Delhi District Court
Sonali & Ors. vs . Mudit Gulati & Ors. on 21 January, 2017
Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NAVEEN ARORA : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Suit No. : 10/13
1) Sonali ..... Wife
2) Kumari Priya ..... Daughter
3) Kumar Meenal ..... Son
All Residents of
954, Nidhi Colony, Rithala, Delhi.
Permanent R/o Vill. Pearah,
post Gandharbapur, PS Baduria,
Distt. North 24 Parganas, West Bengal
(Petitioner no.2 and 3 are minors and are being
represented through their natural guardian/mother
i.e. petitioner no.1 Ms. Sonali)
.........Petitioners
Versus
1. Mudit Gulati
S/o Sh. Prem Prakash Gulati
R/o CII/A2, IIT Campus,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi ..... Driver cum Owner
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 25.03.2013
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 04.01.2017
Date of pronouncement : 21.01.2017
J U D G M E N T :
1.Vide this judgment I shall dispose of the petition filed by the petitioners for the fatal injuries sustained by Jai Dev Dass in a road accident which took place on 26.05.2012 at about 6.00 AM at Jamali Kamali, Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 1 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
M. B. Road, New Ahinsa Sthal, Mehrauli, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL 9C C 8131 by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.1.
2.Respondent in his written statement has stated that the car bearing no. DL 9C C 8131 did not hit the motorcycle bearing no. DL 3S CA 2587 of the deceased as alleged in the petition. He further stated that his vehicle bearing no. DL 9C C 8131 did not cause any accident with the motorcycle bearing no. DL 3S CA 2587. He further stated that the deceased while driving the motorcycle no. DL 3S CA 2587 was not holding the valid driving licence. He was also driving the motorcycle without wearing helmet. He further stated that on 26.05.12 on Anuvrat Marg at about 5.30 AM his car was hit by another heavy vehicle which hit and rubbed his car and ran away. The said vehicle which was a truck overtook his car from the right side at a high speed while the space between the heavy vehicle and the car was not sufficient. He further stated that the left side back portion of the heavy vehicle hit and rubbed the front right side portion of his car i.e. the front right side fender of the car, due to which his car which was in motion took left turn and went off the road on the left side upon kuchcha portion and hit the footpath which was under construction and got stopped. He further stated that the front portion of the car was badly damaged being hit with the stones, bricks and building material laying there. His car was stopped and was stationed. He and his another friend Uday Gehlot who was sitting on the left side of the car were still in the car and saw that the deceased Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 2 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
who was driving the motorcycle at a high sped without wearing helmet coming from the Mehrauli side, could not control and stop his motorcycle and took the left turn and his motorcycle also hit on the left side footpath which was under construction. He further stated that the deceased fell near footpath which was under
construction and his head was hit on the bricks which were laying there and was bleeding. He further stated that he and his friend who had also suffered injuries came out of the car and request another vehicle to took the deceased to the hospital. He further stated that he left his car at the site as there was no other person available except one vendor at some distance who was selling coconut.
3.From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 05.08.2013 :
1.Whether the deceased Jai Dev Dass succumbed to the injuries sustained in road accident on 26.05.12 at 6.00 AM at Jamali Kamali, M.B. Road, near Ahinsa Sthal, Mehrauli, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of Hyundai Accent car bearing no. DL 9C C 8131 by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.1?
2.To what amount of compensation the LRs of deceased are entitled and from whom?
3.Relief.
4.Petitioner no.1 examined herself as PW1 (not an eyewitness).
5.Sh. Dipankar Das was examined as PW2. He stated that on Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 3 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
26.05.2012 at about 5.306.00 AM he was going on his bike at Jamali Kamali M.B. Road, near Ahinsa Sthal, Mehrauli. His brother Uttam was with him. They were going to Mandi. He was waiting for his brother Jaidev to come. He was on separate motorcycle and was coming from Gurgaon. He further stated a car bearing no. DL 9C C 8131 came from behind and hit the motorcycle of his brother. The number of the motorcycle of his brother was DL 3S CA 2587. His brother fell down at a distance of 57 ft. He sustained injuries on his head and chest. He further stated that respondent no.1 was driving the car. He was accompanied by someone. He further stated that they took his brother to the hospital. He informed at his village.
Police also came. He further stated that he requested the respondent no.1 to get his brother treated in a private hospital but he refused. Although he had offered him some money which he refused. He further stated that respondent no.1 never came in the hospital to know the well being of his brother. From Safdarjung Hospital, after discharge, they took the injured to Kolkata where he was admitted. He further stated that since due to financial constraints they could not pay the bills of the hospital, his brother was discharged and was taken to home where he died. His postmortem was not conducted. He further stated that the accident had occurred due to negligence of respondent no.1. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. He further stated that he died on 14.0612 i.e. the day he was discharged.
Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 4 of 23Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
During crossexamination he stated that at the time of accident he was residing at 954, Nidhi Colony, Rithala. He was having same mobile number as recorded in his statement. He was not on duty on 26.05.12. He is not aware at what place injured was residing at the time of accident. He further stated that on the day of accident, he was coming from Gurgaon from a place not known to him where his brother was working as a flower vendor. He further stated that he was standing a little ahead of gate of Jamali Kamali park towards Qutab Minar. He further stated that the distance where he was standing and the place of accident was barely 1012 feet. He denied that in fact the place of accident was at a distance of more than half kilometers from the place where he was standing. He denied that the respondent did not cause any accident to the vehicle of deceased. He further denied that he was not present at the spot on that day. He further denied he did not go to the hospital. He further denied that his entire statement about witnessing the accident alongwith his brother is false.
6.Dr. Radha Madhav Sahu, Sr. Resident, Safdarjung Hospital was examined as PW3. He had brought the MLC and discharge summary of deceased Jai Dev Das. He stated that at the time of discharge the patient was not fully conscious and he required further treatment. He further stated that the deceased being victim of road traffic accident was brought to the hospital in a precarious condition and he was intubated in casualty and put on Ambubag ventilation. He proved the MLC Ex.PW3/1 and discharge summary Ex.PW3/2. During Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 5 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
crossexamination he stated that he did not personally examine the deceased. He denied that the observation of no history of vomiting/convulsions means that the injury was not serious. He stated that he can say so because the patient was recorded as unconscious and nasal bleeding was there. He admitted that the observation at mark 'A' on Ex.PW3/2 relating to Glasgow coma scale (GCS) the indicator M5 is a good and healthy sign. He further stated that the final diagnosis is related to injury to the brain. He further stated that at the time of admission, contusions were present and hence there was bleeding in the brain. He further stated that at the time of admission, the patient was critical. He after seeing the discharge summary stated that there is mention of poor prognosis. He further stated that the "advice on discharge also means the follow up advice". He further stated that the medicines mentioned under the head of "advice on discharge" are to be taken by the patient once he left the hospital. He further stated that medicine Epsolin is anticonvulsive medicine. He stated that medicine 'Strocit' is cerebro protective medicine. Medicine Glycerol is a brain decongestant medicine. He further stated that conservative treatment was given in the hospital and the conservative treatment was continued as followup after discharge. He further stated that the patient was discharged since he was stabilised. He further stated that there was no immediate requirement for surgery. He further stated that the Ambulatory means - The patient can walk and come to OPD. Vital stable means - pulse is normal, blood pressure is normal, patient is oriented and conscious. He further stated that there was no need for the hospital to Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 6 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
detain the patient in the hospital anymore. He further stated that at the time of discharge there was no referral by the hospital to a higher institute or any other hospital. He further stated that it is not a case of LAMA. He further stated that according to the documents available with him (discharge summary) all the vital organs of the patient were fine except the injury recorded in the final diagnosis (brain injury). He further stated that looking into the treatment given to the patient and his condition, he was fit to be discharged. He admitted that the deceased was discharged since no procedure of surgery was required at the time of discharge.
7.Dr. Shantanu Chatterjee, EMO, CNMCH, Kolkata was examined as PW4. He had brought the original treatment records of the deceased. He stated that as per record the deceased was admitted in an unconscious state with history of Road Traffic Accident. He was treated under the Department of General Surgery. He proved the treatment Ex.PW4/1. He further stated that when the condition of the deceased deteriorated, he was referred for consultation vide Ex.PW4/2A with Neuro Surgeon. Neuro Surgeon Prof. P. Deb made final diagnosis of diffuse axonal injury vide his report Ex.PW4/3. He further stated that thereafter at request of family of deceased he was discharged on risk bond for better treatment elsewhere on 10.06.12 vide Ex.PW4/4 and Ex.PW4/4A. During crossexamination he stated that Assistant Professor G. Das was not a neurologist or neurosurgeon. He was just a general surgeon. The fifth observation Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 7 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
on point 3/1 is GCS (Glasgow coma scale). He further stated that the clinical observation of GCS can be made by all doctors but the observations made by a neurosurgeon is the best observation since this is a case of head injury coming under CNS (Central Nervous System). He further stated that after PD the case is referred to Specialist. He further stated that in their hospital there is limitation that there is only one neurosurgeon and all the patients of ailments relating to neurology are first examined by general doctor and thereafter they are referred to specialists. He further stated that the patient was admitted on 07.06.2012 and discharge on risk bond (DORB) on 10.06.2012. He was diagnosed by the neurosurgeon with diffused axonal injury which means he cannot be operated due to diffused nature of injury and he was kept on medications. He further stated that diffused axonal injury in layman term means damage of various brain nerves. He further stated that the diagnosis of diffused axonal injury was done for the first time in their hospital on the basis of CT scan. He further stated that conservative treatment may be a continued treatment right from the beginning since surgery was not possible. However, even after the discharge in a normal manner the patient could not be maintained without hospital support since all the medicines were on IV at that time.
8.Dr. Utpal Datta Gupta, Medical Practitioner, ICCU Critical Care, Kolkata was examined as PW5. He has brought the original admission form Ex.PW5/1, bed head ticket Ex.PW5/2 and discharge on risk bond certificate Ex.PW5/3. He stated that the deceased Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 8 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
remained admitted from 10.06.12 to 14.06.12. He stated that he himself had treated the deceased. He further stated that the deceased was admitted in the hospital in unconscious state. He was unable to speak, drowsiness and multiple injuries and unconscious. He had sustained head injury and was ventilated. During crossexamination he stated that it was not a follow up medicines, as the patient was discharged against medical advise. The medicines mentioned are mostly injections and cannot be taken at home, as they were to given IV. There was no chance of recovery of that patient as even at the time of his admission his GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale) level as at 3.
9.Sh. Gobinda Mondal, Panchayat Pradhan, Office of Block Development Officer, Baduria, Development Block, Baduria, North 24 Parganas as PW6. He has brought the original register of Birth and Death. He stated that as per record the deceased expired on 14.06.12. He has proved the death certificate Ex.PW6/1. During crossexamination he stated that he has no personal knowledge of the case. He further stated that he did not personally know the cause of death of the deceased. He had recorded the cause of death of deceased as was told to him by the family of deceased.
10.Respondent no.1 examined himself as RW1. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RW1/A and the documents Ex.RW1/B and Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/33. In his affidavit he stated that his car was hit by a truck from the right side at a very high speed and the back portion Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 9 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
of the heavy vehicle hit and rubbed the front right side fender of the car due to which his car took left and turn and went off the road on the left side upon Kuchcha portion and hit the footpath and when they were inside the car they saw the deceased who was driving the motorcycle at the high speed without wearing the helmet coming from Mehrauli side could not control and stop his motorcycle and took the left turn and his motorcycle was also hit on the left side footpath which was under construction. He placed on record the photographs of his car while in police custody and placed the same on record. During cross examination he admitted that the charge sheet was filed against him. He stated that he has not challanged the charge sheet anywhere nor he made complaint anywhere against his alleged false implication.
11.Sh. Sarvesh Singh Gehlot was examined as RW2. He has deposed on the lines of RW1. During crossexamination he stated that he is not a summoned witness. His affidavit was prepared on the request of Mudit Gulati. He further stated that he had not sustained any injury though Mudit Gulati has received injuries as there was bleeding from his mouth. He further stated that the police did not came at the spot in his presence. He further stated that he did not inform the police about the occurrence.
12.Sh. Suresh Kumar Saini, the draftsman was examined as RW3.
He admitted that the site plan Ex.RW1/33 was prepared by him and bears his stamp and signatures at mark 'A'. He further stated that the Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 10 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
site plan is as per site inspected by him in the last week of August, 2013. He further stated that he has shown the surroundings of the road and the place of accident at the instance of respondent no.1. He denied that he has not prepared the site plan correctly rather it was prepared at the instance of the respondent to give him the benefit in this case.
13.Sh. Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Ltd. was examined as RW4. He has brought the certified copy of customer application form of mobile no. 8130276141 in the name of Dipankar Dass Ex.RW4/A. He has proved his reply in respect of nonavailability of call detail record of the said phone for the period 23.05.12 to 27.05.12 Ex.RW4/B.
14.It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has proved its case successfully and hence entitled for the compensation. It is stated that respondent has not been able to prove its defence as there are major contradictions in the case of respondent and the testimony of respondent is against the record even as per their own documents and the entire story of the respondent has been cooked up just to avoid the liability as their vehicle was uninsured. There was no reason / occasion for the accident of the deceased on its own while driving the vehicle which in itself establishes that he was hit by some vehicle from behind i.e. the car of the respondent. There is no damage on the right front side of the car of the respondent even as per the photographs placed on record by the respondent. The respondent is deliberately trying to Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 11 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
show damage on the right front fender of the car to prove its innocence. Had some heavy vehicle had hit the car of the respondent then there should have been damage on the right front fender of the car but which was not there and which shows that the entire story of the respondent is false. The respondent has come forward with such a vague story and is trying to convince that there was no collision of vehicles of the parties by saying that at one point of time two vehicles met the accident at same place without the fault of anyone which in itself is not believable. The respondent has failed to provide the number of the said heavy vehicle which had allegedly hit his car nor could provide any other particular of other vehicle such as colour, make model etc. and he had made the effort to avoid his liability on the basis of general allegation which could not be substantiated. The respondent has tried to take advantage of some contradictions in the statement of eyewitness without realising that the said eyewitness is an illiterate person. It is submitted that even the respondent has not disputed the presence of eyewitness on the spot.
15.It is argued on behalf of the respondent that the police neither took the photographs of the site nor of the vehicle at the site of the alleged accident. The respondent has placed on record all the photographs of the site taken on the day of accident as well as the photographs of the site and the road taken in May, 2013. It is further argued that the respondent has also placed on record the photographs of the car as well as the correct site plan of the site of the accident. It is further argued that the PW1 did not place any document on record to prove Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 12 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
that her husband was earning Rs. 15,000/ p.m. It is further argued that the bills of medicine placed on record are forged and fabricated. It is further argued that PW1 in her crossexamination has admitted that she was not an eyewitness of the accident. The statement recorded by PW2 is totally contradictory to the statement recorded by him before Ld. MM in the trial of FIR no. 235/12 of this case. It is further argued that in the crossexamination PW2 he stated that at the time of accident he was residing at 954 Nidhi Colony, Rithala while in the statement to police Ex.PW2/A and statement made in the Court he gave his address as A64, Pitampura, Delhi. He claimed himself as brother of the deceased but admitted that he was not aware that where the injured was residing at the time of accident and then stated that injured was putting up with him while in his chief he stated that he was residing and coming from Gurgaon. It is further argued that in cross examination PW2 further stated that on the day of accident he was coming from Gurgaon from the place not known to him while in chief he stated that he was waiting for deceased to come. He further stated that he was standing a little ahead of the gate of park of Jamali Kamali towards Qutab Minar. While fact is that the place of accident was far away from the gate of Jamali Kamali and it was not possible for the person standing ahead at the gate of park to see the accident because of the curve in the road. It is further argued that PW2 has given a false statement and was not present at the time of accident at all. He stated that he did not know the name of the accused. He further stated that he alongwith respondent no.1 took the injured to Safdarjung Hospital at about 5.30 AM and from the hospital he went to call his Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 13 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
relative. It is further argued that in the crossexamination he stated that he was keeping mobile number 8130276141. He admitted that he was having same mobile number when he got recorded his statement before police while the fact is the mobile number recorded in the FIR is 9540799932. It is further argued that it is a matter of record that the injured was admitted in the hospital by the respondent no.1. It is further argued that from both the statement of PW2 given before this Court and the statement given before Ld. MM on 04.02.2015 it is crystal clear that PW2 has made false statement and is not an eye witness of the accident as alleged by him and the PW1. The allegations made against the respondent are totally false and fabricated. The car of the respondent never hit the motorcycle of the deceased. It is further argued that there was no need for the hospital to detain the patient in the hospital any more.
16.In reply to the arguments of respondent it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that PW2 was an illiterate witness and the contradictions which have come in his testimony are not material for deciding the controversy in question. It is stated that PW2 belongs to the same village to which the deceased belongs and it is general trend the persons belonging to the same village are treated as brothers in rural community and that is why he gave a statement that he was his brother. As far as the knowledge of the address of the deceased is concerned, it is quite common that persons visiting the house of any person generally do not know the address of the said person because the addresses are not displayed outside in unauthorised colonies and Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 14 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
the same does not carry any relevance in the eyes of the visitors and relatives visiting the person residing there. Therefore, it is not a material information. It is stated that witness has clearly stated in the court of Ld. MM that on the said date they were coming from Gurgaon and were going to Ghazipur Mandi. They were on different motorcycles. The deceased was behind the PW2. He correctly identified the accused and stated that they had taken the injured to the hospital. It is stated that as the place of accident was not a routine route for the witness and that is why some discrepancy has come in his statement regarding the location of the accident.
17.I have heard the arguments and my issuewise findings are as follows :
I S S U E N o. 1
18.Needless to say that for making someone entitled U/s 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, for a motor vehicle accident claim, the negligence of the driver of offending vehicle needs to be proved on record. And to prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. Though it is an admitted legal position that the negligence on the part of driver with respect to the use of vehicle needs to be established and the same is to be established on the principles of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III (2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 15 of 23Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
19.It is not disputed that the vehicle of the injured and the vehicle of the respondent met with an accident at the same location on the date and time of the accident in question. The argument of the respondent that the vehicle of the respondent was rubbed and hit by a truck which overtook his car from right side and in that process the back portion of the truck hit and rubbed the front right side fender of his car due to which his car took left turn and went off the road. The photographs have been placed on record by the respondent i.e. Ex.RW1/26 to Ex.RW1/31. The perusal of the photographs specially Ex.RW1/28, Ex.RW1/30 and 31 clearly shows that there is no damage on the front right side fender of the car of the respondent. The respondent had tried to justify his allegation by showing some scratch marks on the fender i.e. encircled in blue colour on Ex.RW1/31 from point A to point B but had these scratch marks caused by the rubbing of the rear portion of the truck (which can only be the rear tyre) then the damage on the fender should have been much more and not just these scratches and the front right headlight must have been damaged but the same did not happen. Nor the side rear view mirror was damaged. Even the gapping of the fender from the front driver door was disturbed to even 1 mm. Therefore, I am not convinced with the version of the respondent with respect to happening of accident and it shows that the respondent is lying before the Court in order to avoid his liability towards the petitioners. Having regard to the facts of the case, the testimony of the eyewitness and specially from its mechanical inspection report it can be safely believed that the vehicle of the deceased was hit from behind with some other vehicle probably the Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 16 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
vehicle of the respondent and it also shows that respondent is lying in this regard also that the deceased got imbalanced on its own without any reason or cause. All these facts if shown in totality raises an inference that the vehicle of respondent no.1 had hit the vehicle of the deceased from behind and probably after collision under panic, the respondent's vehicle as a matter of reflex action turned his vehicle towards left side and hit against the footpath/wall. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the deceased Jai Dev Dass succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road accident on 26.05.12 at 6.00 AM at Jamali Kamali, M. B. Road near Ahinsa Sthal, Mehrauli, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL 9C C 8131 by the respondent. It is argued on behalf of respondent that the deceased was having a learner's licence and therefore, he was not driving the vehicle properly due to which his accident was caused. This plea of the respondent automatically stands rejected in view of the above mentioned discussion and on the basis of preponderance of probability it has been established that it is the respondent's vehicle which had caused the accident by hitting the vehicle of the deceased from behind and in this way I do not see that the deceased in any manner contributed to the occurrence of the accident.
20.Issue no.1 is accordingly, decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.
I S S U E No. 221.It is argued on behalf of respondent that the statement of the doctors Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 17 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
mentioned above clearly shows that the deceased did not take the proper treatment and due to which his death was caused therefore, the respondent cannot be held responsible for causing death of the deceased. The perusal of the record clearly shows that deceased had received head injury and his injury was such that no operation could have been done and he was managed conservatively by the doctors. As per the statement of the doctors, the condition of the deceased was critical since beginning it was a case of poor prognosis. In all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the death of the deceased was caused because of the injuries sustained in the accident and not because of the inadequate treatment as he could not take the proper treatment on account of his poor financial position. Therefore, the petitioners being the legal representative of the deceased Jai Dev Dass shall be entitled for the compensation, in view of the settled law as decided in various judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, and our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, including Rajesh Vs. Rajvir 2013 (6) Scale 563 and Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Usha & Ors. MAC. App. 160/2015 and CM No. 2915/2015 decided on 05.05.16, the LR's of the deceased shall be entitled for compensation under pecuniary and non pecuniary heads, which are as follows: S. No. Particulars Amount 1 Loss of Love and Affection Rs.1,50,000/ 2 Loss of Consortium to petitioner no.1 Rs.1,50,000/ 3 Funeral Expenses Rs.50,000/ 4 Loss of Estate Rs.50,000/ 5 Medical Expenses Rs. 83,800/ Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 18 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, the same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule as per land mark judgment of Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments. For calculating the Loss of Dependency, the Tribunal has to determine various factors i.e. Age of the deceased, Income of the deceased and Multiplier applicable.
As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, as per the driving licence, the date of birth of the deceased was 06.07.1974. The accident took place on 26.05.2012. So, he was 38 years of age at the time of accident. So, the applicable multiplier would be '15'.
As far as the income of the deceased is concerned, PW1 has stated that her husband was working as a flower decorator and was earning Rs. 15,000/ p.m. The petitioners have not filed on record any income proof of the deceased, so, this Court has no option but to switch over to the minimum wages of an 'unskilled person' which on the date of accident were Rs.7,020/ p.m. Thus, his annual income comes to Rs. 84,240/. The deceased was survived by his wife and two children. So, onethird is to deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. After deducting onethird, the net income for calculating the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 56,160/. Taking a multiplier of '15', loss of dependency comes to Rs. 8,42,400/. I therefore, award Rs.8,42,400/ to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
22.Thus, the total compensation in the petitioners is calculated as under : Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 19 of 23 Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 8,42,400/
LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 1,50,000/
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 1,50,000/
FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 50,000/
LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 50,000/
MEDICAL EXPENSES = Rs. 83,800/
=============
TOTAL = Rs. 13,26,200/
=============
L I A B I L I T Y
23.As the offending vehicle was being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 so, he only is liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on the record that the vehicle was not insured at the time of accident.
24.Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.
R E L I E F
25.In view of my findings, I award Rs.13,26,200/ (Rs. Thirteen Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred only) to the petitioners as compensation alongwith interest @8% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner no.1 (Wife of the deceased)
26.A sum of Rs. 9,26,200/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased.
Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 20 of 23Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
Out of this amount an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/ is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
1.Rs. 1,00,000/ for 02 years (interest to be paid on monthly basis)
2.Rs. 1,00,000/ for 03 years (interest to be paid on monthly basis)
3.Rs. 1,00,000/ for 04 years (interest to be paid on monthly basis)
4.Rs. 1,00,000/ for 05 years (interest to be paid on monthly basis)
5.Rs. 1,00,000/ for 07 years (interest to be paid on monthly basis)
6.Rs. 1,00,000/ for 08 years (interest to be paid on monthly basis)
7.Rs. 1,00,000/ for 09 years (interest to be paid on monthly basis) In the share of Petitioner no. 2 and 3 (Daughter and son of the deceased)
27.A sum of Rs.2,00,000/ each alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 2 and 3 being daughter and son of the deceased. This amount is directed to be kept in the form fixed deposit till they attain the age of 21 years. The interest on the above said fixed deposits be paid on monthly basis.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
28.In consonance to the idea conceptualized and formulated in various land mark judgments of our own Hon'ble High Court, by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners within a period of 30 days from today, failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 21 of 23Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
29.Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:
1.The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
2.Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants / petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
3.No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners without the permission of this Court.
4.The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants / petitioners alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
5.The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6.No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
7.Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
8.On the request of claimants / petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
9.Claimants / petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
10.The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimants at the time of preparation of FDRs.
11.The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondent in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimants, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimants for the said period.
Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 22 of 23Sonali & Ors. vs. Mudit Gulati & Ors.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT
30.The respondent is directed to file compliance report of his having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
31.The respondent shall intimate the claimants / petitioners about his having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
32.Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
33.The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent for 21.02.2017.
Announced in the open court
on 21st day of January, 2017 (NAVEEN ARORA)
Presiding Officer : MACT
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi
Suit No. : 10/13 Page No. 23 of 23