Delhi District Court
Amit Verma@Ashu vs Sh. Ravinder Yadav (Driver Of Milk ... on 19 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUCHI LALER, PRESIDING OFFICER-
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KKD, DELHI
In the matters of :
MACT No. 94/16
1. Amit Verma@Ashu,
S/o Sh. Jai Kishan
2. Smt. Neha Verma,
Both R/o - 1/2289-B, Ram Nagar,
Shahdara, East Delhi
Delhi - 110032 ........ Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Ravinder Yadav (Driver of milk tanker)
S/o Sh. Harinath Yadav
34/38, South Jail Road,
GRD Floor,
Dongri, Mumbai - 400009.
2. Sh. Karshanbhai (Owner)
S/o Sh. Hirabhai,
Velavaas, Tehsil Dantiwada,
Palanpur,
Distt. Banaskantha, Gujarat.
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No. 60, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase - 3, New Delhi
Insurer of Milk Tanker # GJ-08-Z-2521
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 1 of 71
4. Mrs. Komal Choudhary
W/o Sh. Nitin Choudhary,
3455, Dariba Paan, Pahar Ganj,
Delhi - 55.
5. National Insurer Co. Ltd.
7th Floor, Hemkunt House,
Rajendra Place,
New Delhi - 110008.
(Vide Motor Ins. Policy
#360200/31/13/6300001603
Covering risk from 27.07.2013
to 26.07.2014)
(Insurer of tourist Bus No.
DL IP B 8958) ........ Respondents
Date of Institution : 10.10.2014
Arguments heard on : 19.12.2020
Date of Judgment : 19.12.2020
MACT No. 487/16
1. Pramod Kumar Garg,
S/o late Sh. Parmod Kumar Garg
Aged about 27 years.
2. Kumar Gaurav Garg,
S/o late Sh. Parmod Kumar Garg
Aged about 25 years.
3. Pradeep Garg,
S/o late Sh. Parmod Kumar Garg
Aged about 23 years.
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 2 of 71
4. Kanchan Singhal,
W/o Sh. Bittu@Pradeep Singhal,
Aged about 30 years.
All R/o - A-4, Mandoli Road,
A - Block, Ashok Nagar,
P.S. Jyoti Nagar,
Delhi - 110093.
Petitioner no.4 also residing at A-51, Indrapuri Vistar, Loni, Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P. ........ Petitioners Versus
1. Ravinder Yadav (Driver of milk tanker) S/o Sh. Harinath Yadav 34/38, South Jail Road, GRD Floor, Dongri, Mumbai - 400009.
2. Sh. Karshanbhai (Owner of milk tanker) S/o Sh. Hirabhai, Velavaas, Tehsil Dantiwada, Palanpur, Distt. Banaskantha, Gujarat.
3. Insurer of Milk Tanker # GJ-08-Z-2521
4. Mrs. Komal Choudhary W/o Sh. Nitin Choudhary, (Owner of tourist bus# DL 1P B 8958) 3455, Dariba Paan Pahar Ganj, Delhi - 55.
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 3 of 71
5. National Insurer Co. Ltd. (D.O.#5) (Insurer of tourist bus# DL-1P-B 8958) th 7 Floor, Hemkunt House, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008.
(Vide Motor Ins. Policy
# 360200/31/13/6300001603
covering risk from 27.07.2013
to 26.07.2014) ........ Respondents
Date of Institution : 29.08.2014
Arguments heard on : 19.12.2020
Date of Judgment : 19.12.2020
MACT/96/2016
1. Amit Verma@Ashu,
S/o Sh. Jai Kishan
R/o - 1/2289-B, Ram Nagar,
Shahdara, East Delhi
Delhi - 110032 ........ Petitioner
Versus
1. Ravinder Yadav (Driver of milk tanker) S/o Sh. Harinath Yadav 34/38, South Jail Road, GRD Floor, Dongri, Mumbai - 400009.
2. Sh. Karshanbhai (Owner of milk tanker) S/o Sh. Hirabhai, Velavaas, Tehsil Dantiwada, MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 4 of 71 Palanpur, Distt. Banaskantha, Gujarat.
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No. 60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase - 3, New Delhi Insurer of Milk Tanker # GJ-08-Z-2521
4. Mrs. Komal Choudhary W/o Sh. Nitin Choudhary, 3455, Dariba Paan, Pahar Ganj, Delhi - 55.
5. National Insurer Co. Ltd.
7th Floor, Hemkunt House, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008.
(Vide Motor Ins. Policy #360200/31/13/6300001603 Covering risk from 27.07.2013 to 26.07.2014) (Insurer of tourist Bus No. DL IP B 8958) ........ Respondents Date of Institution : 10.10.2014 Arguments heard on : 19.12.2020 Date of Judgment : 19.12.2020 MACT No. 1442/2016
1. Master Krishan Verma Through Natural guardian
2. Sh. Amit Verma@Ashu, S/o Sh. Jai Krishan MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 5 of 71
3. Smt. Neha Verma, All R/o - 1/2289-B, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, East Delhi, Delhi - 110032 ........ Petitioner Versus
1. Ravinder Yadav (Driver of milk tanker) S/o Sh. Harinath Yadav 34/38, South Jail Road, GRD Floor, Dongri, Mumbai - 400009.
2. Sh. Karshanbhai (Owner) S/o Sh. Hirabhai, Velavaas, Tehsil Dantiwada, Palanpur, Distt. Banaskantha, Gujarat.
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No. 60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase - 3, New Delhi Insurer of Milk Tanker # GJ-08-Z-2521
4. Mrs. Komal Choudhary W/o Sh. Nitin Choudhary, 3455, Dariba Paan, Pahar Ganj, Delhi - 55.
5. National Insurer Co. Ltd.
th 7 Floor, Hemkunt House, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008.
(Vide Motor Ins. Policy #360200/31/13/6300001603 Covering risk from 27.07.2013 MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 6 of 71
to 26.07.2014)
(Insurer of tourist Bus No.
DL IP B 8958) ........ Respondents
Date of Institution : 18.10.2014
Arguments heard on : 19.12.2020
Date of Judgment : 19.12.2020
MACT/1443/2016
1. Smt. Santosh Verma,
W/o Late Sh. Jai Kishan Verma
R/o - 1/2289-B, Ram Nagar,
Shahdara, East Delhi
Delhi - 110032 ........ Petitioner
Versus
1. Ravinder Yadav (Driver of milk tanker) S/o Sh. Harinath Yadav 34/38, South Jail Road, GRD Floor, Dongri, Mumbai - 400009.
2. Sh. Karshanbhai (Owner) S/o Sh. Hirabhai, Velavaas, Tehsil Dantiwada, Palanpur, Distt. Banaskantha, Gujarat.
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No. 60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase - 3, New Delhi Insurer of Milk Tanker # GJ-08-Z-2521 MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 7 of 71
4. Mrs. Komal Choudhary W/o Sh. Nitin Choudhary, 3455, Dariba Paan, Pahar Ganj, Delhi - 55.
5. National Insurer Co. Ltd.
7th Floor, Hemkunt House, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008.
(Vide Motor Ins. Policy #360200/31/13/6300001603 Covering risk from 27.07.2013 to 26.07.2014) (Insurer of tourist Bus No. DL IP B 8958) ........ Respondents Date of Institution : 18.10.2014 Arguments heard on : 19.12.2020 Date of Judgment : 19.12.2020 MACT No. 1359/2016
1. Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Through his natural guardian
2. Sh. Manish Verma (father) S/o Sh. Jai Kishan
3. Smt. Sonia Verma (mother) W/o Sh. Manish Verma All R/o 1/2289B, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110032. ........ Petitioner Versus MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 8 of 71
1. Ravinder Yadav (Driver of milk tanker) S/o Sh. Harinath Yadav 34/38, South Jail Road, GRD Floor, Dongri, Mumbai - 400009.
2. Sh. Karshanbhai (Owner) S/o Sh. Hirabhai, Velavaas, Tehsil Dantiwada, Palanpur, Distt. Banaskantha, Gujarat.
3. Insurer of Milk Tanker # GJ-08-Z-2521
4. Mrs. Komal Choudhary (Owner of Bus DL 1 PB 8958) W/o Sh. Nitin Choudhary, 3455, Dariba Paan, Pahar Ganj, Delhi - 55.
5. National Insurer Co. Ltd.
th 7 Floor, Hemkunt House, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008.
(Vide Motor Ins. Policy #360200/31/13/6300001603 Covering risk from 27.07.2013 to 26.07.2014) (Insurer of tourist Bus No. DL IP B 8958) ........ Respondents Date of Institution : 28.10.2014 Arguments heard on : 19.12.2020 Date of Judgment : 19.12.2020 MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 9 of 71 MACT No. 1415/2016
1. Smt. Neha Verma, W/o Sh. Amit Verma@Ashu R/o - 1/2289-B, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, East Delhi, Delhi - 110032 ........ Petitioner Versus
1. Ravinder Yadav (Driver of milk tanker) S/o Sh. Harinath Yadav 34/38, South Jail Road, GRD Floor, Dongri, Mumbai - 400009.
2. Sh. Karshanbhai (Owner) S/o Sh. Hirabhai, Velavaas, Tehsil Dantiwada, Palanpur, Distt. Banaskantha, Gujarat.
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No. 60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase - 3, New Delhi Insurer of Milk Tanker # GJ-08-Z-2521
4. Mrs. Komal Choudhary W/o Sh. Nitin Choudhary, 3455, Dariba Paan, Pahar Ganj, Delhi - 55.
5. National Insurer Co. Ltd.
th 7 Floor, Hemkunt House, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008.
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 10 of 71 (Vide Motor Ins. Policy #360200/31/13/6300001603 Covering risk from 27.07.2013 to 26.07.2014) (Insurer of tourist Bus No. DL IP B 8958) ........ Respondents Date of Institution : 28.10.2014 Arguments heard on : 19.12.2020 Date of Judgment : 19.12.2020 AWARD
1. Vide this common award, the aforesaid 7 claim petitions, arising out of the same accident, would be decided. These claim petitions arise out of an accident which took place on 09.06.2014 at about 4 am on Meerut Bye Pass Road, P.S. T.P. Nagar, U.P. resulting into death of Baby Kittu, Sh. Pramod Kumar and injuries to Sh. Amit Verma@Ashu, Master Krishna Verma, Mrs. Santosh Verma, Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma and Mrs. Neha Verma.
2. The case of petitioners, in brief, is that they were travelling in a tourist bus bearing registration no. DL 1PB 8958 on 09.06.2014 from Haridwar, Uttarakhand to Faridabad, Haryana via Delhi. At around 4 am when the bus was plying on Meerut Bye Pass Road and reached in front of house of one Parvesh Yadav, its front portion banged into the rear portion of parked milk tanker bearing no. GJ 08 Z 2521. It is alleged that the milk tanker was MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 11 of 71 parked at such a place and in such a condition that it was not even visible from a distance of 8 to 10 meters. That due to forceful impact of the accident, Baby Kittu and Sh. Pramod Kumar expired and injuries were caused to Sh. Amit Verma@Ashu, Master Krishna Verma, Mrs. Santosh Verma, Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma and Mrs. Neha Verma. It has been alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of respondent no. 1 of parking the offending vehicle, at a spot where it was not visible .
3. Respondent No. 1 / Driver and Respondent No. 2 / Owner of bus bearing no. GJ 08Z 2521, in their reply, denied that the accident took place due to the negligence of respondent no. 1, rather, they alleged that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased driver of the tourist bus bearing no. DL 1PB 8958. They alleged in the written statement that the driver of the tourist bus was driving the Bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner because of which it hit the vehicle of the respondents from behind. The respondents further stated that the Bus was duly insured with respondent no. 3 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and that respondent no. 1 was having valid driving license, permit and fitness at the time of accident.
4. Respondent no.3 / Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, admitted in its written statement, that milk tanker no. GJ 08Z 2521 was insured with it on the date of accident, however, it stated that the accident took place solely due to the negligence of the deceased driver of tourist Bus bearing no. DL 1PB MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 12 of 71 8958.
5. Respondent no. 4 / Owner of tourist bus bearing no. DL 1PB 8958 did not file written statement, despite opportunity being given. Respondent no. 4 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 13.07.2016.
6. Respondent No. 5 / National Insurance Company Limited filed written statement wherein it is mentioned that the accident took place solely due to the negligence of respondent no. 1 who parked the milk tanker unattended in dangerous condition without switching 'ON' the parking / rear lights. It is admitted in the written statement that the said tourist bus was insured in the name of respondent no. 4 with respondent no. 5 at the time of accident.
7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 02.12.2015:-
In MACT No. 94/16(i). Whether respondent no. 1 being driver of the milk tanker bearing no. GJ 08Z 2521 on 09.06.2014 at 4 am on Meerut By Pass Road, P.S. T.P. Nagar, U.P. parked the tanker in a rash and negligent manner that it was not visible even from a distance of 8 -
10 meters as a result bus no. DL 1PB 8958 driven by deceased driver Pramod Kumar hit against the milk tanker and occupant of the bus, namely, Baby Kitu sustained fatal injuries? OPP
(ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, and for what amount? OPP
(iii). Relief.
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 13 of 71 In MACT No. 487/16
(i). Whether respondent no. 1 being driver of the milk tanker bearing no. GJ 08Z 2521 on 09.06.2014 at 4 am on Meerut By Pass Road, P.S. T.P. Nagar, U.P. parked the tanker in a rash and negligent manner that it was not visible even from a distance of 8 - 10 meters as a result bus no. DL 1PB 8958 driven by deceased driver Pramod Kumar hit against the milk tanker and driver of the bus sustained fatal injuries? OPP
(ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, and for what amount? OPP
(iii). Relief.
In MACT No. 96/16(i). Whether respondent no. 1 being driver of the milk tanker bearing no. GJ 08Z 2521 on 09.06.2014 at 4 am on Meerut By Pass Road, P.S. T.P. Nagar, U.P. parked the tanker in a rash and negligent manner that it was not visible even from a distance of 8 - 10 meters as a result bus no. DL 1PB 8958 driven by deceased driver Pramod Kumar hit against the milk tanker and occupant of the bus, namely, Amit Verma@Ashu sustained injuries? OPP
(ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, and for what amount? OPP
(iii). Relief.
In MACT No. 1442/16(i). Whether respondent no. 1 being driver of the milk tanker bearing no. GJ 08Z 2521 on 09.06.2014 at 4 am on Meerut By Pass Road, P.S. T.P. Nagar, U.P. parked the tanker in a rash and MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 14 of 71 negligent manner that it was not visible even from a distance of 8 - 10 meters as a result bus no. DL 1PB 8958 driven by deceased driver Pramod Kumar hit against the milk tanker and occupant of the bus, namely, Master Krishna Verma sustained injuries? OPP
(ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, and for what amount? OPP
(iii). Relief.
In MACT No. 1443/16(i). Whether respondent no. 1 being driver of the milk tanker bearing no. GJ 08Z 2521 on 09.06.2014 at 4 am on Meerut By Pass Road, P.S. T.P. Nagar, U.P. parked the tanker in a rash and negligent manner that it was not visible even from a distance of 8 - 10 meters as a result bus no. DL 1PB 8958 driven by deceased driver Pramod Kumar hit against the milk tanker and occupant of the bus, namely, Mrs. Santosh Verma sustained injuries? OPP
(ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, and for what amount? OPP
(iii). Relief.
In MACT No. 1359/16(i). Whether respondent no. 1 being driver of the milk tanker bearing no. GJ 08Z 2521 on 09.06.2014 at 4 am on Meerut By Pass Road, P.S. T.P. Nagar, U.P. parked the tanker in a rash and negligent manner that it was not visible even from a distance of 8 - 10 meters as a result bus no. DL 1PB 8958 driven by deceased driver Pramod Kumar hit against the milk tanker and occupant of the MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 15 of 71 bus, namely, Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma sustained injuries? OPP
(ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, and for what amount? OPP
(iii). Relief.
In MACT No. 1415/16(i). Whether respondent no. 1 being driver of the milk tanker bearing no. GJ 08Z 2521 on 09.06.2014 at 4 am on Meerut By Pass Road, P.S. T.P. Nagar, U.P. parked the tanker in a rash and negligent manner that it was not visible even from a distance of 8 - 10 meters as a result bus no. DL 1PB 8958 driven by deceased driver Pramod Kumar hit against the milk tanker and occupant of the bus, namely, Mrs. Neha Verma sustained injuries? OPP
(ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, and for what amount? OPP
(iii). Relief.
8. Subsequent to framing of issues on 02.12.2015, ld. Predecessor on the same day observed that all the aforesaid claim petitions arise out of the same accident, therefore, they are consolidated and petition bearing no. 94/16 shall be treated as the main petition, in which evidence shall be recorded.
9. To prove their case, the petitioners examined following witnesses:-
(i) Sh. Amit Verma (one of the petitioners in MACT No. 94/16 and sole petitioner in MACT No. 96/16 as well as natural MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 16 of 71 guardian of petitioner in MACT No. 1442/16) testified as PW- 1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A . He relied upon documents i.e. FIR as Ex.PW1/1, Medical Prescription as Ex.PW1/2; Discharge Slip of Sai Hospital, Bhagpat Road, Meerut as Ex.PW1/3, Medical Bills as Ex.PW1/4, Admission Slip of Lok Nayak Hospital as Ex.PW1/5, Accident photographs as Ex.PW1/6, Copy of Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/7, Copy of Salary Slip as Ex.PW1/8, Copy of Dressing Bills as Ex.PW1/9 and Admission Slip, X- ray Slip and Discharge Slip of Hindu Rao Hospital as Mark X, Y and Z respectively.
(ii) Ms. Neha Verma, wife of PW-1 (one of the petitioners in MACT No. 94/16 and sole petitioner in MACT No. 1415/16 as well as natural guardian of petitioner in MACT No. 1442/16) testified as PW-2 and tendered her evidence b y way of affidavit as Ex.PW2/A. She relied upon her Voter ID Card as Ex.PW2/1, Photograph as Ex.PW2/2; Discharge Slip of Lok Nayak Hospital as Ex.PW2/3, Medical Bills as Ex.PW2/4 and Dressing Bills as Ex.PW2/5.
(iii) Sh. Amit Verma (one of the petitioners in MACT No. 94/16 and sole petitioner in MACT No. 96/16 as well as natural guardian of petitioner in MACT No. 1442/16) again testified as PW-3 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW3/A. He relied upon documents i.e. Slip of handing over of dead body of Baby Kitu as Ex.PW3/1, Admission and MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 17 of 71 Discharge Summary of Sai Hospital as Ex.PW3/2, Death Certificate of Baby Kitu as Ex.PW3/3, Postmortem Report of Baby Kitu as Ex.PW1/4, MLC of Baby Kitu as Ex.PW3/5, Birth Certificate of Baby Kitu as Ex.PW3/6.
(iv) Ms. Santosh Verma (she is sole petitioner in MACT No. 1443/16) testified as PW-4 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW4/A. She relied upon documents i.e. Aadhar Card as Ex.PW4/1, Photographs as Ex.PW4/2; Medical Bills as Ex.PW4/3, OPD Card of Ashish Nature Care Center as Ex.PW4/4, Dressing Bills as Ex.PW4/5.
(v) Sh. Amit Verma (one of the petitioners in MACT No. 94/16 and sole petitioner in MACT No. 96/16 as well as natural guardian of petitioner in MACT No. 1442/16) again testified as PW-5 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW5/A. He relied upon documents i.e. Photograph of injured as Ex.PW5/1, Admission and Discharge Summary of Sai Hospital Bhagpat Road, Meerut as Ex.PW5/2, Test Slip of Radio Diagnosis as Ex.PW5/3 and Dressing Bills as Ex.PW5/4.
(vi) Sh. Manish Verma (Natural guardian of petitioner Master Aryan Verma in MACT No. 1359/16) testified as PW-6 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW6/A. He relied upon documents i.e. Voter ID Card as Ex.PW6/1, Aadhar Card of petitioner as Ex.PW6/2; Photograph of injured / petitioner as Ex.PW6/3, Admission and Discharge Summary MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 18 of 71 of Sai Hospital, Bhagpat Road, Meerut as Ex.PW6/4, Medical Bills and Prescription as Ex.PW6/5, Medical Certificate issued by Ashish Nature Care Center as Ex.PW6/6.
(vii) Ms. Kanchan Singhal (who is petitioner no. 4 in MACT No. 487/16 wherein all four petitioners are children of deceased Sh. Pramod Kumar Garg) testified as PW-7 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW7/A. She relied upon documents i.e. Identity Proof of petitioner as Ex.PW7/1, Driving License of deceased as Ex.PW7/2; Driver Batch of deceased as Ex.PW7/3.
(viii) PW-8 Dr. Pragyan Sharma, Assistant Professor, Neuro Surgeon, GTB Hospital proved the disability certificate of Ms. Santosh Verma (petitioner in MACT No. 1443/16) as Ex.PW8/A.
(ix) PW-9 Dr. Sumanth L, Senior Resident, GTB Hospital proved Disability Certificate of Sh. Amit Verma (petitioner in MACT No. 96/16) as Ex.PW9/A and Disability Certificate of Ms. Neha Verma (petitioner in MACT No. 1415/16) as Ex.PW9/B. All the aforesaid witnesses were duly cross examined by ld. counsels for respondents.
10. In rebuttal, respondents did not prefer to lead any evidence.
11. Final arguments heard and record perused. Written submissions have also been filed by the parties and same have been perused.
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 19 of 71
12. Issue wise findings are as under:-
13. ISSUE NO. 1 - In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of 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 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. Vs. Sakshi Bhutani & Ors., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari Vs. Amirchand & Ors. 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
14. To prove the manner of accident, the petitioners in the aforesaid 7 (seven) claim petitions, examined 4 (four) eye witnesses i.e. Sh. Amit Verma as PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5, Ms. Neha Verma as PW-2, Ms. Santosh Verma as PW-4 and Sh. Manish Verma as PW-
6. The aforesaid four eye witnesses to the accident testified in their affidavits in verbatim about the manner in which the accident took place in para no.2 which reads as under:-
"2. That the deponent was travelling with his family members in tourist bus bearing no. DL 1PB 8958 on 09.06.2014 at about 4 am when MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 20 of 71 the driver was plying his tourist bus from Haridwar, Uttarakhand to Faridabad via Delhi carrying full of passengers. When the family of the deponent was returning from Haridwar along with other passengers the driver was plying the bus at a normal speed caring and observing the traffic rules. It was early morning time just before the da wn and there was no light on the road. When the bus full of passengers reached near wine shop, opposite house of one parvesh yadav on meerut by pass road under P.S. T.P. Nagar, Meerut, U.P. its front portion bend into rear side of pre station milk tanker no. GJ 08Z 2521. The said milk tanker was parked as such a place and in such a condition that it was not even visible from a distance of 8 to 10 1 meters....." .
15. Therefore, as per the examination in chief (affidavits of the aforesaid 4 eye witnesses), the accident took place as the milk tanker bearing no. GJ 08Z 2521 was parked at such a place and in such a condition that it was not visible even from a distance of 8 to 10 meters. As per the aforesaid witnesses, the driver of the Bus (deceased Sh. Pramod Kumar Garg) was driving the bus at a normal speed and despite that the bus hit the rear side of the 1 Extract of affidavit Ex.PW1/A of PW-1 Sh. Amit Verma@Ashu. MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 21 of 71 parked milk tanker only because the milk tanker was parked at such a place and in such a condition, that it was not visible from a distance of 8 to 10 meters at night.
16. Respondent no. 1 and 2 i.e. the driver and owner of the milk tanker, in their written statement, have not denied the fact that the accident took place betwee n the aforesaid tourist bus and the milk tanker. Their defense is that the driver of the tourist bus was driving the bus at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules because of which he hit the Bus against the stationary vehicle / milk tanker from behind.
17. The eye witnesses were duly cross examined and in their cross examination, the witnesses denied the suggestion that the driver of the bus was plying the bus at a high speed and in a negligent manner because of which the bus had hit the milk tanker on its rear side. The witnesses have also admitted, in their cross examination, that there was complete darkness on the road at the time of accident.
18. The aforesaid four eye witnesses corroborated each other regarding the manner in which the accident took place. On the basis of their testimony which remained unrebutted and unchallenged, as far as the manner in which the accident took place is concerned, it can be concluded that the milk tanker was parked on the road at the time of accident and that the tourist bus in which MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 22 of 71 the petitioners were travelling had hit the milk tanker on the rear side.
19. All the aforesaid four witnesses also corroborated each other so far as the visibility of parked milk tanker is concerned, as all of them testified that the aforesaid "milk tanker was parked at such a place and in such a condition that it was not even visible from a distance of 8 to 10 meters". The accident took place on 09.06.2014 i.e. during summers, hence, the visibility cannot be said to be low due to fog. On reading the testimony of aforesaid witnesses, it seems that they wanted to project that the milk tanker was parked at some curve or turn, in such a manner that the driver was not able to see it even from a distance of 8 to 10 meters. The said version is not in consonance with the site plan. As per the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer, the accident took place in the middle of one way road and no curve or turn is visible in the said site plan. The site plan shows the road to be straight before as well as after the point where the accident took place and from the said site plan, it can be concluded that the accident did not take place either on a curve or a turn.
20. Therefore, the question, which arises at this stage before the Tribunal is that how and in what manner, the milk tanker was parked by respondent no. 1 on a straight road , that it was not visible from a distance of 8 to 10 meters. It may be noted that none of aforesaid 4 (four) eye witnesses explained in their affidavits as to MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 23 of 71 how and where a truck / milk tanker was parked on a straight one way road that it was not visible to the driver of the tourist bus from a distance of at least 8 to 10 meters. The Tribunal is unable to comprehend as to how a vehicle as big as a milk tanker, which was parked in the middle of the road, was not visible to the driver of the tourist bus from a substantial distance and as to how respondent no. 1 prevented it from being visible to the vehicles plying on the road, until they reached very close to it. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the testimony of the aforesaid four witnesses that the "milk tanker was parked at such a place and in such a condition that it was not even visible from a distance of 8 to 10 meters", cannot be believed as gospel truth and has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
21. It may further be noted that even if the milk tanker was parked in the middle of the road, still the road being National Highway, was wide enough for the tourist Bus to cross the said Truck from either side, however, the tourist Bus had hit the parked milk tanker on its rear side with such great force that the driver of the bus as well as minor Kittu sustained fatal injuries and several other passengers suffered grievous injuries. The force of the impact between the two vehicles of which one was parked shows that the tourist Bus was being driven by deceased Sh. Pramod Kumar Garg at a considerable high speed because of which he was neither able to stop the bus before the impact nor was able to control it in such a way so as to pass / cross the parked milk tanker on either side of the road.
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 24 of 71
22. So far as the milk tanker is concerned, it was the duty of respondent no. 1 not to park the milk tanker in the middle of the road, that too without taking sufficient precautions. Therefore, respondent no. 1 was undoubtedly negligent in parking the offending milk tanker on the middle of the road that too without taking sufficient precautions. Accordingly, respondent no. 1 is held negligent in parking the offending milk tanker on the middle of the road. However, the accident did not take place solely due to the negligence of respondent no.1, as the impact with which the tourist bus had hit the offending milk tanker that too on a straight road, shows that the tourist bus was being driven by the deceased driver, namely, Sh. Pramod Kumar Garg at a high speed because of which he was neither able to stop the said bus nor able to control it in a manner so as to save it from banging into the stationary milk tanker. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the principle of res ipsa loquitur i.e. the principle that the mere occurrence of some types of accident is sufficient to imply negligence, is applicable to the facts of the present case as the force of the impact shows that even the driver of tourist bus was negligent in driving the same.
23. Accordingly, it is held that both respondent no. 1 and deceased Sh. Pramod Kumar Garg were negligent in parking the milk tanker and driving the tourist Bus respectively, as a result of which this unfortunate accident took place. In these circumstances, the drivers of both offending milk tanker and tourist Bus are held responsible for the occurrence of accident, accordingly, the extent MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 25 of 71 of liability of Bus driver and the driver of the milk tanker is fixed at 50% each. The respondent no. 1 was rash and negligent to the extent of 50% and deceased Bus driver Sh. Pramod Kumar Garg contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%. Issue no. 1 is answered accordingly.
24. ISSUE NO. 2: - In view of finding on aforesaid issue, the petitioners are entitled to compensation, however, the quantum of compensation and the liability to pay the same etc. still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the claim tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be wind fall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.
(MACT No. 94/16 in Re:- Amit Verma@Ashu)
25. In this issue, the quantum of compensation in motor vehicular accident involving death of minor Baby Kittu, needs to be adjudicated. In the case titled as Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram decided by Hon'ble Justice Mr. R.K. Gauba on 13.05.2016, common questions of law concerning the method or calculation of compensation in accident claim cases involving deaths of children in motor vehicular accidents were decided and it was held as under:-
"71. Subject to all other requisite conditions being fulfilled, for the foregoing reasons, in order to bring MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 26 of 71 about consistency and uniformity in approach to the issue, it is held that claims for compensation on account of death of children shall be determined as follows:-
(i) Till such time as the law is amended by the legislature, or the Central Government notifies the amendment to the Second Schedule in exercise of the enabling power vested in it by Section 163-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and except in cases wherein the prospects of employability and earnings (in future or present) of the deceased child are proved by cogent and irrefutable evidence, this having regard, inter alia, to the academic record or training in special talents or skills, for computing the pecuniary damages on account of the loss to estate, the notional income of non-earning persons (Rs.15,000/- p.a.) as specified in the Second Schedule (brought in force from 14.11.1994), shall be assumed to be the income of the deceased child, and taken into account after it is inflation - corrected with the help of Cost Inflation Index (CII) as notified by the Government of India from year to year under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by applying the formula indicated hereinafter.
(ii) For inflation-correction, the financial year of 1997-98 shall be treated as the "base year" and the MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 27 of 71 value of the notional income relevant to the date of cause of action shall be computed in the following manner:- Rs.15,000/- x A / 331 [wherein the figure of Rs.15,000/- represents the notional income specified in the second schedule requiring inflation- correction; A represents the CII for the financial year in which the cause of action arose (i.e. the accident/death occurred); and the figure of 331 represents the CII for the base year]
(iii) After arriving at an appropriate figure of the present equivalent value of the notional income (i.e. inflation-corrected amount), it shall be rounded off to a figure in next thousands of rupees.
(iv) The amount of notional income thus calculated shall be reduced to two- third, the deduction to the extent of one-third being towards personal & living expenses of the deceased, the balance taken as the annual loss to estate (hereinafter also referred to as "the multiplicand").
(v) For assessment of the pecuniary damages on account of the death of children upto the age of 10 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated, capitalizing the multiplicand, by applying the multiplier of ten (10).
(vi) For children of the age-group of more than 10 MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 28 of 71 years upto 15 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of fifteen (15).
(vii) For children of the age-group of more than 15 years but less than 18 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of eighteen (18).
(viii) After the pecuniary loss to estate has been worked out in the manner indicated above, an amount equivalent to the amount thus computed shall be added to it as the composite non-pecuniary damages taking care of not only the conventional heads but also towards future prospects as awarded in R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal (2009) 14 SCC 1.
(ix) The final sum thus arrived at, appropriately rounded off, if so required to the nearest (if not next) thousands of rupees, shall be awarded as compensation for the death of the child."
(i) Age of the deceased : PW3 / Sh. Amit Verma placed on record Birth Certificate of deceased Baby Kittu as Ex.PW3/6, as per which date of birth of deceased Baby Kittu was 24.10.2013. The accident took place on 09.06.2014, hence, the deceased Baby Kittu was aged 7 months at the time of accident.
(ii) Selection of multiplier : As the age of the deceased was 7 months at the time of the accident, multiplier applicable according to MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 29 of 71 the age of the deceased would be 10.
As the accident took place on 09.06.2014, therefore, as per the judgment of Chetan Malhotra (Supra), the CII for Financial Year 2014-15 shall apply which was 1024.
Consequently, the inflation-corrected national income works out as Rs.46,404.833 (Rs.15,000/- x 1024 / 331) per annum, rounded off to Rs.47,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Only). The deceased child was 7 months old and thus, multiplier of 10 is applied. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal living expenses, the pecuniary loss of estate is computed as Rs.3,13,333.33/- (47,000 x 2/3 x 10) rounded off to Rs.3,14,000/-. Upon an equivalent amount being added towards composite non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation payable is calculated as Rs.6,28,000/- (Rs.3,14,000/ - x 2 ).The total compensation is, thus, assessed as Rs.6,28,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Only).
(In MACT No. 487/16 Re :- Pramod Kumar Garg)
26. In this claim petition, the aspect of compensation in an accident involving the death of driver of bus no. DL 1PB 8958, namely, Sh. Pramod Kumar Garg is to be decided. The deceased Sh. Pramod Kumar Garg is survived by three major sons and a married daughter. First and foremost question which requires adjudication is whether major sons and married daughter can be construed to be dependant of the deceased and can claim MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 30 of 71 compensation. Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company vehemently urged that the major sons and married daughter of the deceased must be earning and are not dependent upon the deceased, so, he contended that the petitioners are entitled to compensation only under the conventional heads. Ld. Counsel for petitioners, on the contrary, submitted that the major sons would be entitled to compensation being the legal representative of the deceased, irrespective of their financial dependence on him. In support of his contention, ld. counsel for petitioner placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 242 -243 of 2020, dated 13.01.2020.
27. In the aforesaid case, the question of entitlement of married, gainfully employed sons of deceased to compensation came up for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court. In para no. 15, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"15. It is thus settled by no w that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 31 of 71 legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towa rds conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years."
28. Further, in the decision of "Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2007) 10 SCC 643", Hon'ble Supreme Court had expounded that liability to pay compensation under Motor Vehicles Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. The relevant part of said decision is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"9. In terms of clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 32 of 71
proviso of said sub-section makes the
position clear that where all the legal
representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.
10. ...... The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 33 of 71 death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g).
12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino vs. Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275] the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative". As observed in Gujrat SRTC vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234, a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 34 of 71 child."
29. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners who are legal representatives of deceased, will be entitled for compensation irrespective of their financial capacity and even in absence of their dependency on the deceased. Now, that the petitioners are held entitled to compensation, the quantum needs to be decided. To determine the compensation in a fatal case, three facts need to be established by the claimants: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents.
(i) Age of deceased: The age of deceased is necessary to apply the multiplier. As per the Driving License of the deceased, his date of birth was 03.06.1965 and the accident took place on 09.06.2014, accordingly, the age of deceased was 49 years at the time of accident.
(ii) Determination of Income of deceased : After deciding the age of deceased, his income needs to be determined. The daughter of deceased examined as PW7 deposed that the deceased was a professional HTV (Bus Driver) employed with Mrs. Komal Chaudhary and was earning a salary of Rs. 15,000/- pm besides overtime allowance @ Rs.80/- per hour. Though there is no document on record to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, it stands established that the deceased was a driver by profession. In the absence of any salary slip on record, MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 35 of 71 the income of deceased is to be determined as per minimum wages of a skilled worker prevalent in Delhi. On the day of accident, the minimum wages payable to a skilled person in Delhi was Rs. 10,374/- per month. The annual income of deceased comes to be Rs.1,24,488/-.
(iii) Number of dependents : The instant claim petition has been filed by four petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 to 3 are the sons and petitioner no. 4 is the daughter of deceased. Thus, the deceased had four legal heirs.
(iv) Multiplier applicable in this case - As the age of the deceased has been ascertained, an appropriate multiplier has to be determined. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. Para 21 of the judgment has laid down the multiplier as per age as under:-
MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF DECEASED
M-18 Age groups between 15 to 20 and 21 to 25
years)
M-17 Age groups between 26 to 30 years,
M-16 Age groups between 31 to 35 years,
M-15 Age groups between 36 to 40 years,
M-14 Age groups between 41 to 45 years,
M-13 Age groups between 46 to 50 years,
M-11 Age groups between 51 to 55 years,
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 36 of 71
M-9 Age groups between 56 to 60 years,
M-7 Age groups between 61 to 65 years
M-5 Age groups between 66 to 70 years.
In view of the above said judgment, a multiplier of 13 has to be applied against 49 years of age of the deceased to determine the compensation.
(v) Necessary deductions out of earnings of the deceased towards personal expenses: 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, has laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under:-
Number of Deductions out of earning of the deceased.
dependents
Half / ½ Where dependent is 1
rd
1/3 Where the number of dependent family members
is 2 to 3
1/4th Where the number of dependent family members
is 4 to 6,
1/5th Where the number of dependent family members
exceeds 6 (six).
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 37 of 71
th
As there are four legal heirs of deceased, 1/4 earnings of the deceased has to be considered towards deductions out of his yearly earnings. As such, 1/4th amount out of annual income of Rs.1,24,488/- i.e. Rs.31,122/- p.a. has to be reduced towards personal expenses. Thus, the deceased was earning Rs.93,366/-
th after deduction of 1/4 amount towards personal expenses.
(vi) Future prospects : Besides it, future income of the deceased is also to be considered in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017 in which it is observed 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 permanent job and was belo w 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.
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 38 of 71 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 estate, 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.
In view of the above said judgment, 25% amount is to be considered towards future income of the deceased who was aged around 49 years but had no permanent employment.
(vii) Loss of Dependency : It has been observed that the th deceased was earning Rs.93,366/- p.a after 1/4 deduction. This annual income has to be multiplied by a multiplier of 13 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC (supra). Rs.93,366/- x 13 = Rs.12,13,758/-. Thereafter, 25% income towards future income of the deceased has to be added in terms of National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi (Supra) i.e. Rs.3,03,439.5/- has to be added to above said amount i.e. Rs.12,13,758/- + 3,03,439.5/- = Rs. 15,17,197.5/-.
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 39 of 71
(viii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON PECUNIARY HEADS:
In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Satinder Kaur@Satwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 2706 of 2020, dated 20.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for Rs. 40,000/- for each petitioner. Further, Rs. 15,000/- each has to be awarded for loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus a total sum of Rs.
1,90,000/- (40,000/- X 4 + 15,000/- + 15,000/-) is granted under this head.
In view of this, the total compensation assessed is Rs.17,07,197.5/- (Rs. 15,17,197.5/- + Rs.1,90,000/-), rounded off to Rs.17,07,198/-. While adjudicating upon issue no. (1), the Tribunal observed that deceased Sh. Pramod Kumar Garg contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%, thus, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.9,48,598.75/-.
30. The total compensation awarded to petitioners, namely, Sh. Saurav Garg, Sh. Kumar Gaurav Garg, Sh. Pradeep Garg and Ms. Kanchan Singhal is summarized as under:-
1. Loss of dependency / Contribution to Rs. 7,58,598.75/-
family:
2. Loss of Estate: Rs. 15,000/-
3. Loss of consortium : Rs.1,60,000/-
4. Funeral Charges Rs. 15,000/-
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 40 of 71
Total = Rs. 9,48,598.75/-
(Rs. 9,48,600/-
rounded off)
31. The remaining claim petitions pertain 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/s 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 earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 41 of 71 shock, pain 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, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
(MACT/96/2016 Re:- Amit Verma@Ashu)
32. In this claim petition, the petitioner Sh. Amit Verma@Ashu sustained permanent disability of 12% in relation to his right lower limb and left upper limb. The compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i). Reimbursement of medical expenses: The petitioner / PW-1 deposed, in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A tendered in examination in chief, that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.2.5 lakhs on his treatment. PW-1 relied upon the medical bills Ex.PW1/4 in this regard. The said bills have neither been controverted nor disproved by the Insurance Company. The amount of said bills i.e. Rs.6,936/ -
has not been reimbursed. The petitioner as per the medical documents has received treatment from government hospital i.e. MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 42 of 71 Hindu Rao Hospital and Lok Nayak Hospital. In Santosh Patro Vs. National Insurance Company decided on 21.11.2017 in MACA No. 714/12, it was held that even if free medical facility is availed in government hospital, Sundry expenses are incurred which needs to be compensated. Keeping in mind the grievous nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner which led to permanent disability, the petitioner is awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering: The petitioner / PW-1 has proved that he suffered injury in the accident as per Medical documents Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8. As per the said medical documents, the petitioner suffered fracture in the left humeral shaft of the left arm and fracture in undisplaced medial malleolus in the right ankle. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A testified that he was medically examined at Lok Nayak Hospital on 11.06.2014 and thereafter shifted to Hindu Rao Hospital, where he was operated upon and remained admitted from 28.07.2014 to 12.08.2014 which fact is supported by the Discharge Summary Mark Z. The witness further testified in his affidavit that he was advised bed rest for further two weeks at the time of his discharge from Hindu Rao Hospital and that he had not fully recovered from the injuries and is unable to perform his duties. The petitioner also examined Dr. Sumantha L., Senior Resident, GTB Hospital to prove the disability certificate Ex.PW9/A as per which the petitioner suffered 12% disability in relation to right lower limb and left upper MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 43 of 71 limb. As per the medical documents / bills, the petitioner received treatment till August, 2014. The petitioner suffered grievous injuries which resulted into 12% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb and left upper limb, so there can be no doubt that he must have suffered pain and suffering, physical as well as mental, owing to this injury.
Keeping in view the extent and nature o f injury suffered by the petitioner and duration of treatment taken by him an amount of Rs.70,000/- is awarded to him towards mental and physical shock and pain. The petitioner has sustained disability in his right lower limb and left upper limb, his daily routine activities are bound to be affected, thus, he is held entitled to an amount of Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities / enjoyment of life.
(iii) Loss of Income during Treatment: The petitioner/PW-1 specified in his affidavit that he was employed at the time of accident and was working as Supervisor in Vaishnavi Trading Company at monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- and that due to the accident he was not able to join his work and faced financial hardship. The petitioner filed salary certificate issued by Proprietor of Vashnavi Trading Company as per which the monthly salary of petitioner was Rs.18,000/- and he used to get Rs.2,000/- per month as conveyance allowance. In view of the salary certificate Ex.PW1/A, it can be held that the petitioner at the time of accident was receiving a monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-.
The medical documents reveal that the petitioner received MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 44 of 71 treatment for 3 months from June to August, 2014 and even thereafter, because of the fractures in left upper limb and right lower limb, he was advised bed rest. Consequently, it can be presumed that the petitioner must have not been able to resume his work for at least 5 months. In view of above, the petitioner is being awarded an amount of Rs.90,000/- (i.e. Rs.18,000/- X 5 months).
(iv) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges: The petitioner, in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A has not claimed conveyance, special diet or attendant charges. He has also not testified regarding the same. No document in respect of the aforesaid claim has been produced before the Tribunal, however, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner must have incurred conveyance charges in visiting the hospital / doctors during his treatment and must have taken special diet for his speedy recovery from the injuries suffe red because of the accident. Hence, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards conveyance and special diet.
Though, no evidence qua hiring of attendant has been led, the treatment of petitioner continued for a considerable time, it cannot be ignored that the family members of petitioner must have rendered assistance to him in his daily chores when he was unable to move or to do things on his own, consequently, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges or the gratuitous services which might have been rendered by him family members during the long period of his treatment and immobility. Hence, a total sum of Rs.55,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 45 of 71 head.
(v). Loss of Future Income : PW-9 Dr. Sumath L., Sr. Resident, GTB Hospital proved the disability certificate Ex.PW9/A wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner suffered permanent disability to an extent of 12% in relation to right lower limb and left upper limb. PW-9, in his cross examination, deposed that due to permanent disability, the power of left arm of the petitioner has weakened and his arm movement is restricted. He further testified that the petitioner would face difficulty in lifting weight and that he would face difficulty in driving on account of the injury in right ankle.
Considering the fact that the petitioner would face difficulty in driving and in lifting weight, the functional disability in relation to whole body is assessed as 10% for computation of compensation.
The multiplier of damages has to be determined as per Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. The age of injured as per his Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/7 was 38 years on the date of accident. Therefore, multiplier of 15 would be applicable in the present case. The income of petitioner has already been ascertained hereinabove to be Rs.18,000/- per month. The annual income of the petitioner comes to Rs.2,16,000/- (i.e. Rs.18,000/- X 12). The actual loss of future earnings after ascertaining functional disability of the petitioner to be 10% comes to Rs.21,600/- (i.e. 10% of Rs.2,16,000/-). After applying the multiplier of 15, the total loss would be Rs.3,24,000/- (i.e. Rs.21,600/- x 15). Besides it, petitioner is also entitled for future compensation @ 40% in view of Pranay MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 46 of 71 Sethi judgment. 40% of Rs.3,24,000/- would be Rs.1,29,600/-. Thus, the total loss of future income comes to Rs.4,53,600/- (i.e. Rs.1,29,600/- + Rs.3,24,000/-) which is so awarded to the petitioner.
33. The total compensation awarded to the petitioner Sh. Amit is summarized as under:-
1. Reimbursement of medical expenses Rs.10,000/-
2. Pain and Suffering and Loss of Rs.1,00,000/-
Amenities
3. Loss of Income during Treatment: Rs.90,000/-
4. Conveyance, Special Diet and Rs.55,000/-
Attendant Charges
5. Loss of Future Income Rs.4,53,600/-
Rs.7,08,600/-
(rounded off to Rs.
Rs.7,09,000/-) (In MACT No. 1442/2016 Re:- Master Krishan Verma)
34. The petitioner Master Krishan Verma sustained injury on his head, right elbow and right ankle. The compensation to which the minor petitioner, namely, Master Krishna Verma is entitled shall be under the following heads:-
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 47 of 71
(i). Reimbursement of medical expenses: Father of petitioner / PW-5 relied upon certificate issued by Ashish Care Center Ex.PW5/4, as per which, amount of Rs.11,800/- was spent on his treatment. Nothing has been extracted in the cross examination of father of petitioner / PW-5 so as to doubt the authenticity of this bill.
The amount of said bill has not been reimbursed. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.11,800/- is awarded under this head.
(ii). Loss of Education: The petitioner had suffered injury on his head, elbow and ankle. The petitioner was discharged on the same day. PW-5, admitted in his cross examination, that he has not filed any document showing that his son was studying or his study was affected because of injuries sustained in the accident. There is no document to suggest that for how many days the injured Krishna Verma could not attend school due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the injured Krishna Verma must not have been able to attend school for a week. Accordingly, he is awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for loss of education.
(iii) Pain and Suffering: The nature of injuries suffered by petitioner and treatment taken by him has already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The petitioner suffered head injury, injury on elbow and ankle and there can be no doubt that the petitioner must have suffered pain and suffering, physical as well as mental, owing to this injury. Keeping in view the extent and nature of injury suffered by the petitioner and duration of treatment taken by MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 48 of 71 him an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to him towards mental and physical shock and pain.
(iv). Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges: The father of petitioner deposed that he had spent Rs.1,50,000/- on treatment of his injured son. There is no document to prove the expenses incurred on special diet, conveyance or payment made to attendant, however, the petitioner must have taken special diet for his speedy recovery from the injuries suffered because of the accident and must have incurred expenses in travelling to the hospital during the period of his treatment and his family members must have rendered gratuitous service during his treatment. Hence, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
35. The total compensation awarded to the petitioner Master Krishna Verma is summarized as under:-
1. Reimbursement of medical expenses Rs.11,800/-
2. Loss of Education Rs.5,000/-
3. Pain and Suffering Rs. 25,000/-
4. Conveyance, Special Diet and Rs.10,000/-
Attendant Charges Total = Rs.51,800/-
(rounded off to Rs.52,000/-) MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 49 of 71 (In MACT/1443/2016 Re:- Smt. Santosh Verma)
36. In the instant claim petition, the petitioner Smt. Santosh Verma sustained permanent disability to the extent of 61% in relation to her both lower limbs. The compensation to which the petitioner Smt. Santosh Verma is entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i). Reimbursement of medical expenses: The petitioner / PW-4 deposed, in her affidavit Ex.PW4/A tendered in examination in chief, that she had incurred Rs.2 lakhs on her treatment. PW -4 relied upon the medical bills Ex.PW4/4 (colly) and Ex.PW4/5 which amounting to Rs.67,384/-. The said bills have neither been controverted nor disproved by the Insurance Company. The amount of said bills has not been reimbursed. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs.68,000/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering: The petitioner / PW-4 has proved that she suffered head injury as well as injury in both her legs in the accident. As per Discharge Summary of Lok Nayak Hospital Mark-X' the petitioner remained admitted from 09.06.2014 to 12.06.2014 primarily for the treatment of the head injury because of hemorrhagic contusion. As per another Discharge Summary, the petitioner again remained admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital from 03.06.2014 to 14.06.2014 where she was again treated for head injury. For the injury suffered by the petitioner in her both legs she primarily received treatment i n Ashish Nature Care Center as per the document Ex.PW4/3. The petitioner also examined Dr. Prag yan MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 50 of 71 Sarma, Associate Professor, Neuro Surgeon, GTB Hospital, Delhi to prove the disability certificate Ex.PW8/A as per which the petitioner suffered 61% permanent disability in relation to both upper and lower limbs. As per the medical documents / bills, the petitioner received treatment w.e.f 09.06.2014 till November, 2014. The petitioner suffered grievous injuries which resulted into 61% permanent disability in relation to both upper and lower limbs, so there can be no doubt that she must have suffered pain and suffering, physical as well as mental, owing to this injury. Further, the petitioner underwent neuro surgery and was admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital twice for the treatment relating to her head injury.
Keeping in view the extent and nature of injury suffered by the petitioner and duration of treatment taken by her an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to her towards mental and physical shock and pain. The petitioner has sustained disability in her upper and lower limbs, her daily routine activities are bound to be affected, thus, she is held entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities / enjoyment of life.
(iii) Loss of Income during Treatment: The petitioner/PW-2 specified in her affidavit that she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month th as she used to take tuitions upto 8 class at home. She further stated that due to the accident she was not in a position to take tuitions and faced financial hardship. The petitioner, however, did not file any document on record to show that she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and the relevant portion of her cross MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 51 of 71 examination reads as under:-
"I have not filed any document showing that I was running a coaching institute and was taking th tuitions for class upto 8 at my residence. I have also not filed any document showing that I was earning Rs.15,000 per month. It is wrong to suggest that I was taking tuitions for students th upto 8 class or was earning Rs.15,000/- per th month..... I am 12 class passed. I have not filed any document showing that I am 12 th th passed. It is wrong to suggest that I am not 12 class passed".
In the aforesaid cross examination, the petitioner admitted that she has not filed any document on record to prove the fact that she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by taking tuitions of th students upto 8 class. The petitioner also did not examine any other witness in support of this averment. Accordingly, in the absence of any oral or documentary e vidence regarding the employment of petitioner, the petitioner is considered to be a homemaker for the purpose of assessment of just and reasonable compensation. The income of petitioner is to be considered as per minimum wages of a skilled workmen prevailing in Delhi at the time MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 52 of 71 2 of accident. At the relevant time, the minimum wages for skilled person in Delhi was Rs. 10,374/- per month.
The medical documents reveal that the petitioner received treatment for 6 months from June to November, 2014. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the duration of her treatment, it can be presumed that the petitioner must have not been able to resume her work for a period of at least eight months. In view of above, the petitioner is being awarded an amount of Rs.82,992/- (i.e. Rs.10,374/- X 8 months).
(iv) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges: The petitioner, in her affidavit Ex.PW4/A has not claimed conveyance, special diet or attendant charges. She has also not testified regarding the same. No document in respect of the aforesaid claim has been produced before the Tribunal, however, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner must have incurred conveyance charges in visiting the hospital / doctors during her treatment and must have taken special diet for her speedy recovery from the injuries suffered because of the accident. Hence, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards conveyance and special diet.
Though, no evidence qua hiring of attendant has been led, the treatment of petitioner continued for a considerable time, it cannot be ignored that the family members of petitioner must have rendered assistance to her in his daily chores when she was unable 2 Reference may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as New India Assurance Vs. Khayali Ram decided on 24.01.2017 in M.A. C.A. No. 251 of 2014.
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 53 of 71 to move or to do things on her own, consequently, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges or the gratuitous services which might have been rendered by her family members during the period of her treatment and immobility. Hence, a total sum of Rs.80,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(v). Loss of Future Income : PW-8 Dr. Pragyan Sarma, Neuro Surgeon, GTB Hospital proved the disability certificate Ex.PW8/A wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner suffered permanent disability to an extent of 61% in relation to both her upper and lower limbs. PW-8, in his cross examination, deposed that because of the permanent disability it would be difficult for petitioner to manage day to day activities independently and that she would also face difficulty in climbing stairs, lifting heavy weights, over head movements of the upper limbs and weakness of hand grip.
In view of the testimony of PW-8, as the movement of upper and lower limb of petitioner is restricted and she would face difficulty in day to day activities like climbing stairs, lifting weight, griping things etc., the Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner who had suffered 61% permanent disability, her functional disability in relation to whole body is to be assessed 30% for computation of compensation.
The multiplier of damages has to be determined as per Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. The age of injured as per his Aadhar Card Ex.PW4/1 was 66 years on the date of accident. Therefore, multiplier of 5 would be applicable in the present case.
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 54 of 71 The income of petitioner has already been ascertained hereinabove to be Rs.10,374/- per month. The annual income of the petitioner comes to Rs.1,24,488/- (i.e. Rs.10,374/- X 12). The actual loss of future earnings after ascertaining functional disability of the petitioner to be 30% comes to Rs.37,347/- (i.e. 30% of Rs.1,24,488/-). After applying the multiplier of 5, the total loss would be Rs.1,86,735/- (i.e. Rs.37,347 x 5). Thus, the total loss of future income comes to Rs.1,86,735/- which is so awarded to the petitioner.
37. The total compensation awarded to the petitioner Smt. Santosh is summarized as under:-
1. Reimbursement of medical expenses Rs.68,000/-
2. Pain and Suffering and Loss of Rs.1,50,000/-
Amenities
3. Loss of Income during Treatment: Rs.82,992/-
4. Conveyance, Special Diet and Rs.80,000/-
Attendant Charges
5. Loss of Future Income Rs.1,86,735/-
Rs.5,67,727/-
(rounded off to Rs.
5,68,000/-) MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 55 of 71 (In MACT No. 1359/2016 Re:- Master Aryan Verma)
38. In this claim petition, the petitioner, namely, Master Aryan Verma sustained head injury, nasal injury and a degloving injury on left foot. The compensation to which the minor petitioner, namely, Master Aryan is entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i). Reimbursement of medical expenses: Father of petitioner / PW-6 relied upon the Medical Bills Ex.PW6/5 and certificate issued by Ashish Care Center Ex.PW6/6, as per which, amount of Rs.36,085/- was spent on his treatment. Nothing has been extracted in the cross examination of father of petitioner / PW -6 so as to doubt the authenticity of these bills. The amount of said bills has not been reimbursed. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.36,085/- is awarded under this head.
(ii). Loss of Education: The petitioner had suffered head injury, nasal injury and a degloving injury on left foot. The petitioner remained hospitalized for a day in Lok Nayak Hospital and received treatment at Ashish Nature Care Center till 12.07.2014 as per Ex.PW6/5. The request for assessment of disability of petitioner was allowed, however, the disability certificate dated 19.02.2018 reveals that the petitioner did not suffer any permanent disability. PW-6, admitted in his cross examination that he has not filed any record pertaining to the education of injured Aryan Verma. There is no document to suggest that for how many days the injured Aryan MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 56 of 71 Verma could not attend school due to the injuries sus tained in the accident. Considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the injured Aryan Verma must not have been able to attend school for a period of one month. Accordingly, he is awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for loss of education.
(iii) Pain and Suffering: The nature of injuries suffered by petitioner and treatment taken by him has already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The petitioner suffered head injury, nasal injury and degloving injury in left foot and there can be no doubt that the petitioner must have suffered pain and suffering, physical as well as mental, owing to this injury. Keeping in view the extent and nature of injury suffered by the petitioner and duration of treatment taken by him an amount of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded to him towards mental and physical shock and pain.
(iv). Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges: The father of petitioner deposed that he had spent Rs.1,00,000/- on treatment of his injured son. There is no document to prove the expenses incurred on special diet as well as conveyance, however, the petitioner must have taken special diet for his speedy recovery from the injuries suffered because of the accident and must have incurred expenses in travelling to the hospital during the period of his treatment. Hence, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards special diet and conveyance.
The petitioner has not examined any attendant who had MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 57 of 71 taken his care during the period of his treatment. There is no proof of payment to the said attendant on record. However, as the petitioner sustained degloving injury in the accident, the Tribunal cannot be ignorant of the fact that he had the requirement of an attendant for taking care of his daily chores when the petitioner was unable to move or to do things on his own, consequently, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges or the gratuitous services which might have been rendered by his family members during the period of his treatment, hospitalization and immobility. Hence, a total sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
39. The total compensation awarded to the petitioner Master Aryan Verma is summarized as under:-
1. Reimbursement of medical expenses Rs.36,085/-
2. Loss of Education Rs.15,000/-
3. Pain and Suffering Rs.40,000/-
4. Conveyance, Special Diet and Rs.25,000/-
Attendant Charges Total = Rs.1,16,085/-
(rounded off to Rs.1,16,000/-) (In MACT No. 1415/2016 Re:- Smt. Neha Verma)
40. The present claim petition pertains to injury wherein petitioner Ms. Neha Verma sustained permanent disability of 3% in MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 58 of 71 relation to her right lower limb. The compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i). Reimbursement of medical expenses: The petitioner / PW-2 deposed, in her affidavit Ex.PW2/A tendered in examination in chief, that she had incurred Rs.1.5 lakhs on her treatment. PW -2 relied upon the medical bills Ex.PW2/4 and Certificate of Ashish Nature Care Center Ex.PW2/5 amounting to Rs.24,817/-. The said bills have neither been controverted nor disproved by the Insurance Company. The amount of said bills has not been reimbursed.
Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs.24,817/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering: The petitioner / PW-2 proved the Discharge Summary Ex.PW2/3, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner suffered Traumatic Knee Arthrotomy in right leg as a result of which Osteochondral piece measuring 2 cm was removed during the procedure conducted on 09.06.2014 at Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi. The petitioner in her affidavit Ex.PW2/A testified that she remained hospitalized in Lok Nayak Hospital from 09.06.2014 to 12.06.2014, which fact is supported by the Discharge Summary Ex.PW2/3. The witness further testified in her affidavit that she took further treatment in Ashish Nature Care Center from 13.06.2014 to 28.07.2014 and in support of the said deposition she relied upon documents Ex.PW2/5. The petitioner also examined Dr. Sumantha L., Senior Resident, GTB Hospital to prove the disability certificate Ex.PW9/B as per which the petitioner suffered 3% disability in MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 59 of 71 relation to right lower limb. As per the medical documents / bills, the petitioner received treatment w.e.f. 09.06.2014 till August, 2014. The petitioner suffered grievous injuries which resulted into 3% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb, so there can be no doubt that she must have suffered pain and suffering, physical as well as mental, owing to this injury.
Keeping in view the extent and nature of injury suffered by the petitioner and duration of treatment taken by her an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to her towards mental and physical shock and pain. The petitioner has sustained disability in her right lower limb, her daily routine activities are bound to be affected, thus, she is held entitled to an amount of Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities / enjoyment of life.
(iii) Loss of Income during Treatment: The petitioner/PW-2 specified in her affidavit that she was employed at the time of accident and was working in modeling with different organizations and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and that due to the accident she was not able to join her work and faced financial hardship. The petitioner, however, did not file any document on record to show that she was earning Rs.30,000/- per month and the relevant portion of her cross examination reads as under:-
"I have not filed any document / certificate showing that I can work as model. I was not paying any income tax at the time of accident. I have not filed any document showing that I was MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 60 of 71 earning Rs.30,000 per month. Vol. I received payment in cash. It is wrong to suggest that I was not working as a model and was not also earning Rs.30,000/-. Assignment Contract was signed by me and by my employer but I have not filed the same on record. It is wrong to suggest that no such assignment contract was taken place that is why I have not filed the same on record. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely just to get the compensation".
The petitioner admitted in her aforesaid cross examination that she has not filed any document on record to prove her employment or that she was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The petitioner also did not examine her employer to prove her income. Accordingly, in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence as regards the employment of petitioner, the petitioner is to be considered to be working at minimum wages or as a homemaker for the purpose of assessment of just and reasonable compensation. The income of petitioner is to be considered as per minimum wages 3 of a skilled workmen prevailing in Delhi at the time of accident. At the relevant time, the minimum wages for skilled person in Delhi was Rs. 10,374/- per month.
3 Reference may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as New India Assurance Vs. Khayali Ram decided on 24.01.2017 in M.A. C.A. No. 251 of 2014.
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 61 of 71 The medical documents reveal that the petitioner received treatment for 3 months from June to August, 2014. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the duration of her treatment, it can be presumed that the petitioner must have not been able to resume her work for a period of at least three months. In view of above, the petitioner is being awarded an amount of Rs.31,112/- (i.e. Rs.10,374/- X 3 months).
(iv) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges: The petitioner, in her affidavit Ex.PW2/A has not claimed conveyance, special diet or attendant charges. She has also not testified regarding the same. No document in respect of the aforesaid claim has been produced before the Tribunal, however, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner must have incurred conveyance charges in visiting the hospital / doctors during her treatment and must have taken special diet for her speedy recovery from the injuries suffered because of the accident. Hence, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards conveyance and special diet.
Though, no evidence qua hiring of attendant has been led, the treatment of petitioner continued for a considerable time, it cannot be ignored that the family members of petitioner must have rendered assistance to her in his daily chores when she was unable to move or to do things on her own, consequently, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges or the gratuitous services which might have been rendered by her family members during the period of her treatment and immobility. Hence, a total MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 62 of 71 sum of Rs. 35,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(v). Loss of Future Income : PW-9 Dr. Sumath L., Sr. Resident, GTB Hospital proved the disability certificate Ex.PW9/B wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner suffered permanent disability to an extent of 3% in relation to right lower limb. PW-9, in his cross examination, deposed that he cannot tell what would be the permanent disability of the petitioner towards her whole body and he also testified that the petitioner shall not have any difficulty, except that her muscle power of particular limb has weakened. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner is unable to do job in office or work in modeling or do household work after recovery. The examining doctor has categorically testified that the petitioner will not have any difficulty due to the permanent disability of 3% suffered by her in relation to her right lower limb. The doctor further stated that the petitioner may feel weakness of the muscle power of the right lower limb because of the injury and the permanent disability, however, except that her muscle power may reduce, her efficiency to do job involving physical movement is not likely to reduce on account of injuries received in the accident. In view of the testimony of PW-9, the Tribunal is of the opinion that though the petitioner suffered 3% disability in relation to her right lower limb, but, as a result of the same she did not suffer any functional disability in relation to the whole body. Therefore, no compensation is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 63 of 71
41. The total compensation awarded to the petitioner Ms. Neha is summarized as under:-
1. Reimbursement of medical expenses Rs.24,817/-
2. Pain and Suffering and Loss of Rs. 75,000/-
Amenities
3. Loss of Income during Treatment: Rs.31,112/-
4. Conveyance, Special Diet and Rs. 35,000/-
Attendant Charges
5. Loss of Future Income NIL Total Rs.1,65,929/-
(rounded off to
Rs.1,66,000/-)
42. LIABILITY: In the instant case, while adjudicating upon issue no. (i), it has been observed that two vehicles i.e. milk tanker bearing no. GJ 08Z 2521 and tourist bus bearing no. DL 1PB 8958 were involved in the accident. On the issue of extent of liability of the insurance company of two vehicles involved in the accident, Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "T.O. Antony Vs. Karvarnan & Ors." reported as (2008) ACC 706 (SC) discussed the concept of 'composite negligence' and the apportionment of liability amongst joint tort-feasors, as under:-
MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 64 of 71 "6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons.
Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong doer separately, nor is it necessary for the Court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his o wn negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 65 of 71 injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence."
43. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 273, concluded the legal position with regard to liability of insurance company in case of composite negligence as under:-
"22. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows:
22.1 In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several.
22.2 In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis a vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them.
22.3 In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the Court/Tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers.
However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 66 of 71 for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the same from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the Court/Tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.
22.4 It would not be appropriate for the Court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award."
44. In light of aforesaid legal position, it would be appropriate if the insurance company of the offending milk tanker / Reliance General Insurance Company Limited / Respondent No. 3 is asked to pay 50% compensation amount to the claimants/petitioners in all the aforesaid petitions. Similarly, the Insurance Company of the MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 67 of 71 tourist bus / National Insurance Company Limited / Respondent No. 5 is directed to pay 50% compensation amount to the claimants in claim petitions bearing MACT No. 94/16, 96/16, 1442/16, 1443/16, 1415/16 and 1359/16 being cases of composite negligence. The Insurance Company of the tourist bus is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants / petitioners in MACT No. 487/16 being a case of contributory negligence as it is held that the deceased driver Sh. Pramod Kumar Garg also contributed in the occurrence of the accident to the extent of 50%. RELIEF:-
In MACT No. 94/1645. In view of the findings on the aforesaid issues, this tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.6,28,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The respondent no. 3 / Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Respondent No. 5 / National Insurance Company Ltd. shall deposit 50% of the award amount each within 30 days from the date of this award. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. Respondent No. 3 and 5 are directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners and their counsels.In MACT No. 487/16
46. In view of findings on the aforesaid issues, the Tribunal MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 68 of 71 awards a compensation of Rs. 9,48,600/- to petitioners along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Respondent No. 3 / Reliance General Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days from today. Notice regarding deposit of the said amount be given to the petitioners and to their counsel.
In MACT/96/2016
47. In view of the findings on the issues, this tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.7,09,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The respondent no. 3 / Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Respondent No. 5 / Natio nal Insurance Company Ltd. shall deposit 50% of the award amount each within 30 days from the date of this award. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. Respondent No. 3 and 5 are directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners and their counsels. In MACT/1442/2016
48. In view of the findings on the issues, this tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.52,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The respondent no. 3 / Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Respondent No. 5 / National Insurance Company Ltd. shall deposit 50% of the award amount each within 30 days from the date of this MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 69 of 71 award. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. Respondent No. 3 and 5 are directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners and their counsels. In MACT/1443/2016
49. In view of the findings on the issues, this tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.5,68,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The respondent no. 3 / Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Respondent No. 5 / National Insurance Company Ltd. shall deposit 50% of the award amount each within 30 days from the date of this award. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. Respondent No. 3 and 5 are directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners and their counsels. In MACT/1359/2016
50. In view of the findings on the issues, this tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The respondent no. 3 / Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Respondent No. 5 / National Insurance Company Ltd. shall deposit 50% of the award amount each within 30 days from the date of this award. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 70 of 71 against this award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. Respondent No. 3 and 5 are directed to give no tice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners and their counsels. In MACT/1415/2016
51. In view of the findings on the issues, this tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.1,66,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The respondent no. 3 / Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Respondent No. 5 / National Insurance Company Ltd. shall deposit 50% of the award amount each within 30 days from the date of this award. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the wai ver of interest, if any as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. Respondent No. 3 and 5 are directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners and their counsels.
52. With these observations, the aforesaid seven claim petitions stand disposed off. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room and a separate file for compliance be maintained which shall be listed on 02.02.2021. SHUCHI Digitally signed by LALER SHUCHI LALER Announced in open court (SHUCHI LALER) On 19.12.2020 PO-MACT/SHAHDARA KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI MACT No. 94/16 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 487/16 Pramod Kumar Garg Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 96/2016 Amit Verma@Ashu Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1442/2016 Master Krishan Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No.1443/2016 Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1359/2016 Master Aryan Verma@Golu Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors. MACT No. 1415/2016 Neha Verma Vs. Ravinder Yadav & Ors.
Page No 71 of 71