Delhi District Court
Gurnam Singh vs . Umed Singh on 8 January, 2016
Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVEEN ARORA: PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 115/12
Unique Case ID : 02406C0147802012
Sh. Gurnam Singh
S/o Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o B92, Ambedkar Colony
Chhattarpur, New Delhi110030 ..... Petitioner
Petition No. 116/12
Unique Case ID : 02406C0147792012
Ms. Surender Kaur
D/o Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o B92, Ambedkar Colony
Chhattarpur, New Delhi110030 ..... Petitioner
Petition No. 117/12
Unique Case ID : 02406C0147782012
Sh. Joginder Singh
S/o Late Sh. S Balwant Singh
(Since deceased through his Legal Heirs)
1. Jaspal Kaur (Daughter)
W/o Sh. Kulwant Singh
R/o H No. Krishna Colony,
Ramgarh, Alwar, Rajasthan
2. Balbir Kaur (Daughter)
W/o Sh. Sukbir Singh
R/o Village Ghanda,
Tehsil Ratia, Fatehabad, Haryana
Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 1 of 27
Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh
3. Mrs. Prem Kaur (Daughter)
W/o Sh.Ikbal Singh
R/o H No. 4/11 Pocket 12
Sector 82 NOIDA
4. Mrs. Manjeet Kaur (Daughter)
W/o Sh. Ranjeet Singh
R/o H No. B 92, Ambedkar Colony,
Chhattarpur, New Delhi110074
5. Mrs. Gurnam Singh (Son)
S/o Late Sh.Joginder Singh
R/o H No. B 92, Ambedkar Colony,
Chhattarpur, New Delhi110074
6. Mrs.Aruna Kaur (Daughter)
W/o Sh. S Gurmukh Singh
R/o H No. 507 Chhattarpur Village,
New Delhi110074
7. Mrs. Surender Kaur (Daughter)
D/o Late Sh.Joginder Singh
R/o H No. B 92, Ambedkar Colony,
Chhattarpur, New Delhi110074
..... Petitioners
Versus
1. Umed Singh
S/o Sh. Momen Ram
R/o V& PO Jagloan, Distt. Hissar (HR) ..... Driver
2. Sh. Varun S/o Sh. Balwant Godara
R/o Juglana Tehsil & District
Hissar, (Haryana) ..... Owner
Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 2 of 27
Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh
3. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Amba Deep Building
14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
Connaught Place, New Delhi110001 ..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 30.05.2012
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 20.12.2015
Date of pronouncement : 08.01.2016
J U D G M E N T
1 The above named petitioners filed the above mentioned three petitions, under section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claiming compensation for the following :
(i) Injuries sustained by Sh. Gurnam Singh and the death of his wife Smt. Varsha, in Petition No. 115/12 ( amount claimed Rs. 1 Crore 10 Lacs )
(ii) Injuries sustained by Smt. Surender Kaur in Petition No. 116/12 (amount claimed Rs. 50 Lacs)
(iii) Death of Smt. Maya w/o of Sh. Joginder Singh and injuries sustained by Sh. Joginder Singh in Petition No. 117/12 (amount claimed is Rs. 35 Lacs) 2 It is submitted that all the petitioners along with the Smt. Maya and Smt.Varsha were travelling in their Vehicle i.e. Car No. DL 3CV 1014 being driven by Sh. Gurnam Singh which met with an accident on 15.12.2011 at about 8:30 Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 3 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh Am, at Gonda Near Pul, Fatehabad, when the same was hit by one Essar Tanker bearing No. HR 39 B 5296 which was allegedly being driven in a very rash and negligent manner. As per petitioners the offending vehicle came from Hissar side and hit their car from there, they were taken to Agroha Medical College by the police and that the driver of the offending vehicle ran from the spot after leaving the vehicle at the spot only. A criminal case was registered vide FIR no. 406 dated 15.12.2011 with PS Sadar Fatehabad, U/s 279/337 IPC on the same day. Their MLC were prepared at Maharaja Agrasen Medical College, Agroha dated 15.12.2011. It is further submitted that the petitioner became permanent disabled due to the said accident and under treatment since the date of the date of accident. Petitioner Gurnam Singh was driving his own vehicle at the time of his accident. Hence, this claim.
3 The petition was contested by the respondent No.1 i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle stating that he met with no accident on the said date and false FIR was registered against him and his vehicle has been falsely implicated. It is stated that on the date of accident Sh. Varun S/o Sh. Balwan Godra, was the owner of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4 Respondent No. 2 also filed WS taking the similar grounds as that of Respondent No.1.
5 Respondent No.3 i.e. Insurance Company, filed their WS denying the allegations of the petition in general. The insurance company admitted that the Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 4 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh vehicle i.e. Essar Tanker bearing No. HR 39 B 5296, was insured with them at the time of the accident and stated that the claim is exaggerated . 6 From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 21.03.2013 :
1. Whether Gurnam Singh and Surender kaur, sustained injuries and Smt. Maya and Smt. Varsha died due to accident on 15.12.2011 at 5:30 Pm at GT Road, Under PS Sadar Fatehabad, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 of the Vehicle Essar Tanker bearing No. HR 39 B 5296 owned by respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent No.3 ?
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom?
3. Relief 7 In petitioner's Evidence, petitioner examined following witnesses in Petition No. 115/12:
(i) Sh. Gurnam Singh as PW1 who filed his affidavit in his examination in chief reiterating therein the contents of petition, he proved Form 16 of his wife as Ex. PW1/A, Copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/1, his MLC and PM report of his wife Smt. Varsha as Ex. PW1/2, medical bills as Ex. PW1/3 (Colly 9 bills), marriage certificate as Ex. PW1/4, medical bills of his wife Smt. Varsha Ex. PW1/5 to 14. During his cross examination, he denied all the suggestions given to him. He stated that he has not remarried.
(ii) Sh. Shamim Khan as PW2, HR Officer of Planman Consulting (I) Pvt. Ltd., employer of the deceased Smt. Varsha, who stated that she had worked in their company from 21.06.2010 to 30.09.2011. Form16 and salary Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 5 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh slip for the month of June and July 2011 were proved on record as Ex.PW1/A and Ex. PW2/A & B, relieving letter as Ex. PW2/B, Salary Slip from July 2011 to September 2011 as Ex. PW2/C, respectively. He admitted that on the date of accident she was not working with their company as she resigned on 30.09.2011.
(iii) Sh. Vivek Aggarwal as PW3, Manager Legal, with Net Ambit Employer of petitioner Sh. Gurnam Singh who proved on record the appointment letter, salary certificate, one letter dated 03.02.2014 containing the details of service award as Ex. PW3/1 to PW3/3. During his cross examination that 2,000 employees are working in the said company. He stated that injured resigned on 14.06.2011 who was on probation. The petitioner at the stage of final arguments on being asked by the court filed copies of certain documents regarding work experience of his wife Smt. Varsha, her statement of account and salary statement etc. 8 In petition No. 116/12, the petitioner (i) Smt. Surender Kaur examined herself as PW1 who filed her affidavit in her examination in chief reiterating therein the contents of the petition with respect to the manner of the accident proving on record the FIR no. 406/11 as Ex.PW1/1, her MLC and discharge as Ex. PW1/2, the medical bills of Rs. 65,160/ as Ex.PW1/3, her voter I card as Ex.PW1/4, the certificate issued by Sh.Sant Nagpal Vocational Training Centre with respect to her employment as Ex.PW1/5, copy of her ration card as Ex.PW1/6.
(ii) Sh. Kirpal Singh principal Sh.Sant Nagpal Vocational Training Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 6 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh Centre, Chhattarpur, New Delhi was examined as PW2 who proved on record the attendance register of the period of January 2010 to November 2011 according to which she remained on leave from 04.11.2011 to 30.11.2011 i.e. Ex PW2/A. One original letter No. CNVTS/Staff dated 07.05.2012 was proved as Ex. PW2/B mentioning that she was working as Computer Instructor, giving theory and practical classes on regular basis for basic computer students (salary was not mentioned). During his cross examination he stated that she was getting salary of Rs. 3,300/ per month and that she is still employed with them.
The petitioner in the present case, at the stage of final arguments on being asked by the court filed copies of certain documents regarding her education qualification.
9 In petition No. 117/12 the petitioner Sh. Joginder Singh examined himself as PW1 who filed his affidavit in his examination in chief reiterating therein the contents of the petition, proved on record the copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/1, his MLC as Ex. PW1/2, I Card of the deceased as Ex.PW1/3, PM report of Smt. Maya as Ex. PW1/4, his ration card as Ex. PW1/5, his PPO Book as Ex. PW1/6 as he is retired Govt. Employee.
10 In respondents evidence, (recorded in the main petition No. 115/12) respondent No.1 Sh. Umed Singh examined himself as RW1 who filed his affidavit in his examination in chief reiterating his stand and stating that he was having a valid and effective license on the date of accident, which was Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 7 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh impounded in criminal court at Fatehabad which was issued from RTA Hissar on 03.04.1996. He stated that he is still employed with Sh. Varun Godra i.e. Respondent No.2.
11 Respondent No.2 examined himself as RW2 who filed his affidavit in his examination in chief, proving on record the insurance cover note , certificate of fitness, State Permit, National Permit, RC, as Ex. RW2/1 and RW2/2 (Colly). 12 Disability certificate dated 18.09.2013, of Sh. Gurnam Singh was placed on record issued by Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital as per the directions of the courts, which states that Sh. Gurnam Singh has suffered a temporary disability of 90 % of both lower limbs. His condition is progressive and is likely to improve, for which the reassessment is to be done after one year but the petitioner did not go for reassessment.
13 I have heard the arguments and perused the record. My issue wise findings are as follows:
Issue No. 1. Whether Gurnam Singh and Surender kaur, sustained injuries and Smt. Maya and Smt. Varsha died due to accident on 15.12.2011 at 5:30 Pm at GT Road, Under PS Sadar Fatehabad, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 of the Vehicle Essar Tanker bearing No. HR 39 B 5296 owned by respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent No.3 ?
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 technicality Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 8 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh 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. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
In order to discharge burden of proving negligence on the part of respondent No.1, petitioner has examined the above mentioned petitioners, in their respective claims, wherein they specifically claimed that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and except general denial, the respondent No.1 has not come up with anything that he was not negligent or as to in what manner the accident took place and the testimonies of the petitioners in this regard remained unrebutted throughout. It is also a matter of fact that a charge sheet has been filed against Respondent No.1 U/s 279/304 A /338 IPC, where he is contesting the matter. The filing of Charge sheet against the respondent No.1 after a detailed investigation , which had not been disputed by respondent No.1 in itself carries a presumption of negligence on the part of respondent No.1 as decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ''National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pushpa Rana'' reported as 2009 ACJ 287 wherein it was held that whenever criminal proceedings are placed on record on completion of investigation by the police, then that in itself is sufficient proof of the Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 9 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
Hence, in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and the discussed law, this issue stands decided in favour of the petitioners.
14 Issue No.2: To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom?
The above mentioned petitions are being decided separately herein below: I) Petition No. 115/12: Claim of Sh. Gurnam Singh with respect to the injuries suffered by him.
The petitioners being the injured shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 wherein it was held that "the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, makes it clear that award must be just, which means that the compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately, restore the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as well as money can do so in a fair and equitable manner, and the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequence is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury, this means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 10 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh earn or could have earned".
It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R. D. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that : "Broadly speaking, while fixing the 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 are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary 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 up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
In routine personal injury cases, compensation is awarded only under Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 11 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh heads of medical treatment, loss of earning during the period of treatment, and damages for pain and suffering but serious cases of injury, all other above mentioned heads can also be attracted. The damages under all the heads has to be assessed separately as pecuniary or non pecuniary damages. As far as the pecuniary damages are concerned, they are just reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. As far as non pecuniary damages are concerned, in its very nature the fixation of any amount under such heads involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy link with the nature of the disability caused, but all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards, as decided in Nagappa Vs. Gurdayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274.
If we see the present case, i.e. with respect to the injuries sustained by Sh. Gurnam Singh, he had suffered a fracture in his left pelvic region (SI Point Disection) with deep internal pubic rami (left side ) with foot drop with comminuted fracture COF (left) with fracture NOF (Right), with chest injury and fracture Tibial right side. For all the above mentioned medical condition, he had undergone multiple operations by repeated hospitalization from 15.12.2011 to 22.12.2011 (Bill of Rs. 58,500/), 23.12.2011 to 05.01.2012 ( Bill of Rs. 1,01,800/), 19.02.2012 to 23.02.2012 (Bill of Rs. 13,500/). Originals of the hospital bills are not placed on record. He has also placed on record original medical bills for purchase of Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 12 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh medicines of Rs. 64,099/ . The genuinity of the same has not been disputed by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled under the following heads:
(i) MEDICAL BILLS : Under this head, the petitioner's claim for Rs. 82,850/ is allowed on the basis of original bills only, which has been rounded off to Rs. 82,900/.
(ii) PAIN AND SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
The claimant remained admitted in the hospital on three occasions. He sustained multiple fractures in the lower portion of his body. He has suffered pain and trauma due to the injuries. Keeping in view the injuries he sustained and the treatment he underwent, I award Rs. 1,00,000/ to the claimant towards Pain and Sufferings and enjoyment of life.
(iii)SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
The claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident. As per the medical record he remained on intensive treatment for about 3 ½ months and He was advised special diet for early recovery. The injuries on his person were such that he must have taken the help of attendant for his daily routine for at least 5 months. Keeping in view all these facts, I award Rs. 75,000/ to the claimant towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
(iv) LOSS OF INCOME :
The petitioner examined his employer as PW3 who proved on record the Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 13 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh appointment letter, salary certificate showing his salary to be Rs. 26,158/ per month, one letter dated 03.02.2014 containing the details of service award as Ex. PW3/1 to PW3/3. He stated that the injured resigned on 14.06.2011 who was on probation. Accordingly, in the absence of any rebuttal on this issue I take his salary as alleged by the petitioner. As per medical record, he was under treatment for about 4 months, and having regard to the nature of injuries, I can assume that he would not have been able to resume his job for at least 6 months period. Accordingly, looking into the injuries and the treatment taken by him I award Rs. 1,56,948/ which is rounded off to Rs. 1,57,000/ to the petitioner towards loss of income @ Rs. 26,158/ p.m. for 6 months.
(v) LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME : The petitioner has placed on record one disability certificate mentioning the disability of 90 % in relation to his both lower limbs issued by Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital as per the directions of the courts, which states that Sh. Gurnam Singh has suffered a temporary disability of 90 % of both lower limbs. His condition is progressive and is likely to improve, for which the reassessment is to be done after one year but the petitioner did not go for reassessment. In these circumstances, the disability of the petitioner cannot be assessed, though it is seen in the court that the petitioner is still moving with the help of support, therefore, in these circumstances I am of the opinion that petitioner may suffer permanent disability in near future, Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 14 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh and on considering the case law of Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Parsanth S Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC, Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors (2011) 1 SCC 343, and Govind Yadav Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (2) Scale 336, and Sanjay Batham Vs. Munna Lal Parihar & Orss J T 2011 (13) SC 32 and in totality of circumstances, I award a lump sum amount of Rs. 8 Lakh to the petitioner.
(vi) LOSS OF AMENITIES AND MARRIAGE PROSPECTS: Needless to say that on account of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, on one hand he lost his wife in the same accident, and on the other hand, his future marriage prospects are jeopardize as he became disabled. Looking into his age, injuries and facts and circumstances of the case, I award a compensation of Rs. 1 Lacs towards loss of Amenities and Rs. 1 Lakhs towards of Marriage Prospects.
In view of the above mentioned findings the petitioner shall be entitled for the following claims : Sl. No. Head Amount 1 Pain & Suffering 1,00,000/ 2 Special diet, Conveyance & Attendant Charges 75,000/ 3 Medical Bills of Treatment & Medicines 82,900/ 4 Loss of Income during the treatment period. 1,57,000/ 5 Loss of Future Income Rs. 8,00,000/ 6 Loss of Amenities and marriage prospects Rs. 2 ,00,000/ Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 15 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh Total Rs.14,14,900/ II) Claim of Gurnam Singh against the death of his wife Smt. Varsha in Petition No. 115/12: As per the settled law by way of various judgments, the claimant shall be entitled for the following claims under non pecuniary head: Sl. Head Amount No. 1 Love & Affection 1,00,000/ 2 Loss of Consortium 1,00,000/ 3 Funeral expenses 25,000/ 4 Loss of Estate 10,000/ Total 2,35,000/ As far as the pecuniary heads are concerned, i.e. the loss of dependency and medical bills, the same are granted on the basis of calculation, hence, are being dealt with herein below:
(i) Loss of Dependency: It is an admitted case of the petitioner that at the time of accident, his wife was not working, though as per him she was working earlier and in order to prove the said fact, PW2 was examined i.e. the employer of the deceased Smt. Varsha, who deposed that the deceased had worked with them for the period of 21.06.2010 to 30.09.2011, and she was drawing a salary of Rs. Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 16 of 27
Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh 27,504/ per month. As per petitioner his marriage with the deceased was solemnized on 19.11.2011 and because of the preparations of marriage, she had left her job as in private jobs such long leaves are not given and she had all the plans to work again after some time of the marriage. Therefore, it can be safely assumed, that had the accident not happened, she would have contributed to the family like any other earning member and that is why her income should be taken as Rs. 27,500/ per month at the time of her death.
On the other hand it is argued on behalf of the insurance company that it is an admitted position that she was not earning anything at the time of accident therefore, her status can only be taken as of a house wife.
I have heard the arguments and have perused the record. Having regard to the present social and economic conditions of our country and the general prevailing attitude of our youth, it is hard to believe that a person who was earning around Rs. 27,000/ per month and is a educated person would not have worked after her marriage, had she been alive. Her contribution towards the family in monetary terms in my opinion, can always be taken at the rate of her last drawn salary of Rs. 27,500/. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per the employment record placed on record by the petitioner, the deceased started working in November 2005 and till 2011, she had worked in three companies such as Mc. Donald, Max Newyork Life and IIPM, and there was a break of around 1 and ½ year Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 17 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh between 02.02.2007 to 15.09.2008 and there had been increase in her salary from Rs. 4,000/ per month to Rs. 26,581/ in the span of five years. All these facts shows her progressive attitude towards life and work and it shows that she was not working on casual basis, and she was a sincere worker, therefore, it can assume safely that after some time of marriage, she would have definitely worked and contributed to the family in monetary terms also. Therefore, the financial loss to the family on account of the death of the petitioner's wife can be calculated on the basis of her approximate last drawn salary @ Rs. 25,000/ per month. As both the members of the family were earning and are of young age, and they were not financially dependent upon each other for day to day needs, in strict sense though, both of them must have contributed to the family in making their house like any other normal couple but having regard to the present general thought process of the youth, it can be safely assumed that she would have spend 1/2 of her income on her own, therefore, a deduction of Rs. 12,500/ is to be made from her salary. Hence, the total monthly financial loss comes to Rs. 12,500/. Having regard to her age the future prospects are to be added @ 50% which come to Rs. 12,500/ , hence, the total monthly loss is calculated Rs.25,000/ . Having regard to her age (26 years) a multiplier of 17 would be applicable, therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.51,00,000/ (Rs, 25,000 X 12 X 17). Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 18 of 27
Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh
(ii) Medical Expenses: The petitioner has placed on record the original bills of the treatment of deceased Smt. Varsha as Ex. PW1/3 of approximately Rs.37,300/ accordingly, same is granted on actuals. Accordingly, the total amount for which petitioner Gurnam Singh is entitled on account of the death of his wife Smt. Varsha comes to Rs. 53,72,300/.
III) Claim of Ms. Surinder Kaur on account of the injuries suffered by her in the accident (in petition No. 116/12) : It is an admitted position that Ms. Surinder Kaur, did not suffer any permanent disablement, hence, in view of the above mentioned judgment, she would be entitled for the compensation under the following heads as follows:
(i) Medical Expenses : The petitioner has placed on record a hospital bill of Rs.45,000/, and bills of Rs.7,514/ for the purchase of medicines and Bills of Rs. 9,500/ for medical tests such as CT Scan etc. . Hence, the same are being given on actuals which comes to Rs. 62,014/ which was rounded off to Rs. 62,100/.
(ii) Special Diet, Attendant and Conveyance Charges: As per the discharge summary, she was advised with some special diet, but the details of the same were not provided. After her discharged, she was Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 19 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh not requiring the services of any attendant in view of the nature of injuries suffered by her, nor she would have spend anything on conveyance charges. In these circumstances, in the absence of any evidence, a sum of Rs. 10,000/ is granted under this head.
(iii) Pain & Suffering : As per the Discharge Summary she suffered facial wounds and some foreign particles small glass pieces, and bony fragments were to be removed by operation. Her frontal sinus was broken and was badly contaminated. The foreign particles were also removed from the sinus portion and was advised bed rest and some special diet. She was discharged after 6 days i.e. on 21.12.2011. There are no pleadings and evidence to the effect that she suffered any disfigurement of her face. In view of the above mentioned facts, she is granted Rs. 50,000/ as compensation under this head.
(iv) Loss of Income: The employer of the injured Sh. Kirpal Singh i.e. PW2, admitted that she was getting Rs. 3,300/ per month as salary. He did not place on record the leave record of the petitioner. Even the petitioner did not place on record any supporting document, with respect to her salary as claimed by her @ Rs. 7,000/ per month (in petition). In the absence of any evidence in this regard, and in view of the injuries suffered by her, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would meet, if she is granted compensation of Rs. 7,000/ in lump Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 20 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh sum.
In view of the above mentioned considerations, the claimant Smt. Surinder Kaur, shall be entitled for the following amounts as compensation under the above mentioned heads: Sl. Head Amount No. 1 Medical Expenses 62,100/ 2 Special Diet, Attendant and Conveyance Charges. 10,000/ 3 Pain & Suffering 50,000/ 4 Loss of income 7,000/ Total 1,29,100/ IV) Claim of Sh. Joginder Singh (through his 7 legal heirs) on account of death of his wife Smt. Maya Devi, mother of present petitioners (in petition No. 117/12) : As per the settled law by way of various judgments, the claimant shall be entitled for the following claims under non pecuniary head: Sl. Head Amount No. 1 Love & Affection 1,00,000/ 2 Funeral expenses 25,000/ Total 1,25,000/ Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 21 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh As far as the pecuniary heads are concerned, i.e. the loss of dependency and medical bills, the same are granted on the basis of calculation. In the present case, there are no medical bills except one OPD charge receipt of Rs. 2,000/ which were paid in cash, hence, the same is being granted on actuals. hence, are being dealt with herein below:
(i)Loss of Dependency: Admittedly the deceased was a house wife and was of the age of around 60 years at the time of the accident. The computation of loss of dependency for housewife is to be calculated in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled "Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manmeet Singh, 2012 ACJ 721". Hon'ble High Court in para 34 has passed guidelines to calculate the loss of dependency in case of death of housewife.
"34. To sum up, the loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife shall be :
(i) Minimum salary of a graduate where she is a graduate.
(ii) Minimum salary of a matriculate where she is matriculate.
(iii) Minimum salary of a nonmatriculate in other cases.
(iv) There will be an addition of 25% in the assumed income in (i), (ii) and
(iii) where the age of the homemaker is upto 40 years; the increase will be restricted to 15% where her age is above 40 years but less than 50 years;
there will not be any addition in the assumed salary where the age is more than 50 years.
(v) When the deceased homemaker is above 55 years but less than 60 years; there will be deduction of 25% and when the deceased homemaker is above 60 years there will be deduction of 50% in the assumed income as the services rendered decrease substantially. Normally, the value of gratuitous services rendered will be NIL (unless there is evidence to Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 22 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh the contrary) when the homemaker is above 65 years..... ....(viii) As an attempt has been made to compensate the loss of dependency, only a notional sum which be upto Rs. 25,000/ (on present scale of the money value) towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/ towards loss of consortium, if the husband is alive, may be awarded.
(ix) Since a homemaker is not working and thus not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss of estate. As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, as per the ration Card placed on record i.e. Ex.PW1/5, the year of birth of the deceased was 1943, so on the date of accident i.e. on 15.12.2011, she was around 68 years old. In view of the above mentioned judgment. No amount towards loss of dependency is awarded to the petitioners. Even otherwise, her husband has expired during the trial and their children cannot be termed as dependent upon the mother since they all are major and married.
Accordingly, the total amount for which 7 petitioners/ Legal Heirs are entitled on account of the death of Smt. Maya Devi comes to Rs. 1,27,000/ ( Rs. One Lac Twenty Seven Thousand Only) to be distributed among themselves in equal proportion.
R E L I E F 14 For the sake of convenience the above mentioned reliefs granted to the petitioner are being reproduced herein below: In Petition No. 115/12 : Claim of Gurnam Singh on account of injuries Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 23 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh suffered by him Rs.14,14,900/ as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation of the amount. In Petition No. 115/12 : Claim of Gurnam Singh on account of death of his wife Smt. Varsha, Rs. 53,72,300/ as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation of the amount. In Petition No. 116/12 : Claim of Surender Kaur on account of injuries suffered by her , Rs. 1,29,100/ as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation of the amount. In Petition No. 117/12 : Claim of Joginder Singh, through his Seven LR's as mentioned above, Rs. 1,27,000/ as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation of the amount. 15 In petition No. 115/12, the total claim of Gurnam Singh Comes to Rs. 67,87,200/, out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 60 Lacs shall be converted into FDRs in following manner.
Sl. Petitioner Principal Amount entitled Amount to be Duration
No. converted into FDR
1 Sh.Gurnam Singh Rs 60 Lacs 5 lac 2yrs.
10 lac 4yrs
balance Rs. 7,87,200/ shall be
deposited in his MACT Account 10 lac 6yrs
for his immediate use. 10 lac 7yrs
25 lac 10 yrs
Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 24 of 27
Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh
L I A B I L I T Y
16 As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 therefore,
primary liability to compensate the petitioners remain with that of respondent no. 1. Since the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 so, he is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 & 2 and hence, to compensate the petitioners for the above mentioned amount. 17 Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
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, Insurance Company 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 no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
18 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: Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 25 of 27 Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners without the permission of this Court.
(iv) 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 .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(vii)Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(viii)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.
(ix) 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.
(x) The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimants at the time of preparation of FDRs.
(xi)The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the insurance company 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.
Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 26 of 27
Gurnam Singh Vs. Umed Singh DIRECTIONS FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY/RESPONDENT NO.3 19 The Respondent no.3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
20 The respondent no.3 shall intimate to the claimants / petitioners about its 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.
21 Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for compliance. 22 The case is now fixed for compliance by the insurance company for 08.02.2016.
Announced in the open court
on 8th Day of January, 2016 (NAVEEN ARORA)
Presiding Officer : MACT
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi
Petition No. : 49/14 Page No. 27 of 27