestion that accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Wagon R car as it was overloaded comprising 10 occupants. She further denied the suggestion that accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Wagon R Car as the driver of the said car was driving his vehicle at very high speed and lost his control over his vehicle. Respondents no. 1 & 2 did not cross-examine this witness.
15. The careful perusal of testimonies of aforesaid witnesses i.e. PW2 & PW3 would go to show that the respondents more particularly insurance company has not been able to impeach their respective testimonies Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 18 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 through litmus test of cross-examination. Even otherwise, the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses inspire confidence as they themselves shown to have sustained injuries due to the accident. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 128/18 u/s 279/338/304A/427 IPC was registered at PS. Badalpur with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of Ex. PW2/6 colly), would show that same was registered on 15.03.2018 i.e. on the date of accident itself. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 2 and/or false involvement of offending vehicle at the instance of petitioners herein.
16. Not only this, the respondent no. 2 namely Sh. Ashwani Kumar (accused in State case) has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable U/s 279/338/304A/427 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
17. Copy of Medico-Legal Report of injured persons filed on record would show that they had been removed to Sarvodaya Superspeciality Hospital & Health Centre, Ghaziabad, UP, with alleged history of RTA on 15.03.2018 at 1:47 AM. They are shown to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. Not only this, postmortem was got conducted on the Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 19 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 body of deceased persons. The copy of PM Reports of deceased, would show that cause of death of deceased persons have been opined as shock, due to multiple injuries. 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.
18. 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 the basis of preponderence of probabilities that Nitu, Nisha, Khushi, Manveer and Arjun had sustained fatal injuries, whereas petitioner Kasis, Prashant, Dipanshu, Sanju and Anjali had sustained grievous injuries in the road accident which took place on 15.03.2018 at about 12:30 am at G.T. Road, Near Fauji Dhaba, Badalpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of offending vehicle as the chargesheet in the present case has been filed u/s. 279/338/304A/427 IPC. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in both these claim petitions.
ISSUE NO.2
19. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon 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. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 20 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 compensation" in fatal case has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: -
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, this Court has laid down as under:
"16."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
20. It has been duly established as per findings of issue no.1 that deceased Nitu, Nisha, Khushi, Manveer and Arjun had sustained fatal injuries, whereas petitioner Kasis, Prashant, Dipanshu, Sanju and Anjali had sustained grievous injuries on 15.03.2018 at about 12:30 am at G.T. Road, Near Fauji Dhaba, Badalpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, due to rash Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 21 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 and negligent driving of the respondent no. 2/driver. Accordingly, claimant(s) are entitled for just and fair compensation in the present case.
21. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon€ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held as under:
"16. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation..."
22. These guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 22 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been held:-
"10. The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages....."
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and adequate compensation to the victims of road accident is to be derived after assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter, assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the present case.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 23 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 Compensation in MACP No. 664/18 (Deceased Nitu) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
24. The claimants are the husband and minor children of deceased. PW1 Sh. Satveer Bhati (husband of deceased) has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that deceased was aged about 30 years; she was working as Supervisor in M/s. Sai Blossom Enterprise Limited and was earning Rs. 15,600/- per month at the time of accident. He further deposed that all the petitioners were dependent upon the income of deceased at the time of accident. He has relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex PW1/1
2. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/1-2
deceased
3. Copy of school identity card of Ex. PW1/1-3
Nisha Bhati
4. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/1-4
Kasis
5. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/1-5
Prashant
6. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/1-6
Dipanshu
7. Progress report of Nisha Ex. PW1/1-7
8. Original medical treatment Ex. PW1/3(colly)
record of Kasis
9. Original medical bills of Kasis Ex. PW1/4(colly)
10. Original medical treatment Ex. PW1/5(colly) Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 24 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 record of Prashant
11. Original medical bills of Ex. PW1/6(colly) Prashant
12. Medical treatment record and Ex. PW1/7(colly) & bills of Dipanshu Ex. PW1/8(colly)
13. Certified copy of FIR, Ex. PW1/2(colly) chargesheet, PM Report of Neetu, postmortem report of Nisha, injury report of Kasis, Prashant and Dipanshu, Original appointment letter of Neetu and wages certificate
25. During his cross examination on behalf of insurance company, he admitted that he was not present in the vehicle in which victims were travelling at the time of accident. He deposed that he was not aware whether his counsel has filed any document in respect of working and earning of his deceased wife on record or not.
26. Apart from bald testimony of PW1 that deceased was earning Rs. 15,600/- per month at the time of accident, no documentary proof has been brought on record to show that either deceased was working as Supervisor in M/s. Sai Blossom Enterprise Limited or that she was earning Rs. 15,600/- per month at the time of accident. Although, one Salary Certificate dated 24.03.2018 purportedly issued by Director of Saiblossom Enterprises Pvt. Ltd ( Ex. PW1/2 colly) is relied by petitioners but they have failed to examine the author of said document. The petitioners have failed to Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 25 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 furnish any reason for not examining the said witness for proving the said Salary Certificate. Hence, the said document cannot be considered while assessing the monthly income of deceased in order to calculate the loss of dependency.
27. In case titled Kirti & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2021) 2 SCC 166, 3-Judge 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 and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 26 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 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 in the State of UP as deceased was the resident of Uttar Pradesh at the time of accident. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 9,118.66p per month at the time of accident in question, which had occurred on 15.03.2018.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 27 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
30. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Nitu was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have filed copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW2/1-2) of deceased wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 27.11.1990. Thus, she was aged about 28 years at the time of accident(date of accident being 15.03.2018). Hence, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC which has been reaffirmed by the pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
31. Considering the fact that deceased was not having permanent job at that time, 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/A) that all the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased. Considering all the facts and circumstances, it is held that there Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 28 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 were four dependents i.e. husband and three minor children of deceased at the time of accident. Hence, there has to be deduction of one fourth as held in the case of Sarla Verma mentioned supra. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 19,53,216.97 (Rs. 9,118.66p X 3/4 X 140/100 X 12 X 17). Hence, a sum of Rs. 19,53,000/- (rounded off) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
33. Now considering the prayer of petitioners for grant of compensation on account of "Loss of Love & Affection" the binding legal position has been laid down by the celebrated judgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited V. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 of Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal titled as Pooja's case (supra), has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
34. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 29 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 petitioners i.e. parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, all the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) each towards "loss of consortium".[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 15.03.2018] 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 Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 30 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 15.03.2018]
36. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 19,53,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,93,600/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses Total Rs. 21,82,900/-
Rounded off to Rs. 21,83,000/-
Award in MACP No. 654/18; Injured Baby Kasis A) MEDICAL EXPENSES
37. PW1 Sh. Satveer Bhati (father of minor injured Kasis) has deposed in his chief examination vide Ex. PW1/A that his daughter Kasis had suffered multiple grievous injuries in the accident in question. He further deposed that the injured Kasis was admitted in Sarvodaya Superspeciality Hospital & Heart Centre on 15.03.2018, where she got treatment for the injuries suffered by her in the accident. He further deposed that he has spent an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs on the treatment of his daughter Kasis. He has tendered treatment record and medical bills as Ex. PW1/3(colly) and Ex. PW1/4(colly). The witness was cross-examined, wherein he denied that Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 31 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 he had not filed the documents in respect of expenses of Rs. 6 lakhs incurred on medical treatment of his daughter Kasis.
38. On behalf of petitioner/injured Kasis, medical bills to the tune of Rs. 2,57,714/-, which form part of Ex. PW1/4(colly) have been proved. There is nothing material by way of cross-examination of PW1 or any other confronted record or contrary evidence to doubt the authenticity and genuineness of the medical bills pertaining to the injured and are accordingly proved. Having proved the medical bills of about Rs.2,57,714/- for treatment of injured Baby Kasis, a compensation of Rs. 2,58,000/- is considered reasonable and is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
B) CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
39. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable amount on her special diet, conveyance and attendant. Petitioner has, however, failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the claimed expenditure, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant during the treatment of injured Kasis. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, she would have taken special rich protein diet for her 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 Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 32 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 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. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is considered reasonable to award composite amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner under this head.
C) PAIN AND SUFFERING, LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES OF LIFE & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
40. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non- pecuniary heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been held as under:-
"15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of anti- biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision:
2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-"On Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 33 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value, However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-
relation with the pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment."
41. The father of injured/PW-1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex PW1/A) that his daughter Kasis sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, she would have undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is considered reasonable towards non-pecuniary head and pain & suffering/loss of general amenities & enjoyment of life.
42. As per the peculiar case of injured, she was a minor at the relevant time of accident. There has been no evidence on record to show if the minor injured had suffered any loss of academic session due to the injuries suffered by her in the accident in question. There is no cogent evidence to prove any loss of earning or study period due to injuries sustained by the minor in the accident in question. Accordingly, the total compensation is being awarded as per the assessment, discussed hereinabove.
AWARD GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF INJURED KASIS
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,58,000/-
2. Conveyance, attendant charges & Rs. 50,000/-
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 34 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 special diet
3. Pain and suffering, Loss of general Rs. 25,000/-
amenities & enjoyment of life Total Rs. 3,33,000/-
Award in MACP No. 655/18; Injured Master Prashant A) MEDICAL EXPENSES
43. PW1 Sh. Satveer Bhati (father of minor injured Master Prashant) has deposed in his chief examination vide Ex. PW1/A that his son Prashant had suffered multiple grievous injuries in the accident in question. He further deposed that the injured Prashant was admitted in Sarvodaya Superspeciality Hospital & Heart Centre on 15.03.2018, where he got treatment for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. He further deposed that he has spent an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs on the treatment of his son Prashant. He has tendered treatment record and medical bills as Ex. PW1/5(colly) and Ex. PW1/6(colly). The witness was cross-examined, wherein he denied that he had not filed the documents in respect of expenses of Rs. 3 lakhs incurred on medical treatment of his son Prashant.
44. On behalf of petitioner/injured Prashant, medical bills to the tune of Rs. 57,976/-, which form part of Ex. PW1/6(colly) have been proved. There is nothing material by way of cross-examination of PW1 or any other confronted record or contrary evidence to doubt the authenticity and Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 35 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 genuineness of the medical bills pertaining to the injured and are accordingly proved. Having proved the medical bills of about Rs. 57,976/- for treatment of injured Master Prashant, a compensation of Rs. 58,000/- is considered reasonable and is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
B) CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
45. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable amount on his special diet, conveyance and attendant. Petitioner has, however, failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the claimed expenditure, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant during the treatment of injured Master Prashant. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, he 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 his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is considered reasonable to award composite amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner under this head.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 36 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 C) PAIN AND SUFFERING, LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES OF LIFE & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
46. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non- pecuniary heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been held as under:-
"15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of anti- biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision:
2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-"On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value, However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-
relation with the pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment."Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 37 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
47. The father of injured/PW-1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex PW1/A) that his son Prashant sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is considered reasonable towards non-pecuniary head and pain & suffering/loss of general amenities & enjoyment of life.
48. As per the peculiar case of injured, he was a minor at the relevant time of accident. There has been no evidence on record to show if the minor injured had suffered any loss of academic session due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. There is no cogent evidence to prove any loss of earning or study period due to injuries sustained by the minor in the accident in question. Accordingly, the total compensation is being awarded as per the assessment, discussed hereinabove.
AWARD GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF INJURED PRASHANT
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 58,000/-
2. Conveyance, attendant charges & Rs. 30,000/-
special diet
3. Pain and suffering, Loss of general Rs. 25,000/-
amenities & enjoyment of life Total Rs. 1,13,000/-
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 38 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 Award in MACP No. 656/18; Injured Master Dipanshu A) MEDICAL EXPENSES
49. PW1 Sh. Satveer Bhati (father of minor injured Master Dipanshu) has deposed in his chief examination vide Ex. PW1/A that his son Dipanshu had suffered multiple grievous injuries in the accident in question. He further deposed that the injured Dipanshu was admitted in Sarvodaya Superspeciality Hospital & Heart Centre on 15.03.2018, where he got treatment for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. He further deposed that he has spent an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs on the treatment of his son Dipanshu. He has tendered treatment record and medical bills as Ex. PW1/7(colly) and Ex. PW1/8(colly). The witness was cross-examined, wherein he denied that he had not filed the documents in respect of expenses of Rs. 3 lakhs incurred on medical treatment of his son Dipanshu.
50. On behalf of petitioner/injured Dipanshu, medical bills to the tune of Rs. 85,692/-, which form part of Ex. PW1/8(colly) have been proved. There is nothing material by way of cross-examination of PW1 or any other confronted record or contrary evidence to doubt the authenticity and genuineness of the medical bills pertaining to the injured and are accordingly proved. Having proved the medical bills of about Rs. 86,000/- for treatment of injured Master Dipanshu, a compensation of Rs. 86,000/- is considered reasonable and is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 39 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 B) CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
51. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable amount on his special diet, conveyance and attendant. Petitioner has, however, failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the claimed expenditure, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant during the treatment of injured Master Dipanshu. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, he 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 his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is considered reasonable to award composite amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner under this head.
C) PAIN AND SUFFERING, LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES OF LIFE & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
52. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non- pecuniary heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 40 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 Delhi in the matter titled as " Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been held as under:-
"15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of anti- biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision:
2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-"On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value, However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-
relation with the pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment."
53. The father of injured/PW-1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex PW1/A) that his son Dipanshu sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, a sum of Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 41 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 Rs. 25,000/- is considered reasonable towards non-pecuniary head and pain & suffering/loss of general amenities & enjoyment of life.
54. As per the peculiar case of injured, he was a minor at the relevant time of accident. There has been no evidence on record to show if the minor injured had suffered any loss of academic session due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. There is no cogent evidence to prove any loss of earning or study period due to injuries sustained by the minor in the accident in question. Accordingly, the total compensation is being awarded as per the assessment, discussed hereinabove.
AWARD GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF INJURED Dipanshu
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 86,000/-
2. Conveyance, attendant charges & Rs. 30,000/-
special diet
3. Pain and suffering, Loss of general Rs. 25,000/-
amenities & enjoyment of life Total Rs. 1,41,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 657/18 (Deceased Kumari Nisha) COMPENSATION
55. The claimant/petitioner in the present case is the father of deceased Kumari Nisha. PW1 (father of deceased) has deposed in his Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 42 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that deceased Kumari Nisha was 7 years old at the time of accident. Said portion of the testimony of PW1 has gone unchallanged and unrebutted from the side of respondents. Even otherwise, the respondents have nowhere disputed the age of deceased throughout the inquiry. Hence, it is accepted that deceased was aged about 7 years at the time of accident.
56. Now, the question arises as to how the compensation has to be calculated in case of death of minor person. Ld. Counsel for petitioner/injured has relied upon judgment passed in case titled "Sharafat Khan & Anr. Vs. Northern Railway & Anr.", LPA 615/2019 , decided on 26.05.2023 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The said judgment is not applicable in the present case as the said case does not pertain to a motor vehicular accident.
57. It may be noted here that after detailed examination of the precedents on the point in issue, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its recent judgment passed in a case titled "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Reena Raghav & Ors.", MAC. APP. 460/2023 & CM APPL. 51307/2023 held in the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment, which is reproduced as under:
5. This Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Jamaluddin Khan & Ors., NC No.2023:DHC:6242, after a detailed examination of the precedents in this regard, has observed as under:
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 43 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 "20. The above judgments, therefore, have not laid down the basis on which notional income in case of a child is to be determined by the Tribunal, but have, on facts of those cases, held that the notional income determined by the learned Tribunal did not warrant any interference.
21. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court, in my opinion, the most reasonable basis for determining the loss of dependency, even in the case of a minor, would be the minimum wages notified by the State Government where the minor resides at the time of the accident. As the notional income is being determined on basis of the minimum wages, I deem it appropriate also to add future prospects to such income at the rate of 40% by applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
22. Accordingly, it is directed that the compensation towards loss of dependency shall be assessed by taking minimum wages as notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi for the relevant period, that is 04.12.2017 for a skilled worker; 40% is to be added towards future prospects to such income; multiplier shall be 18.
23. Out of the above amount so assessed, deduction has to be made towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 44 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 &Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780.
24. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in case of death of a child, the loss assessed should be confined to only 1/3rd of the compensation amount that would otherwise be determined, that is an additional 2/3rd amount be deducted from the notional loss of dependency as determined by the methodology stipulated herein above.
25. I find no merit in the above submission. In my view, once the deduction towards personal expenses has been made, there can be no further deduction for determination of the loss of dependency. The method suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant would lead to a double deduction on the same reasons; this cannot be allowed."
58. In the above cited decision, the facts were almost similar as the deceased in the said case was also minor aged about 5 years. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to take minimum wages of a skilled person notified by the State Government where the minor resides at the time of accident for determining the loss of dependency. I also deem it appropriate to add future prospects to such income at the rate of 40% (by applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.) as the notional income is being determined on the basis of minimum wages. Out of the above amount so assessed, deduction has to be made towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. As the Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 45 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 deceased was a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 9,118.66p per month as on the date of accident which is 15.03.2018.
59. In view of the aforesaid, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 13,78,741.39 paise (Rs. 9,118.66p X 1/2 X 140/100 X 12 X
18). Hence, a sum of Rs. 13,79,000/- (rounded off)is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
60. Now considering the prayer of petitioners for grant of compensation on account of "Loss of Love & Affection" the binding legal position has been laid down by the celebrated judgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited V. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 of Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal titled as Pooja's case (supra), has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 46 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
61. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners i.e. parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) each towards "loss of consortium".[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 25.08.2021] LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
62. 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 Pranay Sethi (supra) Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 47 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 25.08.2021]
63. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 13,79,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 48,400/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses Total Rs. 14,63,700/-
Rounded off to Rs. 14,64,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 658/18 (Deceased Khushi)
64. The claimant/petitioner in the present case is the mother of deceased Baby Khushi. PW2 (mother of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that deceased Khushi was 12 years old at the time of accident. Said portion of the testimony of PW2 has gone Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 48 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 unchallanged and unrebutted from the side of respondents. Even otherwise, the respondents have nowhere disputed the age of deceased throughout the inquiry. Hence, it is accepted that deceased was aged about 12 years at the time of accident.
65. Now, the question arises as to how the compensation has to be calculated in case of death of minor person. The compensation is being calculated as per the method adopted in the connected case bearing MACP No. 657/18 in respect of deceased Kumari Nisha as in the present case also deceased Khushi was minor aged about 12 years. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 9,118.66p per month as on the date of accident which is 15.03.2018.
66. In view of the aforesaid, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 13,78,741.39 paise (Rs. 9,118.66p X 1/2 X 140/100 X 12 X
18). Hence, a sum of Rs. 13,79,000/- (rounded off)is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
67. Now considering the prayer of petitioners for grant of compensation on account of "Loss of Love & Affection" the binding legal position has been laid down by the celebrated judgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 49 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 Limited V. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 of Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal titled as Pooja's case (supra), has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
68. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners i.e. parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) each towards "loss of consortium".[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 50 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 25.08.2021] LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
69. 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 Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 25.08.2021]
70. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 13,79,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 48,400/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses Total Rs. 14,63,700/-
Rounded off to Rs. 14,64,000/-
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 51 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 Compensation in MACP No. 659/18 (Injured Sanju ) MEDICAL EXPENSES
71. PW2 Smt. Sanju i.e. injured herself, has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that after the accident, she was admitted in Mohan Swaroop Hospital, Dadri and thereafter, she was admitted in Sarvodaya Hospital, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, where she remained admitted from 15.03.2018 to 22.03.2018 and again on 02.05.2018 to 03.05.2018. She further deposed that she had sustained head injury with facial injury, both bone fracture of right forearm, fracture displaced parasymphasis mandible with fracture right zygomatic complex, fracture right lateral wall of nose. She further deposed that she had spent an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs on her treatment. She has tendered treatment record and medical bills as Ex. PW2/4(colly) and Ex. PW2/5(colly). She was not cross-examined by any of the respondents on this aspect at all.
72. In order to prove the medical bill amounting to Rs. 2,10,000/- issued by Sarvodaya Super Speciality Hospital & Heart Centre, petitioner has examined PW5 Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Record Keeper, from the aforesaid hospital, who has produced the admission summary record, medical treatment/prescription papers and duly certified final medical bill in respect of treatment of patient Sanju and exhibited the same as Ex. PW5/1A.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 52 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
73. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical bills(Ex. PW2/5 colly) to the tune of Rs. 3,17,139/-. It may be noted here that the amount of aforesaid medical bill Ex. PW5/1A is also included in the aforesaid bill amount. 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. 3,17,000/- (rounded off) is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
74. PW2 has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW2/A) that she was doing the work of tailor at the time of accident. She further deposed that she became permanent disabled due to the injuries suffered by her in the accident. She further deposed that due to the injuries suffered by her in the accident, she was not able to do tailoring work. She has relied upon handicap certificate Ex. PW2/3. During her cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, she admitted that she had not filed any document to show that she was doing tailoring work at the time of accident.
75. As per Discharge slip (which is part of Ex. PW2/4 colly) issued by Sarvodaya Superspeciality Hospital & Heart Centre, of petitioner, she has suffered head injury with facial injury, fracture both forearm right, compound Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 53 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 grade IIIB, fracture displaced right parasymphysis mendible with fracture right zygomatic complex and fracture right lateral wall off nose. 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 four months or so.
76. In case titled Kirti & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2021) 2 SCC 166, 3-Judge 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 and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 54 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 liberally. The granting of future prospects,on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation"
xxxxx
77. Although, it is claimed that petitioner was tailor at the time of accident but she has failed to prove the said fact on record. However, even if it is assumed that petitioner was not working and was housewife at the time of accident, her notional income has to be considered. It is 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. Thus, loss of income of injured has to be assessed while taking the income of a skilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh during the period in question. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 9,118.66p per month at the time of accident in question, which had occurred on 15.03.2018. Thus, a sum of Rs. 36,000/-(rounded off) (9,118.66p x 4) is awarded in favour of petitioner and against the respondent under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
78. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non- pecuniary heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been held as under:-
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 55 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 "15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision: 2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-"On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value, However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment."
79. As already considered, the petitioner required treatment for a considerable long duration for about four months from the date of accident and remained incapacitated to resume her work of earnings for at least a period of four months owing to grievous injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. Apart from this, petitioner has also suffered 40% permanent disability in relation to her right upper limb. Thus, she would have undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, permanent disability and duration of treatment, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is considered reasonable towards pain & sufferings.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 56 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
80. 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 including permanent disability suffered by her and her continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
81. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable amount on her special diet, conveyance and attendant. Petitioner has, however, failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the claimed expenditure, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant during the treatment of injured Kasis. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, she would have taken special rich protein diet for her 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 Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 57 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 perform her daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of her medical treatment. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is considered reasonable to award composite amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
82. The petitioner is shown to have sustained 40% permanent disability in relation to her right upper limb. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 17.12.2018 issued from the office of Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar.
83. As per the testimony of PW6 Dr. Bharat Bhushan, O/o Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, the petitioner was found to have suffered 40% permanent disability in relation to her right upper limb in terms of Disability Certificate (Ex. PW2/3). He deposed that the said disability was permanent in nature and thus, reassessment was not recommended. He deposed that petitioner would have mild difficulty in bending her elbow and wrist alongwith mild difficulty in gripping and lifting with her affected hand. She also cannot lift heavy weight like bucket full of water. Since her rotation is restricted, she will have mild to moderate difficulty in cooking. She would also face difficulty in her daily routine activity (ADL- activities of daily living) like bedding, bathing etc. He further deposed that considering the body as a single unit and her dominating right hand was affected from Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 58 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 two major joints, elbow and wrist with weakness of hand also, they can say that she would have 40% functional disability in relation to the whole body.
84. It is relevant to note that the petitioner was stated to be doing the work of tailor at the time of accident. Since, she is shown to have sustained 40% permanent disability in relation to right upper 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 as deposed by PW6 Dr. Bharat Bhushan. 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 20% with regard to whole body.
85. In copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW2/1) of petitioner, her date of birth is mentioned as 25.11.1984. The date of accident is 15.03.2018. Thus, the petitioner was more than 33 years old as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 16 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. 9,118.66p per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 1823.73 (Rs. 9,118.66p x 20/100 ). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 4,90,218.6 paise (Rs. 1823.73 x 140/100 x 12 x 16). Thus, a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 59 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expenses Rs. 3,17,000/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 36,000/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 50,000/-
enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 50,000/-
attendant charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 4,90,000/-
Total Rs. 10,18,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 660/18 (Deceased Manveer) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
86. The claimants are the widow, son and mother of deceased. PW2 Smt. Sanju (widow of deceased) has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that deceased was aged about 37 years; he was working as Supervisor in M/s. Sai Blossom Enterprise Limited and was posted at B-141, Phase II, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP and was earning Rs. 15,600/- per month at the time of accident. She further deposed that all the petitioners were dependent upon the income of deceased at the time of accident. She was not cross-examined by any of the respondents on this aspect at all.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 60 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
87. Apart from bald testimony of PW2 that deceased was earning Rs. 16,500/- per month at the time of accident, no documentary proof has been brought on record to show that either deceased was working as Supervisor in M/s. Sai Blossom Enterprise Limited or that he was earning Rs. 16,500/- per month at the time of accident. Although, one Salary Certificate dated 24.03.2018 purportedly issued by Director of Saiblossom Enterprises Pvt. Ltd ( Ex. PW2/7) is relied by petitioners but they have failed to examine the author of said document. The petitioners have failed to furnish any reason for not examining the said witness for proving the said Salary Certificate. Hence, the said document cannot be considered while assessing the monthly income of deceased in order to calculate the loss of dependency.
88. As already noted above, PW2 Smt. Sanju, who is widow of deceased deposed in her evidence that deceased was earning Rs. 16,500/- per month at the time of accident. However, she has failed to prove the said fact on record. Petitioners have also failed to file any document in respect of educational qualification of deceased. For want of cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners with regard to actual monthly income of deceased, his notional monthly income is being taken as equivalent to that of an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh during the relevant period. The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs. 7,400.48p per month as on the date of accident which is 15.03.2018.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 61 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
89. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Manveer was aged about 37 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have filed copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW2/1-2) of deceased wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 03.01.1981. Thus, he was aged about 37 years at the time of accident(date of accident being 15.03.2018). Hence, the multiplier of 15 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC which has been reaffirmed by the pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
90. Considering the fact that deceased was not having permanent job at that time, 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.
91. PW2 has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that all the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased. Considering all the facts and circumstances, it is held that there Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 62 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 were three dependents i.e. widow, son and mother of deceased at the time of accident. Hence, there has to be deduction of one third as held in the case of Sarla Verma mentioned supra. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 12,43,280.64 (Rs. 7,400.48p X 2/3 X 140/100 X 12 X 15). Hence, a sum of Rs. 12,43,000/- (rounded off) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
92. Now considering the prayer of petitioners for grant of compensation on account of "Loss of Love & Affection" the binding legal position has been laid down by the celebrated judgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited V. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 of Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal titled as Pooja's case (supra), has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
93. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 63 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 petitioners i.e. parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, all the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) each towards "loss of consortium".[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 15.03.2018] LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
94. 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 Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 64 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 15.03.2018]
95. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 12,43,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,45,200/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses Total Rs. 14,24,500/-
Rounded off to Rs. 14,25,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 661/18 (Injured Anjali) MEDICAL EXPENSES
96. PW3 Ms. Anjali i.e. injured herself, has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A) that after the accident, she was admitted in Mohan Swaroop Hospital, Dadri and thereafter, she was admitted in Mohan Swaroop Hospital, Dadri and thereafter, she was admitted in Sarvodaya Hospital, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, where she remained admitted from 15.03.2018 to 22.03.2018 and again on 02.05.2018 to 03.05.2018. She further deposed that she had sustained multiple facial fracture, fracture of anterior and postero-lateral wall of right maxillary sinus, fracture of right maxilla, fracture of zygomatic bone, fracture of lateral wall of right orbit, Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 65 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 fracture right hand metacarpals no-3, 4 & 5 and head injury. She further deposed that she had spent an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs on her treatment. She has tendered treatment record and medical bills as Ex. PW3/2(colly) and Ex. PW3/3(colly). During her cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, she admitted that she had not filed documents in respect of her medical expenses of Rs. 6 Lakhs incurred on her treatment.
97. In order to prove the medical bill amounting to Rs. 3,30,000/- issued by Sarvodaya Super Speciality Hospital & Heart Centre, petitioner has examined PW5 Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Record Keeper, from the aforesaid hospital, who has produced the admission summary record, medical treatment/prescription papers and duly certified final medical bill in respect of treatment of patient Anjali and exhibited the same as Ex. PW5/2A.
98. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical bills(Ex. PW3/3 colly) to the tune of Rs. 3,93,728/-. It may be noted here that the amount of aforesaid medical bill Ex. PW5/2A is also included in the aforesaid bill amount. 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. 3,94,000/- (rounded off) is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 66 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 B) CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
99. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable amount on her special diet, conveyance and attendant. Petitioner has, however, failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the claimed expenditure, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant during the treatment of injured. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Petitioner is found to have suffered multiple facial fracture, fracture of anterior and postero-lateral wall of right maxillary sinus, fracture of right maxilla, fracture of zygomatic bone, fracture of lateral wall of right orbit, fracture right hand metacarpals no-3, 4 & 5 and head injury. Thus, she would have taken special rich protein diet for her 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. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is considered reasonable to award composite amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the petitioner under this head.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 67 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 C) PAIN AND SUFFERING, LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES OF LIFE & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
100. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non- pecuniary heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been held as under:-
"15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of anti- biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision:
2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-"On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value, However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-
relation with the pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment."Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 68 of 83
MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
101. PW-3 has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A) that she had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Petitioner is found to have suffered multiple facial fracture, fracture of anterior and postero-lateral wall of right maxillary sinus, fracture of right maxilla, fracture of zygomatic bone, fracture of lateral wall of right orbit, fracture right hand metacarpals no-3, 4 & 5 and head injury. Thus, she would have undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is considered reasonable towards non-pecuniary head and pain & suffering/loss of general amenities & enjoyment of life.
102. As per the peculiar case of injured, she was a minor at the relevant time of accident. There has been no evidence on record to show if the minor injured had suffered any loss of academic session due to the injuries suffered by her in the accident in question. There is no cogent evidence to prove any loss of earning or study period due to injuries sustained by the minor in the accident in question. Accordingly, the total compensation is being awarded as per the assessment, discussed hereinabove.
AWARD GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF INJURED ANJALI
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 3,94,000/-
2. Conveyance, attendant charges & Rs. 75,000/-
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 69 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 special diet
3. Pain and suffering, Loss of general Rs. 75,000/-
amenities & enjoyment of life Total Rs. 5,44,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 662/18 (Deceased Arjun) COMPENSATION
103. The claimant/petitioner in the present case is the mother of deceased Arjun. PW2 (mother of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that deceased Arjun was 14 years old at the time of accident. Said portion of the testimony of PW2 has gone unchallanged and unrebutted from the side of respondents. Even otherwise, the respondents have nowhere disputed the age of deceased throughout the inquiry. Hence, it is accepted that deceased was aged about 14 years at the time of accident.
104. Now, the question arises as to how the compensation has to be calculated in case of death of minor person. The compensation is being calculated as per the method adopted in the connected cases bearing MACP No. 657/18 & 658/18 in respect of deceased Kumari Nisha and Khushi as in the present case also deceased Arjun was minor aged about 14 years. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 9,118.66p per month as on the date of accident which is 15.03.2018.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 70 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
105. In view of the aforesaid, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 13,78,741.39 paise (Rs. 9,118.66p X 1/2 X 140/100 X 12 X
18). Hence, a sum of Rs. 13,79,000/- (rounded off)is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
106. Now considering the prayer of petitioners for grant of compensation on account of "Loss of Love & Affection" the binding legal position has been laid down by the celebrated judgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited V. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 of Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal titled as Pooja's case (supra), has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
107. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners i.e. parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 71 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) each towards "loss of consortium".[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 25.08.2021] LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
108. 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 Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 25.08.2021] Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 72 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
109. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 13,79,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 48,400/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses Total Rs. 14,63,700/-
Rounded off to Rs. 14,64,000/-
110. 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 not claimed exemption on account of any statutory breach as envisaged u/s.149(2) MV Act. However, they have claimed in their written statement and written arguments that the victim's vehicle was carrying passengers more than its seating capacity, due to which the accident had taken place and as such, insurance company is liable to pay compensation to only five passengers who were covered to travel in a vehicle of victims. However, no evidence has been led on this point to show that the accident took place due to vehicle carrying extra passengers. Further, the manner in which the accident had taken place does not show that the victim's vehicle lost its balance due to extra passenger because of which the accident took place. Rather, it shows that the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the accident. It is also pertinent to mention here that since the offending vehicle was insured for third party risk, insurance company is liable to Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 73 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 indemnify the insured as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the victims herein are covered under third party risk. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle for the relevant period and in the absence of any statutory defences available to the insurance company, insurance company concerned is legally liable to pay the compensation amount, as determined hereinabove. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
111. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, following order is passed after relying upon judgment "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors. MAC APP. No. 36/2023 on 21.04.2023, on the point of interest. Accordingly, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for insurance company is not applicable as the Hon'ble Apex Court did not make any observation regarding the rate of interest of 6%. Rather, specifically in para no. 8.2, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"Now so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the amount of interest from 9% to 6% per annum is concerned, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India."
a) A sum of Rs. 21,83,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs and Eighty Three Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 664/18 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 74 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.10.2018 till the date of its realization.
b) A sum of Rs. 3,33,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Thirty Three Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 654/18 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.10.2018 till the date of its realization.
c) A sum of Rs. 1,13,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Thirteen Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 655/18 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.10.2018 till the date of its realization.
d) A sum of Rs. 1,41,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Forty One Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 656/18 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.10.2018 till the date of its realization.
e) A sum of Rs. 14,64,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs and Sixty Four Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 657/18 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.10.2018 till the date of its realization.
f) A sum of Rs. 14,64,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs and Sixty Four Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 75 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 Petition No. 658/18 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.10.2018 till the date of its realization.
g) A sum of Rs. 10,18,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Eighteen Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 659/18 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.10.2018 till the date of its realization.
h) A sum of Rs. 14,25,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 660/18 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.10.2018 till the date of its realization.
i) A sum of Rs. 5,44,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Forty Four Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 661/18 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.10.2018 till the date of its realization.
j) A sum of Rs. 14,64,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs and Sixty Four Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 662/18 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.10.2018 till the date of its realization.
Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 76 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 APPORTIONMENT
112. Statements of petitioner(s) in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 14.12.2023. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 664/18, the petitioner no. 1 Sh. Satveer shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 6,83,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs and Eighty Three Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest and petitioners no. 2 to 4 namely Kasis, Prashant and Dipanshu shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- each (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
113. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) shall be immediately released to him through his bank account no. 1815100100012844 with Punjab National Bank, having IFSC Code PUNB0181510 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
114. The entire share amounts alongwith proportionate interest of petitioner no. 2 to 4 be kept in FDR for the period till they attain the age of majority and thereafter, entire amount be released to them in their respective bank accounts, as per rules. However, the said petitioners are at liberty to Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 77 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 withdraw their monthly interest in order to meet their educational expenses through their father/legal guardian Sh. Satveer who is petitioner no. 1 in the present case.
115. In MACP No. 654/18, the entire award amount of Rs. 3,33,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Thirty Three Thousand Only) alongwith interest shall be immediately released to petitioner through her bank account, as per rules.
116. In MACP No. 655/18, the entire award amount of Rs. 1,13,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Thirteen Thousand Only) alongwith interest shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his bank account, as per rules.
117. In MACP No. 656/18, the entire award amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Forty One Thousand Only) alongwith interest shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his bank account, as per rules.
118. In MACP No. 657/18, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his bank account no. 1815100100012844 with Punjab National Bank, having IFSC Code PUNB0181510 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 78 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
119. In MACP No. 658/18, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through her bank account no. 1815100100012853 with Punjab National Bank, having IFSC Code PUNB0181510 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
120. In MACP No. 659/18, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) shall be immediately released to petitioner through her bank account no. 1815100100012853 with Punjab National Bank, having IFSC Code PUNB0181510 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
121. In MAC Petition No. 660/18, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Sanju shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 6,25,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest, petitioner no. 2 namely Rohan shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate interest and Smt. Bhagwati shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only).
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 79 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
122. In MAC Petition No. 660/18, out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) shall be immediately released to him through his bank account no. 1815100100012853 with Punjab National Bank, having IFSC Code PUNB0181510 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
123. In MAC Petition No. 660/18, the entire respective share amounts alongwith proportionate interest of petitioner no. 2 & 3 be immediately released to them through their respective bank accounts, as per rules.
124. In MACP No. 661/18, out of the entire awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Eighty Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through her bank account no. 1815100100012923 with Punjab National Bank, having IFSC Code PUNB0181510 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
125. In MAC Petition No. 662/18, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) shall be immediately released to petitioner through her bank account no. 1815100100012853 with Punjab National Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 80 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 Bank, having IFSC Code PUNB0181510 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
126. 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).
(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 pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to 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.
Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 81 of 83MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024
(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 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.
127. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of 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 amounts of petitioners in their aforesaid saving bank accounts mentioned supra, 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 Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 82 of 83 MACP Nos. 654/18 to 662/18 & 664/18; FIR No. 128/18 DOD: 31.07.2024 date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this award be given dasti to claimants. Copy of this award be also given dasti to counsel for insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of both 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 MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be placed on the judicial record of MAC Petition Nos. 654/18 to 662/18. Digitally signed by RICHA MANCHANDA RICHA MANCHANDA Date:
2024.07.31 03:54:21 Announced in the open +0545 Court on 31.07.2024 (RICHA MANCHANDA) Judge MACT-2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Satveer Bhati & Ors Vs. Mehta Transport Corporation of India & Ors. Page 83 of 83