Dar-Afroj Jhan vs Sudhir Kumar on 12 August, 2024

[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Dar-Afroj Jhan vs Sudhir Kumar on 12 August, 2024

             IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA
                    PRESIDING OFFICER:
      MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA
               KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________________

In the matters of:

(I).   MACT (DAR) no. 672/2022 (Attached MACT no.656/2022)
       Afroj Jhan & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(II). MACT (DAR) no. 674/2022 (Attached MACT no.659/2022
      Tiya & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(III) MACT (DAR) no. 677/2022 (Attached MACT no.657/2022)
      Hafiza & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(IV) MACT (DAR) no. 673/2022
     Shanti Devi & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(V)    MACT (DAR) no. 675/2022 (Attached MACT no.658/2022
       Pradeep Kumar v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(VI) MACT (DAR) no. 676/2022
     Manish v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.


(I).   MACT (DAR) no. 672/2022 (Attached MACT no.656/2022)
       Afroj Jhan & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.
       (In Re: deceased Sartaj Khan)

1).    Afroj Jhan (mother of deceased Sartaj Khan)
       W/o late Sh. Siraj Khan
       R/o C-27, Road no.64, New Light Colony,
       Jhilmil, Delhi-110095.
2).    Arjina (wife of deceased Sartaj Khan)
       R/o 44/A, 443 Jhuggi, New Seemapuri, Delhi.
____________________________________________________________
DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-
MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT
658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22;                                              Page 1 of 74
 3).    Sabhiya (daughter of deceased)
       R/o 44/A, 443 Jhuggi, New Seemapuri, Delhi.
4).    Azad Khan (brother of deceased Sartaj Khan)
       S/o late Sh. Siraj Khan
       R/o C-27, Road no.64, New Light Colony,
       Jhilmil, Delhi-110095.
5).    Farheen (sister of deceased Sartaj Khan)
       D/o late Sh. Siraj Khan
       R/o C-27, Road no.64, New Light Colony,
       Jhilmil, Delhi-110095.                             ..............Petitioners

Versus

1).    Sudhir Kumar (Driver)
       S/o Sh. Mahesh Prasad Yadav
       R/o Milkipar, PO Jagdishpur Tiyari, PS Noorsarai,
       Nalanda, Bihar-803114.
2).    M/s Shri Krishna Enterprises (Regd. Owner)
       Through its Proprietor Sh. Sudhir Yadav
       House. no. 249, Kapashera Village, New Delhi-110037.
3).    Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
       Plot no.E-1, 1st Floor & 2nd Floor, Sector-8,
       Noida, U.P.                                   ..............Respondents



(II). MACT (DAR) no. 674/2022 (Attached MACT no.659/2022
      Tiya & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.
      (In Re: deceased Karim Ali)

1).    Tiya (wife of deceased Karim Ali)
2).    Noejan (mother of deceased Karim Ali)
       W/o late Sh. S.K. Jabed
3).    Tofik Ali (son of deceased Karim Ali)
4). Tajeb Ali @ Ali (son of deceased Karim Ali)
____________________________________________________________
DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-
MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT
658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22;                                              Page 2 of 74
        W/o Sh. Habibul
5).    Kulsuma (married daughter of deceased Karim Ali)
6).    Haider Ali (son of deceased Karim Ali)
7).    Karishma (daughter of deceased Karim Ali)
       D/o late Sh. Karim Ali
8).    Irfan Ali (son of deceased Karim Ali)
      All R/o E-47/34, Street no.3, T Huts,
      New Seemapuri, Delhi-110095.                        ..............Petitioners

Versus

1).    Sudhir Kumar (Driver)
       S/o Sh. Mahesh Prasad Yadav
       R/o Milkipar, PO Jagdishpur Tiyari, PS Noorsarai,
       Nalanda, Bihar-803114.
2).    M/s Shri Krishna Enterprises (Regd. Owner)
       Through its Proprietor Sh. Sudhir Yadav
       House. no. 249, Kapashera Village, New Delhi-110037.
3).    Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
       Plot no.E-1, 1st Floor & 2nd Floor, Sector-8,
       Noida, U.P.                                   ..............Respondents



(III) MACT (DAR) no. 677/2022 (Attached MACT no.657/2022)
      Hafiza & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.
      (In Re: deceased Shah Alam)

1).    Hafiza @ Hafiza Bibi (wife of deceased Shah Alam)
2).    Salehar Bewa (mother of deceased Shah Alam)
       W/o late Sh. Irshad
3).    Saida (married daughter of deceased Shah Alam)
       W/o Sh. Kurban Ali Shah
4). Areesha (daughter of deceased Shah Alam)
____________________________________________________________
DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-
MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT
658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22;                                              Page 3 of 74
 5).    Aaysha (minor daughter of deceased Shah Alam)
6).    Sayra Bano (married daughter of deceased Shah Alam)
       W/o Sh. Ajgar Ali Shah

      All R/o E-47/106, T- Huts, New Seemapuri,
      Delhi-110095.                                       ..............Petitioners

Versus

1).    Sudhir Kumar (Driver)
       S/o Sh. Mahesh Prasad Yadav
       R/o Milkipar, PO Jagdishpur Tiyari, PS Noorsarai,
       Nalanda, Bihar-803114.
2).    M/s Shri Krishna Enterprises (Regd. Owner)
       Through its Proprietor Sh. Sudhir Yadav
       House. no. 249, Kapashera Village, New Delhi-110037.
3).    Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
       Plot no.E-1, 1st Floor & 2nd Floor, Sector-8,
       Noida, U.P.                                   ..............Respondents



(IV) MACT (DAR) no. 673/2022
     Shanti Devi & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.
     (In Re: deceased Rahul)

1).    Shanti Devi (mother of deceased Rahul)
       W/o late Shriram
2).    Priyanka (sister of deceased Rahul)
       D/o late Shriram
       Both R/o 100-B, 40 Feet Road,
       Shalimar Garden Extension-2, Ghaziabad, U.P.             ........Petitioners

Versus


____________________________________________________________
DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-
MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT
658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22;                                              Page 4 of 74
 1).    Sudhir Kumar (Driver)
       S/o Sh. Mahesh Prasad Yadav
       R/o Milkipar, PO Jagdishpur Tiyari, PS Noorsarai,
       Nalanda, Bihar-803114.
2).    M/s Shri Krishna Enterprises (Regd. Owner)
       Through its Proprietor Sh. Sudhir Yadav
       House. no. 249, Kapashera Village, New Delhi-110037.
3).    Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
       Plot no.E-1, 1st Floor & 2nd Floor, Sector-8,
       Noida, U.P.                                   ..............Respondents


(V)    MACT (DAR) no. 675/2022 (Attached MACT no.658/2022
       Pradeep Kumar v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

      Pradeep Kumar (injured)
      S/o Sh. Jay Kumar
      R/o T- Huts no. E-47/19B, New Seemapuri,
      Delhi-110095.                                       ................Petitioner

Versus

1).    Sudhir Kumar (Driver)
       S/o Sh. Mahesh Prasad Yadav
       R/o Milkipar, PO Jagdishpur Tiyari, PS Noorsarai,
       Nalanda, Bihar-803114.
2).    M/s Shri Krishna Enterprises (Regd. Owner)
       Through its Proprietor Sh. Sudhir Yadav
       House. no. 249, Kapashera Village, New Delhi-110037.
3).    Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
       Plot no.E-1, 1st Floor & 2nd Floor, Sector-8,
       Noida, U.P.                                   ..............Respondents


(VI) MACT (DAR) no. 676/2022
     Manish v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.
____________________________________________________________
DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-
MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT
658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22;                                              Page 5 of 74
       Manish (injured)
      S/o Sh. Ramesh
      R/o House no.662, Khasra no.379, Gali no.18,
      B-Block, Gagan Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P.        ...............Petitioner

Versus

1).    Sudhir Kumar (Driver)
       S/o Sh. Mahesh Prasad Yadav
       R/o Milkipar, PO Jagdishpur Tiyari, PS Noorsarai,
       Nalanda, Bihar-803114.
2).    M/s Shri Krishna Enterprises (Regd. Owner)
       Through its Proprietor Sh. Sudhir Yadav
       House. no. 249, Kapashera Village, New Delhi-110037.
3).    Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
       Plot no.E-1, 1st Floor & 2nd Floor, Sector-8,
       Noida, U.P.                                   ..............Respondents



Date of Institution                : 06.12.2022
Date of Arguments                  : 12.08.2024
Date of pronouncement              : 12.08.2024


                                JUDGMENT

1. Vide this common judgment, I shall decide the instant six DAR (Detailed Accident Report) cases filed by the Investigating Agency in respect of the fatal injuries suffered by Sartaj Khan, Karim Ali, Shah Alam and Rahul (deceased in MACT nos. 672/2022, 674/2022m 677/2022 and 673/2022, respectively) and injuries sustained by Pradeep Kumar and Manish (injured/ petitioner in MACT ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 6 of 74 no.676/2022 & 677/2020, respectively) in the same motor vehicular accident.

2. The DARs have been treated as claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for a grant of compensation to the claimants. However, separate claim petitions have also been filed in four matters vide MACT nos.656/2022, 657/2022, 658/2022 & 659/2022, which have been clubbed with the concerned DAR cases.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case as per DARs/ claim petitions are that on 21.09.2022 at about 01:25 a.m. (midnight), aforesaid four deceased and two injured persons were sleeping on the divider of the road at Seemapuri Bus Depot, Seemapuri, Delhi. In the meanwhile, an Eicher Truck bearing registration no.DL1GE-1265 (in short "offending vehicle"), being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, came from Bus Depot side and climbed on the divider and ran over the deceased/ injured persons with a great force. As a result of the accident, deceased Sartaj Khan, Karim Ali, Shah Alam and Rahul received fatal injuries, whereas, petitioners Pradeep Kumar and Manish sustained grievous injuries.

4. In connection with the accident, an FIR no.792/2022, under sections 279/337/304-A IPC was registered at PS Seemapuri. During the investigation, it was found that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3.

5. In response to DAR/ claim petition, all the three respondents filed their written statements.

6. Respondent no.1 and 2 filed separate written-statements but similar in contents, wherein it has been stated that the alleged offending vehicle did not cause any accident while being driven by respondent no.1 in the manner as stated in the DAR. The respondents no. 1 and 2 in the written statement have also expressed doubt on the basis of no serious mechanical damage to the offending vehicle which as per them ought to have been caused keeping into consideration the alleged manner of the accident. Further, it is stated that on the date of the accident, the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/ respondent no.3 and therefore, liability, if any, has to be fastened upon the insurance company.

7. Respondent no.3/ insurance company in its written-statement has taken general defences as well as the stance of the respondent no.3 is that the accident in which four persons have died and two of them have received grievous injuries, is basically a case of hit-and-run. The statement of complainant on the basis of which FIR was lodged does not find mention of the registration number of the offending vehicle as after causing the accident offending vehicle fled from the spot. That in the criminal case, the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle based upon some video footage which was also blind to the respondent no.3 at the time of filing of the DAR. The respondent no.3 in its written statement ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 8 of 74 denied the facts of the accident as well as the involvement of the offending vehicle and therefore, also denied the liability towards the victims of the said accident.

8. It is further stated in the written statement of the respondent no.3 that the deceased as well as the injured were responsible for the unfortunate death/ injuries as they were sleeping negligently on divider, a place which is not meant for sleeping.

9. On the basis of pleadings and supporting documents, on 11.05.2023, issues in the matters were framed, as under:

In MACT (DAR) no. 672/2022 (In Re: deceased Sartaj Khan)

1) Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.

DK1GE-1265 on 21.09.2022 at about 01:26 a.m., at Seemapuri DTC Depot Red Light near Sochalaya, within the jurisdiction of PS Seemapuri in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sartaj Khan? (OPP)

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? (OPP)

3) Relief?

In MACT (DAR) no. 674/2022 (In Re: deceased Karim Ali)

1) Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no. DK1GE-1265 on 21.09.2022 at about 01:26 a.m., at Seemapuri DTC Depot Red Light near Sochalaya, within the jurisdiction of PS Seemapuri in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Karim Ali? (OPP)

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? (OPP) ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 9 of 74

3) Relief?

In MACT (DAR) no. 677/2022 (In Re: deceased Shah Alam)

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? (OPP)

3) Relief?

In MACT (DAR) no. 673/2022 (In Re: deceased Rahul)

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? (OPP)

3) Relief?

In MACT (DAR) no. 675/2022 (In Re: injured Pradeep Kumar)

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? (OPP)

3) Relief?

In MACT (DAR) no. 672/2022 (In Re: injured Manish)

1) Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.

____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 10 of 74 DK1GE-1265 on 21.09.2022 at about 01:26 a.m., at Seemapuri DTC Depot Red Light near Sochalaya, within the jurisdiction of PS Seemapuri in rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to petitioner Manish? (OPP)

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? (OPP)

3) Relief?

10. Vide order dated 11.05.2023, all the six claim cases arising out of the same accident, were consolidated by my Ld. Predecessor and it was directed that claim case bearing MACT no.656/2022 (DAR- MACT no.672/2022) would be considered as main case common evidence in all the cases would be recorded and kept in the main case file.

11. Vide order dated 11.05.2023, learned Court Commissioner was appointed (refer: Gohar Mohammed v. U.P. SRTC, (2023) 4 SCC

381) to record the common evidence in all the cases. Ld. Court Commissioner submitted the report containing the depositions (which have been placed on the record of the main case file) recorded by her, as under:

(a) PW1 Hafiza Bibi, mother of deceased Shah Alam (in MACT no.677/2022) deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A regarding the age, income, occupation of deceased and about the losses suffered as a result of the death of the deceased and relied upon the following documents:

(i). Copy of death certificate of deceased Shah Alam as ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-

MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 11 of 74 Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).

(ii). Copy of Aadhaar Card of deceased Shah Alam as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).

(iii). Copy of election I.D. Card of deceased Shah Alam as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).

(iv). Copy of PAN Card of Hafiza Bibi (petitioner no.1) as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR).

(v). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Hafiza Bibi (petitioner no.1) as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).

(vi). Copy of PAN Card of Sayra Bano (petitioner no.2) as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR).

(vii). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Sayra Bano (petitioner no.2) as Ex.PW1/7 (OSR).

(viii). Copy of PAN Card of Saida (petitioner no.3) as Ex.PW1/8 (OSR).

(ix). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Saida (petitioner no.3) as Ex.PW1/9 (OSR).

(x). Copy of PAN Card of Aarisha (petitioner no.4) as Ex.PW1/10 (OSR).

(xi). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Aarisha (petitioner no.4) as Ex.PW1/11 (OSR).

(xii). Copy of PAN Card of Aayesha (petitioner no.5) as Ex.PW1/12 (OSR).

(xiii). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Aayesha (petitioner no.6) as Ex.PW1/13 (OSR).

(xiv). Copy of PAN Card of Salehar Bewa (petitioner no.6) as Ex.PW1/14 (OSR).

(xv). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Salehar Bewa (petitioner no.6) as Ex.PW1/15 (OSR).

(xvi). Attested copy of DAR as Ex.PW1/16 (colly).

(b) PW2 Tiya, wife of deceased Karim Ali (in MACT no.674/2022) deposed on the strength of her affidavit Ex.PW2/A regarding the age, income, occupation of deceased and about the losses suffered as a result of the death of the deceased and relied upon the following documents:

(i). Copy of death certificate of deceased Karim Ali as Ex.PW2/1 (OSR).

(ii). Copy of election I.D. Card of deceased Karim Ali as Ex.PW2/2 (OSR).

(iii). Copy of PAN Card of Tiya (petitioner no.1) as Ex.PW2/3 (OSR).

(iv). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Tiya (petitioner no.1) as Ex.PW2/4 (OSR).

(v). Copy of PAN Card of Tofik Ali (petitioner no.2) as Ex.PW2/5 (OSR).

(vi). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Tofik Ali (petitioner no.2) as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR).

(vii). Copy of PAN Card of Tajeb Ali (petitioner no.3) as Ex.PW2/7 (OSR).

(viii). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Tajeb Ali (petitioner no.3) as Ex.PW2/8 (OSR).

(ix). Copy of PAN Card of Kulsuma (petitioner no.4) as Ex.PW2/9 (OSR).

(x). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Kulsuma (petitioner no.4) as Ex.PW2/10 (OSR).

(xi). Copy of PAN Card of Haider Ali (petitioner no.5) as Ex.PW2/11 (OSR).

(xii). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Haider Ali (petitioner no.5) as ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-

MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 13 of 74 Ex.PW2/12 (OSR).

(xiii). Copy of PAN Card of Karishma Bibi (petitioner no.6) as Ex.PW2/13 (OSR).

(xiv). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Karishma Bibi (petitioner no.6) as Ex.PW2/14 (OSR).

(xv). Copy of PAN Card of Irfan Ali (petitioner no.7) as Ex.PW2/15 (OSR).

(xvi). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Irfan Ali (petitioner no.7) as Ex.PW2/16 (OSR).

(xvii). Copy of PAN Card of Noejan (petitioner no.8) as Ex.PW2/17 (OSR).

(xviii).Copy of Aadhaar Card of Noejan (petitioner no.8) as Ex.PW2/18 (OSR).

(xix). Attested copy of DAR as Ex.PW2/19 (colly).

(c) PW3 Afroz Jhan, mother of deceased Sartaj Khan (in MACT no.672/2022) deposed on the strength of her affidavit Ex.PW3/A regarding the age, income, occupation of deceased and about the losses suffered as a result of the death of the deceased and relied upon the following documents:

(i). Copy of death certificate of deceased Sartaj Khan as Ex.PW3/1 (OSR).

(ii). Copy of Aadhaar Card of deceased Sartaj Khan as Ex.PW3/2 (OSR).

(iii). Copy of PAN Card of Afroz Jhan (petitioner no.1) as Ex.PW3/3 (OSR).

(iv). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Afroz Jhan (petitioner no.1) as Ex.PW3/4 (OSR).

(v). Copy of PAN Card of Azad Khan (petitioner no.3) as ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-

MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 14 of 74 Ex.PW3/6 (OSR).

(vi). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Azad Khan (petitioner no.3) as Ex.PW3/6 (OSR).

(vii). Copy of PAN Card of Farhin (petitioner no.4) as Ex.PW3/7 (OSR).

(viii). Copy of Aadhaar Card of Farhin (petitioner no.4) as Ex.PW3/8 (OSR).

(ix). Photocopy of second Nikahnama of Arjina (petititioner no.2) with other person as Ex.PW1/10 (colly).

(d) PW4 Pradeep Kumar, injured (in MACT no.675/2022) deposed through his affidavit Ex.PW4/A regarding the injuries sustained, treatment taken, medical expenses incurred and disability received on account of the accident and relied upon the following documents:

(i). Medical treatment record as Ex.PW4/1 (colly.-12 pages).

(ii). Disability Certificate as Ex.PW4/2.

(iii). Copy of his PAN Card as Ex.PW4/3 (OSR).

(iv). Copy of his Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW4/4 (OSR).

(v). Attested copy of DAR as Ex.PW4/5 (colly).

(e) PW5 Shanti Devi, mother of deceased Rahul (in MACT no.673/2022) deposed by way of her affidavit Ex.PW5/1 regarding the age, income, occupation of her deceased son and about the losses suffered as a result of the death of the deceased and relied upon the following documents:

(i). Copy of her Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and Bank Passbook as Ex.PW5/A (OSR) (Colly.-6 pages).

(ii). Copy of Aadhaar Card of deceased Rahul as Ex.PW5/B (OSR).

(iii). Certified copy of criminal case record as Ex.PW5/C.

(f) PW6 Manish, injured (in MACT no.676/2022) deposed through his affidavit Ex.PW6/A regarding the injuries sustained, treatment taken, medical expenses incurred and disability received on account of the accident and relied upon the following documents:

(i). Medical treatment record as Ex.PW6/1 (colly.-8 sheets).

(ii). Disability Certificate as Ex.PW6/2.

(iii). Copy of his PAN Card as Ex.PW6/3 (OSR).

(iv). Copy of his Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW6/4 (OSR).

(v). Attested copy of DAR as Ex.PW6/5 (colly).

(g) PW7 Dr. Komal Prasad Gola, Senior Resident, Department of Orthopaedic, GTB Hospital, Delhi produced the original record with respect to issuance of disability certificate to injured Manish (in MACT 676/2022) and proved the said disability certificate, already exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 to show that the injured Manish has sustained 47% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb.

(h) PW8 Dr. Komal Prasad Gola, Senior Resident, Department of Orthopaedic, GTB Hospital, Delhi produced the original record with respect to issuance of ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-

MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 16 of 74 disability certificate to injured Pradeep Kumar (in MACT 675/2022) and proved the said disability certificate, already exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 to show that the injured Pradeep Kumar has sustained 56% permanent disability in relation to his bilateral lower limb.

(i) PW9 Arjina, wife of deceased Sartaj Khan also entered into the witness box and deposed by way of her affidavit Ex.PW9/A and relied upon the following documents:

(i). Copy of her Aadhaar Card and Bank Passbook of her Daughter Sabhiya as Ex.PW9/A (colly.-4 pages).

(ii). Copy of Aadhaar Card of deceased Sartaj Khan @ Chhota, already exhibited as Ex.PW3/2.

(iii). Attested copy of DAR, already exhibited as Ex.PW3/9.

12. All the respondents opted not to lead evidence. Hence, the evidence was closed.

13. I heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence and other materials placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-

ISSUE NO.1 (in all six cases):

14. Issue no.1, being interlinked in all the six cases, shall be decided here together by my common findings.

15. It is the settled proposition of law that in an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 17 of 74 the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.

16. For deciding the issue in hand, the depositions of petitioners Pradeep Kumar (PW4) and Manish (PW6), being the injured as well as eye- witness to the accident, are relevant to be discussed here.

17. PW4 testified that on 21.09.2022 at about 01:25 a.m., he along with Sartaj Khan @ Chhota, Karim, Manish, Shah Alam, Rahul and other persons were sleeping on the divider of the road at New Seempauri Bus Depot, Delhi, in the meanwhile, a vehicle bearing no. DL1GE- 1265 (Eicher Pro), being driven by its driver at a high speed, rashly negligently and without blowing any horn, came from Seemapuri Bus Depot side and lost its control, due to which it climbed over the divider and ran over them. PW4 categorically stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 18 of 74 and in this regard, FIR no.797/2022, under sections 279/337/304-A IPC was registered at PS Seemapuri, Delhi. PW4 deposed that had the driver of the offending vehicle been careful, cautious and vigilant enough, this accident could have been very easily averted. The another eye-witness PW6 Manish, who also received injuries in the accident, has also deposed on the lines of PW4.

18. Both the eye-witnesses (PW4 & PW6) were cross-examined at length by learned counsel for the insurance company but I find that testimony of these witnesses have remained intact and could not be shattered in any manner. Any person or an object on a particular day at a particular time could be only at a particular place. If the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, the offending vehicle ought to have been at some other place than the place of accident at the time when the accident took place. To the eyewitnesses PW4 and PW6, no suggestion was given if on the date and time of the alleged accident the offending vehicle was at different locations other than the spot of accident. Not even a suggestion was given that at the time when the accident had happened, the respondent no.1 was not driving the offending vehicle or that the respondent no.1 was off duty at that time. The respondents no.1 and 2 could have led evidence to the effect that the respondent no.1 was off duty or that the offending vehicle was parked in the garage.

19. Having gone through the entire deposition of PW4 and PW6, who ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 19 of 74 themselves have sustained injuries in the accident and have also been cited as eye-witnesses in the charge-sheet, this Tribunal finds nothing which may demolish or impeach their testimony on the aspect of a rash and negligent act of respondent no.1 while driving the offending vehicle. Besides, nothing else is available on record which may suggest any falsity or untruth in the oral testimony of the eye- witnesses.

20. Further, the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses is also corroborated by documentary evidence brought on record by way of DARs filed separately in all six cases, comprising of FIR, site plan of the place of accident, seizure memo and mechanical inspection reports of the offending vehicle, charge-sheet, etc.

21. On perusal of DARs, it is seen that the FIR was registered on the date of accident itself and during the investigation, police recorded the statement of eye-witness Pradeep Kumar (PW4) who disclosed about the gross negligence of the offending vehicle in causing the accident. He revealed the description and colour of the offending vehicle as "Canter type vehicle of matiyala colour".

22. As per charge-sheet, during investigation, on the basis of CCTV footage, the offending vehicle was found to be an Eicher PRO truck of Coffee Brown colour with registration number as DL1GE-1265. The Investigating Officer got conducted the mechanical inspection of the said vehicle and as per the report of mechanical inspection, it was ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 20 of 74 found to have sustained multiple accidental damages which also indicates the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.

23. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the respondent no.1 was charge-

sheeted in the criminal case for the offences under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC by the police after detailed investigation and in a motor vehicle accident claim case, the contents of charge-sheet are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule-7 of Delhi Motor Accident Tribunal Rules, 2008, which support the testimony of eye-witnesses regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.

24. Moreover, there is no challenge from the respondent no.1/ driver of the offending vehicle to the version of the petitioners. The respondent no.1 was the best witness, who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the testimony of the petitioners regarding the above accident and its manner but he preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by him in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009(3) AD (Delhi) 310.

25. Besides above, it is also pertinent to mention here that on 01.06.2024 after hearing final arguments, this Tribunal had put a query to the ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 21 of 74 respondent no.1 as to how the accident had happened. In response to the said query, respondent no.1, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, stated that while he was driving the offending vehicle adjacent to the footpath, a vehicle was coming from the front and because of the light coming from the vehicle from the opposite side, respondent no.1, inadvertently, ran the offending vehicle over the footpath, due to which the accident happened. Though what the respondent no.1 stated to the Tribunal pursuant to a query put by the Tribunal in the strict sense of the term is not evidence, however in the light of what has come on record and what the respondent no.1 has stated before the Tribunal, it lends moral and factual certainty to the fact regarding the involvement of the respondent no.1 and offending vehicle in the accident.

26. Perusal of the postmortem reports of the deceased Sartaj Khan, Karim Ali, Shah Alam and Rahul, which are part of the DARs, show that they were brought to GTB Hospital with the alleged history of RTA (road traffic accident) and they were observed to have suffered multiple antemortem injuries and were declared brought dead.

(a) A postmortem report of deceased Sartaj Khan reveals the cause of death as haemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem blunt force impact to the skeletal system (chest and pelvis) and that all injuries are antemortem in nature produced by blunt force.

(b) A postmortem report of deceased Karim Ali shows the cause of death as shock as a result of antemortem injury to head produced by blunt force impact.

(c) A postmortem report of deceased Shah Alam discloses the cause of death as combined effect of cerebral damage and haemorrhagic shock as a result of blunt force trauma/ surface impact to head, chest and abdomen along with its visceral structures and that all injuries are antemortem in nature produced by blunt force.

(d) A postmortem report of deceased Rahul reflects the cause of death as haemorrhagic shock consequent upon blunt force trauma to the left lung and skeletal system with associated blood and that all injuries are antemortem in nature produced by blunt force.

27. The MLC of injured Pradeep Kumar and that of injured Manish show that they were also brought to GTB Hospital with alleged history of RTA. Further, the treatment record of both these injured shows that they suffered grievous injuries.

28. Thus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and that resulted into fatal injuries to Sartaj Khan, Karim Ali, Shah Alam and Rahul and ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 23 of 74 grievous injuries to the injured Pradeep Kumar and Manish. Issue no.1 in all the six cases is, accordingly, decided in favour of the petitioner(s).

ISSUE NO. 2 (In all cases)

29. In view of common finding on issue no.1, petitioners in all six cases are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittances. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) AC 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).

COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION :

30. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be a pittance.

31. In Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.

(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the relevant guidelines for ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 24 of 74 compensation were laid down in death cases, which have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:

(a) age of the deceased;

(b) income of the deceased; and

(c) the number of dependents.

These issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:

(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;

(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and

iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.

If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.

19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:

Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income, a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 25 of 74 living expenses. The balance which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.

Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.

Step-3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.

Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.

The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."

32. In view of the aforesaid judgment, compensation in both the cases of fatal injuries, has to be ascertained as under:

MACT (DAR) no. 672/2022

Afroj Jhan & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 26 of 74 (In re: deceased Sartaj Khan) PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

Age of deceased :

33. The copy of Aadhaar Card of the deceased Sartaj Khan, which has been proved on record as Ex.PW3/2, reflects his death of birth as 01.01.1993, which would mean that he was 29 years of the age on the date of the accident (21.09.2022).

Assessment of Income of deceased :

34. Though PW3 Afroj Jhan has stated in the affidavit of her evidence that her deceased son Sartaj Khan was working as a ragpicker in the area of Seemapuri, Delhi and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month, however, during her cross-examination, she fairly admitted that she did not file any document regarding income and employment of the deceased. Further, no document has also been placed on record to show the education of the deceased. It is evident that Aadhaar Card of the deceased, which has been proved on record as Ex.PW3/2, shows the residential address of the deceased as that of Delhi.

Therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence in respect of education, income and occupation of deceased, his income has to be assessed at par with minimum wages applicable to unskilled categories of workers in the State of Delhi on the date of accident (21.09.2022), which were Rs.16,506/- per month. Thus, the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.16,506/- per month.

Application of Multiplier :

____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 27 of 74

35. As determined above, the age of the deceased was 29 years at the time of the accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:-

        MULTIPLIER               AGE GROUP OF DECEASED
        M-18                     Age groups between 15 to 20 & 21 to 25 years)
        M-17                     Age groups between 26 to 30 yrs
        M-16                     Age groups between 31 to 35 yrs
        M-15                     Age groups between 36 to 40 yrs
        M-14                     Age groups between 41 to 45 yrs
        M-13                     Age groups between 46 to 50 yrs
        M-11                     Age groups between 51 to 55 yrs
        M-9                      Age groups between 56 to 60 yrs
        M-7                      Age groups between 61 to 65 yrs
        M-5                      Age groups between 66 to 70 yrs

36. In view of the above said judgment, multiplier of 17 is applicable in case of the deceased herein, who belonged to age group between 26 to 30 years.

Future Prospects:

37. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:-

"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-

MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 28 of 74 permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estates, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."

38. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. In view of the above said judgment, an addition of 40% to the income of the deceased(aged 29 years) has to be considered towards future prospects.

Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:

39. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 29 of 74 towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :

Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number of dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six)

40. In the instant claim petition, there are five claimants i.e. mother, wife, minor daughter, younger brother (aged 26 years) and unmarried younger sister (aged 18 years) of the deceased. Though, PW3, mother of deceased has testified that the petitioners were fully dependent upon the income of deceased, however, the younger brother, who was a major, aged 26 years at the time of accident of deceased, cannot be considered to be dependent upon the deceased. Since, the father was not alive, the younger unmarried sister has to be considered dependent upon her elder brother (deceased). In view of above, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.

Loss of Dependency:

41. In view of the settled guidelines as laid down in the various judgments herein above by applying the multiplier of 09, after making deduction of half of the income of the deceased, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.35,35,585/- (16,506x140/100x3/4 x17x12).

42. In the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 31.10.2017, in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years.

43. The accident in this case occurred on 21.09.2022, therefore, a compensation of Rs.44,000/-, Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,500/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, petitioner no.1, being the mother of deceased shall be entitled to filial consortium, petitioner no.2, being the wife shall be entitled to a spousal consortium and petitioner no.3, being the daughter of the deceased shall be entitled to parental consortium. Hence, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:

        S. No.      Conventional Head               Amount
        1.          Loss of Consortium :
                    (a). Filial Consortium          Rs.44,000/-

                    (b). Spousal Consortium         Rs.44,000/-

                    (c). Parental Consortium        Rs.44,000/-

2. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-

3. Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-

Total = Rs.1,65,000/-

44. Thus, petitioners shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,65,000/-

under this head.

45. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.37,00,585/-

(35,35,585+1,65,000).

MACT (DAR) no. 674/2022

Tiya & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(In re: deceased Karim Ali) PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

Age of deceased :

46. PW2 Tiya has placed on record the Election Identity Card of her deceased husband Karim and proved the same as Ex.PW2/2, which shows that he was 51 years of age as on 01.01.2014. Accordingly, age of the deceased on the date of accident (21.09.2022) comes to 59 years.

Assessment of Income of deceased :

47. No documentary evidence has been brought on record with respect to education, occupation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any such documentary evidence, since the deceased was a resident of Delhi as per his Election Identiy Card (Ex.PW2/2), his income has to ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 32 of 74 be assessed at par with minimum wages applicable to unskilled categories of workers in the State of Delhi on the date of accident (21.09.2022), which were Rs.16,506/- per month. Thus, the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.16,506/- per month.

Application of Multiplier :

48. As determined above, the age of the deceased was 59 years at the time of the accident. In view of the guidelines given in Para 21 of the judgment in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of 09 shall be applicable in case of the deceased herein, who belonged to age group between 56 to 60 years.

Future Prospects:

49. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. The deceased, aged 59 years, belonged to the age group between 50 to 60 years and therefore, 10% future prospects shall be applicable here. [refer:

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranatiyay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157)] Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:

50. In the present case, there are eight claimants i.e. wife, mother and six children of the deceased. As per Aadhaar Card/ PAN Card of the petitioners placed on record, the age of three sons of deceased i.e. petitioner no.3 Tofik Ali, petitioner no.4 Tajeb Ali and petitioner no.6 Haider Ali were respectively 34 years, 33 years and 26 years on the date of the accident. Since these three sons were more than 25 years ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-

MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 33 of 74 of age on the date of accident, they cannot be treated as dependent upon their deceased father. Further, as per Aadhaar Card/ PAN Card of petitioner no.5 Kulsuma, she was 32 years of age and her Aadhaar Card mentions her "w/o Habibul". Therefore, a 32-year-old married daughter cannot be considered to be dependent upon her deceased father. Thus, the rest four claimants i.e. petitioner no.1 Tiya (wife), petitioner no.2 Noejan (mother), petitioner no.7 Karishma (Daughter) and petitioner no.8 Irfan Ali (son) can only be considered to have been dependent upon the deceased. Accordingly, one-fourth of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal living expenses. [refer: Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65] Loss of Dependency:

51. In view of the settled guidelines as laid down in the various judgments herein above by applying the multiplier of 14, after making deduction of one-fourth of the income of the deceased, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.14,70,685/-

(16,506x110/100x3/4 x9x12).

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES

52. The accident in this case occurred on 21.09.2022, therefore, a compensation of Rs.44,000/-, Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,500/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted [refer: National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157, ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 34 of 74 decided on 31.10.2017)].

53. Further, petitioner no.1, being the wife of deceased shall be entitled to a spousal consortium, petitioner no.2, being the mother shall be entitled to filial consortium and petitioner no.3 to 8, being children of the deceased shall be entitled to parental consortium [refer: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020)]. Hence, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:

        S. No.      Conventional Head               Amount
        1.          Loss of Consortium :
                    (a). Spousal Consortium         Rs.44,000/-

                    (b). Filial Consortium          Rs.44,000/-

                    (c). Parental Consortium        Rs.2,64,000/- (44,000x6)

        2.          Loss of Estate                  Rs.16,500/-

        3.          Funeral Expenses                Rs.16,500/-

                                             Total = Rs.3,85,000/-

54. Thus, petitioners shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,85,000/-

under this head.

55. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.18,55,685/-

(14,70,685+3,85,000), rounded off to Rs.18,56,000/-.

(In re: deceased Shah Alam) PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

Age of deceased :

56. PW1 Hafiza Bibi has placed on record copy of Aadhaar Card of her deceased son Shah Alam and proved the same as Ex.PW1/2, which shows his year of birth as 1980, which would mean that the deceased was 42 years of age on the date of the accident (21.09.2022).

Assessment of Income of deceased :

57. PW1, mother of the deceased did not adduce any documentary evidence with respect to education, occupation and income of the deceased. However, since the residence of the deceased, as per his Aadhaar Card (Ex.PW1/2) was of Delhi, his income has to be assessed at par with minimum wages applicable to unskilled categories of workers in the State of Delhi on the date of accident (21.09.2022), which were Rs.16,506/- per month. Thus, the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.16,506/- per month.

Application of Multiplier :

58. As determined above, the age of the deceased was 42 years at the time of the accident. In view of the guidelines given in Para 21 of the judgment in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, a ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 36 of 74 multiplier of 14 shall be applicable in case of the deceased herein, who belonged to age group between 41 to 45 years.

Future Prospects:

59. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. The deceased, aged 42 years, belonged to the age group between 40 to 50 years and therefore, attract 25% future prospects. [refer: National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157)] Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:

60. In the present case, there are six claimants i.e. wife, mother and four daughters of the deceased. In the claim petition, petitioner no.3 Sayra Bano and petitioner no.4 Saida have been mentioned as married daughters of the deceased and therefore, they cannot be considered dependent upon the deceased. In view of the above, considering total four dependents upon the deceased, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.

[refer: Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65] Loss of Dependency:

61. In view of the settled guidelines as laid down in the various judgments herein above by applying the multiplier of 14, after making deduction of one-fourth of the income of the deceased, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.25,99,695/-

(16,506x125/100x3/4 x14x12).

62. The accident in this case occurred on 21.09.2022, therefore, a compensation of Rs.44,000/-, Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,500/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted [refer: National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157, decided on 31.10.2017)].

63. Further, petitioner no.1, being the wife of deceased shall be entitled to a spousal consortium, petitioner no.2, being the mother shall be entitled to filial consortium and petitioner no.3 to 6, being daughters of the deceased shall be entitled to parental consortium [refer: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020)]. Hence, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:

        S. No.      Conventional Head               Amount
        1.          Loss of Consortium :
                    (a). Spousal Consortium         Rs.44,000/-

                    (b). Filial Consortium          Rs.44,000/-

                    (c). Parental Consortium        Rs.1,76,000/- (44,000x4)

        2.          Loss of Estate                  Rs.16,500/-

        3.          Funeral Expenses                Rs.16,500/-

                                             Total = Rs.2,97,000/-

64. Thus, petitioners shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,97,000/-

under this head.

65. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.28,96,695/-

(25,99,695+2,97,000), rounded off to Rs.28,97,000/-.

MACT (DAR) no. 673/2022

Shanti Devi v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(In re: deceased Rahul) PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

Age of deceased :

66. PW5 Shanti Devi has proved on record Aadhaar Card of her deceased son Rahul as Ex.PW5/B, which shows his date of birth as 15.02.1989. Accordingly, age of the deceased on the date of accident (21.09.2022) comes to 33 years.

67. Though it has been stated by PW5, mother of the deceased that her deceased son was doing labour work in Seema Puri, Delhi and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, however, no documentary evidence has been led to show the education, occupation and income of the deceased. Aadhaar Card of the deceased and that of her mother (PW5) show their residential address of Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad, U.P. In these circumstances, the income of deceased has to be assessed at par with minimum wages applicable to unskilled ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 39 of 74 categories of workers in the State of U.P. on the date of accident (21.09.2022), which were Rs.9,530/- per month. Thus, the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.9,530/- per month.

Application of Multiplier :

68. As determined above, the age of the deceased was 33 years at the time of the accident. In view of the guidelines given in Para 21 of the judgment in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of 16 shall be applicable in case of the deceased herein, who belonged to age group between 31 to 35 years.

Future Prospects:

69. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. The deceased, aged 33 years, was below 40 years of age and therefore, attract 40% future prospects [refer: National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157)] Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:

70. In the present case, the deceased Rahul, aged 33 years, had left behind his mother (petitioner no.1 Shanti Devi) and elder sister (petitioner no.2 Priyanka). Aadhaar Card and PAN Card of petitioner no.2 Priyanka reflects her date of birth as 25.01.1987, meaning thereby, she was 35 years of age on the date of accident (21.09.2022). The elder sister of the deceased cannot be considered dependent upon the deceased. Accordingly, half of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards personal living expenses of ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-

MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 40 of 74 deceased. [refer: Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65] Loss of Dependency:

71. In view of the settled guidelines as laid down in the various judgments herein above by applying the multiplier of 16, after making deduction of one-fourth of the income of the deceased, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.12,80,832/-

(9,530x140/100x1/2x16x12).

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES

72. The accident in this case occurred on 21.09.2022, therefore, a compensation of Rs.44,000/-, Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,500/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted [refer: National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157, decided on 31.10.2017)].

73. Further, petitioner no.1, being the mother of the deceased shall be entitled to filial consortium. [refer: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020)]. Hence, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:

        S. No.        Conventional Head             Amount
        1.            Loss of Consortium            Rs.44,000/-
        2.            Loss of Estate                Rs.16,500/-

3. Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-

Total = Rs.77,000/-

74. Thus, petitioners shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.77,000/-

under this head.

75. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.13,57,832/-

(12,80,832+77,000), rounded off to Rs.13,58,000/-.

MACT (DAR) no. 675/2022

Pradeep Kumar v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(In re: injured Pradeep Kumar)

76. The present claim petition pertains to injury and scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:

"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 42 of 74 earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material losses. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;

(iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, hardship, frustration and mental stress in life."

77. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:

"4. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 43 of 74 to earn or could have earned.

5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary Damages (special damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: Sartaj

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment.

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-Pecuniary Damages (general damages)

(iv) Damages to pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and

(iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b),

(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."

78. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-

PECUNIARY DAMAGES :

Medical Expenses

79. The petitioner Pradeep Kumar (PW4) deposed to have spent expenses of Rs.50,000/- on his medical treatment, however, admittedly, he did not place on record any medical bill to show the said medical expenses. In the circumstances, for want of documentary evidence in this regard, this Tribunal is not inclined to grant any compensation to the petitioner under this head.

Loss of earning during treatment:

80. The treatment record Ex.PW4/1 (colly) shows that immediately after the accident on 21.09.2022, the petitioner was taken to GTB Hospital, where his MLC was prepared. As per progress record, swelling over left knee, abrasion wound over lateral aspect of the knee with tenderness and swelling over the lateral malleolus was observed and he was diagnosed to have sustained a fracture of the lateral malleolus with fractures of acetabulum (right). He was explained regarding nature of injury and probable admission but he did not want admission and requested to follow up in OPD. The treatment record also shows that he visited in the OPD of GTB Hospital for further treatment on 30.09.2022 when doctors mentioned 'laceration wound over dorsum aspect oof toes with undisplaced fracture of the lateral malleolus' and mentioned, ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 45 of 74 'swelling over dorsum of left foot and wound over dorsum aspect unhealthy'. Record shows that he also made a further visit to OPD of GTB Hospital on 04.10.2022. Though it has not been brought on record as to when the treatment of petitioner completed, however, considering the nature of injury, it may be safely assumed that the petitioner must not have been able to do any work for at least two months after the accident and therefore, he is entitled to be compensated for the said period.

81. Though the petitioner (PW4) deposed that he was working as a ragpicker and was earning Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/ per month, however, admittedly, he did not place on record any document regarding his income and occupation. Also, he did not file any document to show his education either. It is evident that Aadhaar Card Ex.PW4/4 shows the residential address of the deceased as that of Delhi. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence in respect of education, income and occupation of the petitioner, his income has to be assessed at par with minimum wages applicable to unskilled categories of workers in the State of Delhi on the date of accident (21.09.2022), which were Rs.16,506/- per month. Thus, considering the monthly income of the petitioner to be Rs.16,506/-, a sum of Rs.33,012/- (16,506x2) is granted to the petitioner on account of loss of income of two months during treatment.

Loss of Future Earnings Due to Disability:

82. In case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 46 of 74 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India determined the broad criteria for assessment of permanent disability for ascertaining the purpose of future loss of earnings and also laid down step-by-step procedure for assessment of disability and for ascertainment to the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

"9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:

           (i) Whether      the    disablement    is   permanent     or
           temporary;

(ii) If the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;

(iii) If the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.

If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.

10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The tribunal has to first ascertain what activities of ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 47 of 74 the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) Whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."

......If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service but may not find suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore, be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case, there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earnings capacity taking note of the reduced earning capacity.

13. We may now summarize the principles discussed ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 48 of 74 above:

(i). All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii). The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity.

To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as a percentage of permanent disability).

(iii). The doctor who treated an injured- claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv). The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of the profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."

83. In the instant case, it is evident on record that as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, petitioner suffered 56% permanent disability in relation to bilateral lower limbs. In this regard, PW8 Dr. Komal Prasad Gola, Senior Resident (Orthopaedic), GTB Hospital, Delhi, proved the disability certificate bearing no. 748/14/7/2023, dated 04.07.2023 of the petitioner as Ex.PW2/1. The disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and not substitute to each other and the loss of income has to be seen considering the profession in which the petitioner was engaged at the time of accident. The doctor (PW8) deposed that due to the ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 49 of 74 disability, the petitioner will have difficulty in standing on affected leg, walking on a plain surface and slope, climbing stairs, squatting, sitting cross-legged and kneeling down. The petitioner who has been considered by this Tribunal to be an unskilled worker, has deposed that he was working as a rag picker. The work of a rag picker is to collect wastes from the streets of localities/ garbage house but with the aforementioned physical restrictions as stated by the doctor (PW8), his income would certainly be affected to a larger extent. In the circumstances, the functional disability in relation to the whole body of the petitioner is considered as 56%.

84. Further, law is well settled that there should be no departure from the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer: Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. The Aadhaar Card (Ex.PW4/4) of the petitioner reflects his date of birth as 10.08.1990, which would mean that he was 32 years of age on the date of accident (21.09.2022) and thus, multiplier of 16 as applicable to age groups 31-35 years, would be applicable as per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner as a self-employed, an addition of income to the extent of 40% (belonging to the age group ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 50 of 74 below 40 years) towards future prospects has to be counted.

85. As discussed above, the income of petitioner has been assessed as Rs.16,506/- per month. Thus, applying the multiplier of 16 and future prospects @ 40% with 56% loss of income on account of whole body functional disability, the total loss of future income would come to Rs.24,84,615/- [56% of (16,506x140/100x16x12)] and the same is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Special Diet, Conveyance & Attendant Charges:

86. Though, the petitioner (PW4) has deposed to have incurred Rs.25,000/- each on special diet and conveyance and Rs.80,000/- on attendant charges but he did not lead any specific evidence to corroborate his said claims. However, considering the nature of injury and period of treatment, an inference can be drawn that petitioner must have spent a reasonable amount on his special diet for the purpose of early recovery as well as for visiting the hospital for his further treatment. Also, it cannot be ignored that his family members must have spent their considerable time in attending him during his treatment. In view of this Tribunal, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards special diet and conveyance and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges would be just and fair compensation to the petitioner. Hence, a total sum of Rs.35,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 51 of 74 Pain & Sufferings:

87. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victims of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No:

709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:

"12. 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 objective co-relation with the pain and suffering.

13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:

(a) Nature of injury.

(b) Body part affected

(c) Duration of the treatment."

88. In the instant case, as per MLC, the petitioner was observed to have suffered multiple injuries as follows:

(a) Laceration 1x0.5 cm at above left eyebrow.

(b) Swelling at left thigh lateral side.

(c) Swelling at left leg ankle.

(d) Laceration (deep) 3x2 cm at left leg sole near fingers.

(e) Lacerated wound 2x1 cm at the third finger of left foot.

(f) Puncture wound at the nose.

89. Besides the above, as per X-ray report, the petitioner was observed to have sustained fracture of the lateral malleolus (left) with fractures of acetabulum. Despite completion of treatment, his injuries resulted into 56% permanent disability in relation to his bilateral lower limbs. Thus, it is clear from the record that due to the injuries suffered in ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 52 of 74 the accident, the petitioner must have gone through immense pain and suffering during his treatment and therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Loss of Amenities:

90. As discussed above, even after completion of treatment, petitioner was assessed to have suffered 56% permanent disability in relation to bilateral lower limbs and as deposed by the doctor (PW8), the petitioner would have to face difficulty in standing on affected leg, walking on a plain surface and slope, climbing stairs, squatting, sitting cross-legged and kneeling down. Thus, it is evident that with the aforementioned physical restrictions, the petitioner is bound to face difficulties throughout his life and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

91. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-

          Sl. No.     Head of compensation                   Amount

            1.        Loss of Income (during Rs.33,012/-
                      treatment)
                      Loss of Future Earnings Rs.24,84,615/-
            2.
                      (due to disability)
            3.        Special Diet, Conveyance &             Rs.35,000/-
                      Attendant Charge
            4.        Pain & Suffering                       Rs.50,000/-
            5.        Loss of Amenities                      Rs.50,000/-
                               Total                         Rs.26,52,627/-

92. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.26,53,000/-

(rounded off from Rs.26,52,627/-).

MACT (DAR) no. 676/2022

Manish v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(In re: injured Manish)

93. The present claim petition pertains to injury and scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of R.D. Hattangadi (supra) and Raj Kumar (supra) as discussed above in connected case of Pradeep Kumar vs. Sudhir Kumar (MACT no.675/2022), the compensation to which the petitioner herein is entitled shall be as under:-

PECUNIARY DAMAGES :

Medical Expenses

94. The petitioner Manish (PW6) deposed to have spent Rs.50,000/- on his medical treatment, however, admittedly, he did not place on record any medical bill to show the said medical expenses. In the absence of any documentary evidence in this regard, this Tribunal is not inclined to grant any compensation to the petitioner under this head.

Loss of earning during treatment:

____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 54 of 74

95. As per discharge summary which is part of treatment record Ex.PW6/1 (colly), due to the injuries received in the accident on 21.09.2022, the petitioner remained hospitalized in GTB Hospital from 27.09.2022 to 08.10.2022. He was diagnosed to have sustained 'closed fracture of right I/C humerus with shafts of right ulna'. The treatment record also shows that he made a number of visits to the OPD of GTB Hospital for his further treatment on 14.10.2022, 15,10,2022, 04.11.2022, 15.11.2022, 18.11.2022 and on 22.11.2022. Though it is not clear from the record as to when treatment of the petitioner completed, however, considering the treatment record, it may be safely assumed that the petitioner must not have been able to do any work for at least two months after the accident and therefore, he is entitled to be compensated for the said period.

96. Though the petitioner (PW4) deposed that he was working as a ragpicker and was earning Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,sustained 'closed fracture of right I/C humerus with shafts of right ulna'000/ per month, however, admittedly, he did not place on record any document regarding his income and occupation. Also, he did not file any document to show his education either. It is evident that Aadhaar Card Ex.PW6/4 shows the residential address of the deceased as that of Delhi. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence in respect of education, income and occupation of the petitioner, his income has to be assessed at par with minimum wages applicable to unskilled categories of workers in the State of Delhi on the date of accident (21.09.2022), which were Rs.16,506/- per month. Thus, ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 55 of 74 considering the monthly income of the petitioner to be Rs.16,506/-, a sum of Rs.33,012/- (16,506x2) is granted to the petitioner on account of loss of income of two months during treatment.

Loss of Future Earnings Due to Disability:

97. The broad criteria for ascertaining the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity of the injured has been given in case of Raj Kumar (supra), as discussed above. In the instant case, it is evident on record that as a result of the injuries sustained 'closed fracture of right I/C humerus with shafts of right ulna'ustained by him in the accident, the petitioner suffered 47% permanent disability in relation to the right upper limb. In this regard, PW7 Dr. Komal Prasad Gola, Senior Resident (Orthopaedic), GTB Hospital, Delhi, proved the disability certificate bearing no. 750/16/7/2023, dated 04.07.2023 of the petitioner as Ex.PW1/2. The disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and not substitute to each other and the loss of income has to be seen considering the profession in which the petitioner was engaged at the time of accident. The doctor (PW7) deposed that due to the disability, the petitioner will have difficulty in lifting heavy weight and using right upper limb for day-to-day activities. The petitioner who has been considered by this Tribunal to be an unskilled worker, has deposed that he was working as a rag picker. The work of a rag picker is to collect wastes from the streets of localities/ garbage lifting heavy weight and using right upper limb for day-to-day activities.house but with the aforementioned physical restrictions as stated by the doctor ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 56 of 74 (PW7), his income would certainly be affected to a larger extent. In the circumstances, the functional disability in relation to the whole body of the petitioner is considered as 47%.

98. Further, law is well settled that there should be no departure from the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer: Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. The Aadhaar Card (Ex.PW6/4) of the petitioner reflects his date of birth as 02.02.2003, which would mean that he was 19 years of age on the date of accident (21.09.2022) and thus, multiplier of 18 as applicable to age group between 15-20 years, would be applicable as per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC

121. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner as a self- employed, an addition of income to the extent of 40% (belonging to the age group below 40 years) towards future prospects has to be counted.

99. As discussed above, the income of petitioner has been assessed as Rs.16,506/- per month. Thus, applying the multiplier of 18 and future prospects @ 40% with 47% loss of income on account of whole body functional disability, the total loss of future income ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 57 of 74 would come to Rs.23,45,965/- [47% of (16,506x140/100x18x12)] and the same is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Special Diet, Conveyance & Attendant Charges:

100. Though, the petitioner (PW4) has deposed to have incurred Rs.25,000/- each on special diet and conveyance and Rs.80,000/- on attendant charges but he did not lead any specific evidence to corroborate his said claims. However, considering the nature of injury and period of treatment, an inference can be drawn that petitioner must have spent a reasonable amount on his special diet for the purpose of early recovery as well as for visiting the hospital for his further treatment. Also, it cannot be ignored that his family members must have spent their considerable time in attending him during his treatment. In view of this Tribunal, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards special diet and conveyance and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges would be just and fair compensation to the petitioner. Hence, a total sum of Rs.35,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

Pain & Sufferings:

101. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victims of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No:

709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:

"12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 58 of 74 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 objective co-relation with the pain and suffering.

13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:

(a) Nature of injury.

(b) Body part affected

(c) Duration of the treatment."

102. In the instant case, as per Emergency Registration Card, the petitioner was observed to have suffered swelling and tenderness near right elbow with abrasion on the right elbow. As per discharge summary, he remained hospitalized from 27.09.2022 to 08.10.2022 and was diagnosed to have sustained 'closed fracture of the right I/C humerus with shafts of right ulna'. And, despite completion of treatment, his injuries resulted into 47% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb. Thus, it is clear from the record that due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the petitioner must have gone through immense pain and suffering during his treatment and therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Loss of Amenities:

103. As discussed above, even after completion of treatment, petitioner was assessed to have suffered 47% permanent disability in relation to right upper limbs and as deposed by the doctor (PW7), the petitioner would have to face difficulty in lifting heavy weight and using right upper limb for day-to-day activities. Thus, it is evident that with the ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 59 of 74 aforementioned physical restrictions, the petitioner is bound to face difficulties throughout his life and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

104. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-

          Sl. No.     Head of compensation                   Amount

            1.        Loss of Income (during Rs.33,012/-
                      treatment)
                      Loss of Future Earnings Rs.23,45,965/-
            2.
                      (due to disability)
            3.        Special Diet, Conveyance &             Rs.35,000/-
                      Attendant Charge
            4.        Pain & Suffering                       Rs.50,000/-
            5.        Loss of Amenities                      Rs.50,000/-
                               Total                         Rs.25,13,977

105. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.25,13,977/-, rounded off to Rs.25,14,000/-.

INTEREST ON THE AWARDS:

106. The petitioners in all the six cases shall also be entitled to the interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

LIABILITY ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 60 of 74

107. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. As insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured and in this case, the insurance company has not been able to prove on record that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/ violated by insured, therefore, respondent no.3/ insurance company is held liable to pay the awarded amounts to the petitioner(s) in all the six cases.

RELIEF

108. In the light of the decision on substantive issues framed the present claim petition is allowed and the following awards are being passed:

AWARD MACT (DAR) no. 672/2022 Afroj Jhan & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(In re: deceased Sartaj Khan)

109. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.37,00,585/- (Rs. Thirty-

Seven Lakhs Five Hundred Eighty Five Only) to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3/ insurance company. The insurance company shall deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 61 of 74 NEFT, within 30 days from today. The insurance company is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner and his counsel.

Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement

110. It has been stated by PW3 (mother of deceased) in her affidavit of evidence that wife of deceased, namely Arjina (petitioner no.2) had left the company of her deceased husband 09 months ago the and that she had solemnised her second marriage on 08.02.2022 i.e. prior to the accident of deceased which occurred on 21.09.2022. PW3 placed on record photocopy of Nikahnama (Mark-X) of petitioner no.2 with respect to her second marriage. However, since the photocopy of said Nikahnama has not been proved on record as per provisions of law, the claim of the second marriage of petitioner no.2 cannot be believed. Hence, petitioner no.2 Arjina shall be entitled to the compensation.

111. Further, petitioner no.4 Azad Khan, younger brother of the deceased, who was aged 26 years at the time of accident, cannot be considered dependent upon deceased and therefore, shall not be entitled to the compensation. However, petitioner no.5 Farheen, the unmarried sister, aged 18 years at the time of accident, is assumed to be dependent upon the deceased as the father was not alive and therefore, she is held entitled to the compensation.

112. Accordingly, the all the petitioners except petitioner no.4 shall share ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 62 of 74 the award amount of Rs.37,00,585/- along with the interest in the following manner:

S. No Name of the Age Relation with Share in Award Amount Petitioner (Present Age) Deceased 1 Afroz Jhan 58 years Mother Rs.15,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest.

2 Arjina 28 years Wife Rs.10,50,585/- along with the corresponding interest.

3 Sabhiya 06 years Daughter Rs.8,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest.

4 Azad Khan 28 years Brother Nil.

5 Farheen 20 years Sister Rs.3,50,000/- along with the corresponding interest.

113. It is directed that after compliance of the award, the entire share of the petitioner no.1 Afroz Jhan, amounting to Rs.15 lakh along with the corresponding interest shall be kept secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 100 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) each to be prepared in her name, payable to her for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.

114. A sum of Rs.2,50,585/- along with corresponding interest shall be released to the petitioner no.2 Arjina and the rest of her share amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- along with the interest on that amount shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 63 of 74 50 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) each to be prepared in her name, payable to her for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.

115. The entire share of minor claimant i.e. petitioner no.3 Sabhiya, amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- along with corresponding interest shall be kept secured in the form one FDR of the said amount in her name for the period till she attains the age of majority. However, the quarterly interest on the said FDRs shall be transferred into the MACT Saving Bank Account of her mother/ petitioner no.1 Arjina for meeting the educational expenses of the minor petitioner. It is also directed that after attaining the age of majority, the amount of aforesaid FDR shall be converted into Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 50 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in her name, payable to her in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession.

116. Further, the entire share of the petitioner no.5 Farheen, amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- along with the corresponding interest shall be released to her by way of transferring the said amount into her MACT Saving Bank Account.

117. The amount of aforesaid FDRs on maturity would be released in MACT saving bank account of the conerned petitioner without any further order to that effect.

(In re: deceased Karim Ali)

118. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.18,56,000/-- (Rs.

Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Only) to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3/ insurance company. The insurance company shall deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. The insurance company is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner and his counsel.

Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement

119. All the petitioners shall be entitled to the compensation and they shall share the award amount of Rs.18,56,000/- along with the interest in the following manner:

S. No Name of the Age Relation with Share in Award Amount Petitioner (Present Age) Deceased 1 Tiya 57 years Wife Rs.10,56,000/-along with the corresponding interest 2 Noejan 90 years Mother Rs.2,00,000/-along with the corresponding interest ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR-

MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 65 of 74 3 Tofik Ali 36 years Son Rs.1,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest 4 Tajeb Ali @ Ali 35 years Son Rs.1,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest 5 Kulsuma 34 years Daughter Rs.1,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest 6 Haider Ali 28 years Son Rs.1,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest 7 Karishma 21 years Daughter Rs.1,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest 8 Irfan Ali 19 years Son Rs.1,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest

120. It is directed that after compliance of the award, the entire share of the petitioner no.1, amounting to Rs.10,56,000/- along with the interest on that amount shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 100 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in her name, payable to her for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The amount of aforesaid FDRs on maturity would be released in MACT saving bank account of the conerned petitioner without any further order to that effect.

121. The entire share of the petitioner no.2, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-

along with the interest on that amount shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 66 of 74 Annuity Deposit) in the form of 20 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in her name, payable to her for a period of 1 to 20 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The amount of aforesaid FDRs on maturity would be released in MACT saving bank account of the conerned petitioner without any further order to that effect.

122. Further, Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma shall forthwith release the entire share of petitioner no.3 to 8, amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- each along with corresponding interest by way of transferring the said amount into their respective MACT Saving Bank Account.

AWARD MACT (DAR) no. 677/2022 Hafiza & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(In re: deceased Shah Alam)

123. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.28,97,000/-- (Rs.

Twenty Eight Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Only) to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3/ insurance company. The insurance company shall deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.

124. All the petitioners shall be entitled to the compensation and they shall share the award amount of Rs.28,97,000/- along with the interest in the following manner:

S. No Name of the Age Relation with Share in Award Amount Petitioner (Present Age) Deceased 1 Hafiza @ 40 years Wife Rs.18,97,000/- along with Hafiza Bibi corresponding interest 2 Salehar Bewa 54 years Mother Rs.4,00,000/- along with corresponding interest 3 Saida 21 years Daughter Rs.1,50,000/- along with (married) corresponding interest 4 Areesha 19 years Daughter Rs.1,50,000/- along with corresponding interest 5 Aaysha 17 years Daughter Rs.1,50,000/- along with corresponding interest 6 Sayra Bano 23 years Daughter Rs.1,50,000/- along with (married) corresponding interest

125. It is directed that after compliance of the award, the entire share of the petitioner no.1, amounting to Rs.18,97,000/- along with the interest on that amount shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 100 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in her name, payable to her for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The amount of ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 68 of 74 aforesaid FDRs on maturity would be released in MACT saving bank account of the conerned petitioner without any further order to that effect.

126. The entire share of the petitioner no.2, amounting to Rs.4,00,000/-

along with the interest on that amount shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 25 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in her name, payable to her for a period of 1 to 25 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The amount of aforesaid FDRs on maturity would be released in MACT saving bank account of the conerned petitioner without any further order to that effect.

127. Further, Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma shall forthwith release the entire share of petitioner no.3 to 6, amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- each along with corresponding interest by way of transferring the said amount into their respective MACT Saving Bank Account.

AWARD MACT (DAR) no. 672/2022 Shanti Devi & Anr v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(In re: deceased Rahul)

128. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.13,58,000/- (Rs.

Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Only) to the petitioner along ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 69 of 74 with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3/ insurance company. The insurance company shall deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.

Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement:

129. The petitioner no.2 Priyanka, elder sister of deceased, who was 35 years of age on the date of accident, shall not be entitled to any compensation. Accordingly, the petitioner no.1 Shanti Devi, mother of deceased shall be entitled to the entire compensation of Rs.13,58,000/- along with the interest.

130. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi is directed is directed that after compliance of the award, a sum of Rs.2,58,000/- along with the corresponding interest shall be released to the petitioner no.1 Shanti Devi and remaining award amount of Rs.11,00,000/- along with the interest shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 70 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in her name, payable to her for a period of 1 to 70 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The amount of aforesaid FDRs on maturity would be released in MACT saving bank account of the ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 70 of 74 petitioner without any further order to that effect.

AWARD MACT (DAR) no. 675/2022 Pradeep Kumar v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(In re: injured Pradeep Kumar)

131. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.26,53,000/- (Rs. Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Only) to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3/ insurance company. The insurance company shall deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.

Disbursement of Award Amount:

132. A sum of Rs.4,53,000/- along with the corresponding interest is directed to be released into the MACT Saving Bank Account of the petitioner and remaining amount of Rs.22,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 100 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in the name of petitioner, payable to him in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 71 of 74 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The amount of FDRs on maturity would directly be transferred into the petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account, without any further order.

AWARD MACT (DAR) no. 676/2022 Manish v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors.

(In re: injured Manish)

133. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.25,14,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Only) to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3/ insurance company. The insurance company shall deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.

Disbursement of Award Amount:

134. A sum of Rs.4,14,000/- along with the corresponding interest is directed to be released into the MACT Saving Bank Account of the petitioner and remaining amount of Rs.21,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 100 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in the name of petitioner, payable to him in equal amounts ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 72 of 74 for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The amount of FDRs on maturity would directly be transferred into the petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account, without any further order.

Direction to Petitioner(s) & his/her/ their Bank(s):

135. The claimant(s) is/ are directed to get opened saving bank accounts near the place of their residence. The Bank of claimant(s) is/ are directed to comply with 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 the bank to the claimant(s).

(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.

(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.

(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.

(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.

(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.

136. As per 'The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure-XIII), the relevant Forms to be incorporated in the award are enclosed with this judgment as Annexure-A to Annexure-F.

137. The claim petitions/ DARs are accordingly disposed of. Files be consigned to Record Room. VIJAY Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR KUMAR JHA Date: 2024.08.12 JHA 17:18:37 +0530 Announced in the open (VIJAY KUMAR JHA) Court on 12.08.2024 Presiding Officer-MACT (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ____________________________________________________________ DAR-MACT 672/22 (Attached MACT 656/22); DAR-MACT 674/22 (Attached MACT 659/22); DAR- MACT 677/22 (Attached MACT 657/22); DAR-MACT 673/22; DAR-MACT 675/22 (Attached MACT 658/22) & DAR-MACT 676/22; Page 74 of 74

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Dar-Afroj Jhan vs Sudhir Kumar on 12 August, 2024