Delhi District Court
Smt. Riya vs Sh. Amarjeet Singh on 19 July, 2018
MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5201/16 (Old MAC Petition No. 404/14)
1. Smt. Riya
Widow of Late Sh. Amit
(Widow of deceased)
2. Ms. Mahi Sachdeva
D/o Late Sh. Amit
(Minor daughter of deceased)
3. Sh. Harsh Sachdeva
S/o Late Sh. Amit
(Minor son of deceased)
4. Smt. Prem
W/o Sh Naresh Kumar
(Mother of deceased)
5. Sh Naresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Puran Parkash
(Father of deceased)
All R/o H. No.172/21, Khanna Road,
Kishan Pura, Panipat, Haryana.
(Petitioners no. 2 & 3 being minors, are represented through their
Mother Riya/Natural Guardian/petitioner no. 1)
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Amarjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Nishant Singh
R/o L24, Gali N. 24,
(Regd owner)
2. SBI General Insurance Co Ltd.
7B, Ground Floor, Pusa Road,
Opposite Rachna Cinema,
Metro Pillar No. 153, Rajendra Park,
New Delhi60
(Insurer)
Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 30
MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018
3. Sh Bhola
(Now deceased)
Represented by his Lrs namely:
(i) Smt. Nirmala
Widow of Late Bhola
(ii) Smt. Prabha Wati
Mother of Late Bhola
(iii) Sh Lal Bihari
Father of Late Bhola
All R/o Village Sherpur, Bajurg
Jahanaganj, District Ajamgarh, U.P.
(Lrs of deceased driver)
...............Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 4814/16 (Old MAC Petition No. 406/14)
1. Smt. Mohini Devi
Widow of Late Sh. Charanjit Singh
(Widow of deceased)
2. Sh Sharanjeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Charanjit Singh
(Son of deceased)
3. Sh. Gurpreet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Charanjit Singh
(Minor son of deceased)
4. Ms. Harpreet Kaur
D/o Late Sh. Charanjit Singh
(Minor daughter of deceased)
All R/o H. No. 294, Bhawanipur, Distt. Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
(Petitioners no. 2 & 4 being minors, are represented through their
Mother Mohini Devi/Natural Guardian/petitioner no. 1)
.....Petitioners
Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 30
MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018
VERSUS
1. Sh. Amarjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Nishant Singh
R/o L24, Gali N. 24,
(Regd owner)
2. SBI General Insurance Co Ltd.
7B, Ground Floor, Pusa Road,
Opposite Rachna Cinema,
Metro Pillar No. 153, Rajendra Park,
New Delhi60
(Insurer)
3. Sh Bhola
(Now deceased)
Represented by his Lrs namely:
(i) Smt. Nirmala
Widow of Late Bhola
(ii) Smt. Prabha Wati
Mother of Late Bhola
(iii) Sh Lal Bihari
Father of Late Bhola
All R/o Village Sherpur, Bajurg
Jahanaganj, District Ajamgarh, U.P.
(Lrs of deceased driver)
...............Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 5200/16 (Old MAC Petition No. 405/14)
1. Sh Himanshu
S/o Sh Bhola Dutt Pandey
R/o H.No. 1494, near Bhawna Clinic,
Deshraj Colony, Panipat, Haryana.
.........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Amarjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Nishant Singh
R/o L24, Gali N. 24,
(Regd owner)
Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 30
MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018
2. SBI General Insurance Co Ltd.
7B, Ground Floor, Pusa Road,
Opposite Rachna Cinema,
Metro Pillar No. 153, Rajendra Park,
New Delhi60
(Insurer)
3. Sh Bhola
(Now deceased)
Represented by his Lrs namely:
(i) Smt. Nirmala
Widow of Late Bhola
(ii) Smt. Prabha Wati
Mother of Late Bhola
(iii) Sh Lal Bihari
Father of Late Bhola
All R/o Village Sherpur, Bajurg
Jahanaganj, District Ajamgarh, U.P.
(Lrs of deceased driver)
...............Respondents
Date of Institution : 11.09.2014
Date of Arguments : 19.07.2018
Date of Decision : 19.07.2018
APPEARANCES: Sh. Anoop Pandey Adv for petitioners.
Sh. R.B Saini Adv for petitioners.
Sh V.K Sharma Adv for respondent no.1.
Sh Kapil Chawla Adv for respondent no. 2.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of all these three claim
petitions with regard to fatal injuries sustained by Amit (MACP No. 5201/16),
and Charanjeet Singh (MACP No. 4814/16) and grievous injuries sustained by
petitioner/injured Himanshu (MACP No. 5200/16) in Motor Vehicular Accident
Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 30
MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018
which occurred on 10.07.2014 at about 1:30 am at GT Road Flyover, Murthal,
Sonipat, involving Canter vehicle bearing registration no. DL1M4504 (alleged
offending vehicle) being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver
namely Amarjeet Singh (R1 herein).
2. All these three claim petitions were consolidated for the purpose
of recording evidence vide order dated 13.01.2017 passed by my Ld.
Predecessor and MACP No. 5201/16 titled as " Smt. Riya & Ors. Vs.
Amarjeet Singh & Ors" was treated as the leading case. Accordingly, the
evidence was led on behalf of both the sides in the leading case for the
purpose of these matters.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. According to the claim petitions filed in all the three cases, Amit (since expired) alongwith Charanjeet Singh (since expired), Himanshu, Sanjay and other persons were standing on flyover Murthal, GT Road, PS Murthal, Sonipat, Haryana, where some other persons were quarreling over some issue. In the meanwhile Canter vehicle bearing no. DL1M4504, which was being driven by driver namely Bhola (since deceased) in rash and negligent manner and without taking necessary precautions and without proper look outs and violating the traffic rules, came and hit against the parked Canter No. PB08BL4484 from its back side as well as against Amit, Charanjeet Singh and Himanshu and other persons with great force. As a result thereof, Amit sustained grievous /crush injuries, whereas Charanjeet Singh & Himanshu sustained grievous injuries. They were removed to District Hospital, Sonipat. During their treatment, Amit and Charanjeet Singh were declared dead. They were medically examined vide separate MLCs. FIR No. 206/14 U/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS Murthal, Sonipat with regard to the accident in question.
4. It is averred in MACP No. 5201/16 that Amit was aged about 25 years old; he was working as Mobile Mechanic and was earning Rs. 15,000/ Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 to Rs. 20,000/ per month at the time of accident in question. The petitioners are his widow, minor children and parents. All the petitioners were dependent upon the income of deceased. A sum of Rs. 50,000/ was incurred on transportation, funeral and last rites of deceased. The petitioners have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/ (under pecuniary as well as non pecuniary heads) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum against all the respondents on the ground that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
5. It is averred in MACP No. 4814/16 that Charanjeet Singh was about 44 years old; he was working as driver and was earning Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 20,000/ per month at the time of accident in question. The petitioners have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/ (under pecuniary as well as non pecuniary heads) alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. against the respondents.
6. It is averred in MACP No. 5200/16 that Himanshu was about 25 years old; he was working as salesman of mobile and its parts and was earning Rs. 10,000/ to Rs. 15,000/ per month at the time of accident in question. The petitioner has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/ (under pecuniary as well as non pecuniary heads) alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. against the respondents.
7. Respondent no. 1 regd owner has filed separate but identical WS in all the three cases, wherein he has disputed the factum of accident as well as the factum of involvement of Canter vehicle bearing no. DL1M4504 in any such accident. He has claimed that it is merely a co incident that accident had already taken place between two or three vehicles and the involved persons were quarreling with each other without caring for the flow of traffic in the night on busy DelhiChandigarh highway, when driver of Canter vehicle bearing no. DL1M4504 was also going on the said high way at that time. He Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 has admitted that the said vehicle was owned by him. He has claimed that despite best efforts made by his driver, he could not succeed to avoid the collision with the already involved vehicles and thus, there was no rash or negligent driving on the part of his driver. On merits, he has denied the averments made in the claim petition for want of knowledge and has reiterated that the accident had already taken place due to collision of three vehicles. He further claimed that his driver namely Bhola had also died in the accident and Canter vehicle bearing no. DL1M4504 was duly insured with respondent no. 2 during the period in question. He also claimed that at the time of employing Bhola as driver for said vehicle, he had taken his driving test and had also assessed his driving skill and was satisfied with the same and had also seen his DL which was belived to be original one. Hence, he has no liability to pay the compensation amount. Based on these averments, he has prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.
8. Respondent no. 2/insurance company has filed its separate but identical WS in all the three cases, wherein it has raised statutory defence as provided in Section 149(2) M.V Act. It has admitted that Canter vehicle bearing no. DL1M4504 was insured with it in the name of respondent no. 1 during the period in question. However, it has denied the averments made in the claim petition for want of knowledge.
9. It may be noted here that driver namely Bhola was reported to have expired and his Lrs were impleaded on record vide order dt. 30.09.2015 passed by my Ld. Predecessor. However, Lrs of respondent no. 3 i.e. of deceased driver failed to file their WS despite grant of repeated opportunities and their defence was struck off vide order dt. 13.07.16.
10. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 5201/16 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13.07.2016 :
1) Whether the deceased Amit suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 10.07.2014 at Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 1.30 am on GT Road, flyover, Murthal, Sonepat within the jurisdiction of PS Murthal, Sonepat due to rashness and negligence on the part of the Late Sh Bhola who was driving Canter bearing registration no. DL1M4504, owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
11. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 4814/16 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13.07.2016 :
1) Whether the deceased Sh Charanjeet Singh suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 10.07.2014 at 1.30 am on GT Road, flyover, Murthal, Sonepat within the jurisdiction of PS Murthal, Sonepat due to rashness and negligence on the part of the Late Sh Bhola who was driving Canter bearing registration no. DL1M4504, owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no. 2? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
12. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 5200/16 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13.07.2016 :
1) Whether the injured Himanshu suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 10.07.2014 at 1.30 am on GT road, flyover, Murthal, Sonepat within the jurisdiction of PS Murthal, Sonepat due Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 to rashness and negligence on the part of the Late Sh Bhola who was driving Canter bearing registration no. DL1M4501, owned by R1 and insured with R2?OPP
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?OPP
3) Relief.
13. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined four witnesses i.e. PW1 Ms. Riya (widow of deceased Amit), PW2 Sh. Naresh Kumar (father of deceased Amit), PW3 Sh. Himanshu (Injured in MACP No. 5200/16) and PW4 Smt. Mohini (widow of deceased Charanjit Singh). Counsel for petitioners closed evidence on 25.08.17. On the other hand, no evidence has been adduced by either of the respondents. Their RE was closed on the same date i.e. 25.08.17 through their respective counsels.
14. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld counsels for the parties. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form IV A/IV B but they have not submitted the same on record. My findings on the issues are as under: ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN ALL THE THREE CASES)
15. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW3 Sh HImanshu is relevant. In his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW3/A), he has deposed on the lines of averments made in the claim petitions to the effect that on 10.07.2014 at about 1.30 AM, he alongwith Charanjeet Singh, Amit Kumar, Sanjay and other persons were standing at Flyover Murthal, GT Road, where some other persons were quarreling on some issue. In the meantime, Canter bearing registration no. DL1M4504 being driven by its driver Amarjeet Singh at high speed and in rash, negligent manner, came from the side of Delhi and Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 hit against parked Center No. PB08BL4484 from its back and then hit against him, Charanjeet Singh and Amit and other persons with great force. As a result thereof, he received grievous/crush injuries. He was taken to District Hospital, Sonipat by the Ambulance,whereafter, he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak and then to Maharaja Agarsain Hospital, Panipat for further treatment, where he remained admitted from 10.07.14 to 13.07.14. He categorically deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Canter no. DLIM4504 by respondent no. 1. FIR No. 206/14 was registered at PS. Murthal, Sonipat with regard to said accident. He has relied upon the following documents: Serial Description of Remarks No. documents
1. Original medical bills Ex. PW1/1 (colly)
2. Copies of educational Ex.PW1/2 (colly) documents
3. Copy of my Election I Card Ex.PW1/3
4. Copy of my Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/4
16. During his crossexamination, he deposed that he had also sustained injuries on his back and elbow in the accident in question but he was not unconscious after the accident took place. He further deposed that he was standing alongwith three other persons on the road as another accident had already taken place over there. He denied the suggestion that he was also involved in the quarrel which was happening at the place of accident or that he suddenly came in front of Canter vehicle bearing no. DL1M4504 and sustained injuries. He also denied the suggestion that there was no rash or negligent driving on the part of deceased driver namely Bhola. He also denied the suggestion that he was not an eye witness of the accident in question.
Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 30MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018
17. It is evident from the testimony of PW3 namely Sh. Himanshu that the respondents could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross examination and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of crossexamination. Even otherwise, the testimony of this witness inspires confidence as he himself is also shown to have sustained injuries due to the accident. On the other hand, none of the respondents examined any witness in order to rebut the testimony of this witness during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving Canter No. DLIM4504 in rash and negligent manner.
18. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR no. 206/14 u/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS Murthal, Sonipat with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR(which is part of criminal case record Ex PW1/4 Colly), would show that same was registered on the basis of statement of complainant namely Sh. Sanjay S/o Sh Bhagwan Singh. The contents of said FIR would show that he has narrated therein the same sequence of facts which led to the accident in question, as deposed by PW3 Sh Himanshu during the course of inquiry. Furthermore, the said FIR is shown to have been registered on 10.07.2014 i.e. on the date of accident itself. Thus, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and / or false involvement of Canter vehicle No. DL1M4504 at the instance of the petitioners.
19. The very fact that the police has filed final report (which is part of criminal case record Ex PW1/4 Colly) before the Court of Magistrate claiming therein that it was due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. DL1M4504 by its driver namely Bhola (since expired) that the accident in question had occurred, due to which Amit and Charanjeet Singh had sustained Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 fatal injuries and HImanshu had sustained grievous injuries, also points out towards the rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle on the part of driver of the aforesaid vehicle.
20. Not only this, copies of PM reports (which are part of criminal record Ex. PW1/4 colly) of deceased Amit and Charanjeet have been placed on record. Copy of PM Report of deceased Amit would reveal that his cause of death is opined due to multiple injuries and fractures at multiple parts of body leading to hemorrhagic shock leading to death, which is due to heavy vehicle. Likewise, the copy of PM Report of deceased Charanjeet would reveal that his cause of death is also opined due to multiple fractures and head injury in body parts, which led to hemorrhagic shock, which are sufficient to cause death. Apart from this, the MLC (which is part of criminal record Ex PW1/4 colly) of injured Himanshu prepared at District Hospital, Sonipat, would further reveal that he had been removed to said hospital on 10.07.2014 at 2:015 am with alleged history of Road Traffic Accident (RTA). It is mentioned in MLC that he had sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid documents from the side of respondents including insurance company.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that Amit Kumar and Charanjeet Singh had sustained fatal injuries, whereas petitioner/injured Himanshu had sustained grievous injuries in the road accident which took place on 10.07.2017 at about 1.30 am at GT Road Flyover, Murthal, Sonepat, due to negligence on the part of driver of Canter vehicle No. DL1M4504. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in all these claim petitions.
Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 30MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 ISSUE NO.2
22. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
Compensation Amount in MAC Petition No. 5201/16 LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
23. As already stated above, the petitioners in this claim petition have claimed that deceased Amit Kumar was aged 25 years old; he was working as mechanic of mobile repair and Salesman and was earning Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 20,000/ per month at the time of accident in question. The petitioners are widow, minor children and parents of deceased.
24. PW1 Smt. Riya (widow of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) on the lines of averments made in the claim petition as already noted above. She categorically deposed that the petitioners were dependent upon deceased Amit and a sum of Rs. 50,000/ was incurred on transportation and last rites of deceased. She has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of Remarks documents 1. Copy of Aadhar Card Ex PW1/1
2. Copy of Aadhar Card of Ex. PW1/2 Harsh Sachdeva
3. Copy of Aadhar Card of Ex. PW1/3 Mahi Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018
4. Certified copies of Ex. PW1/4 (colly) criminal case record
5. Original Death Certificate Ex PW1/5 of deceased Amit
6. Copy of Ration Card Ex. PW1/6 7. Copy of PAN Card Ex. PW1/7
8. Copy of Aadhar Card of Ex. PW1/8 minor daughter
9. Copy of Aadhar Card of Ex. PW1/9 minor son
25. During her cross examination, she deposed that she is house wife. Deceased was doing business of selling of mobile phones and he also used to sing in Jagran. She admitted not to have filed any document showing that deceased was selling mobile phones or used to sing in Jagran or that deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 20,000/ per month at the time of accident. She further deposed that deceased was 10 th passed but admitted that no document concerning educational qualification of deceased has been filed on record.
26. PW2 namely Sh. Naresh Kumar (father of deceased) has also deposed on identical lines as deposed by PW1. He also deposed that deceased Amit was the only earning member in the family and the petitioners were solely dependent upon the earnings of deceased. He has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of Remarks documents
1. Copy of Death Certificate Ex PW2/1 of deceased
2. Copy of his Election I Ex. PW2/2 Card
3. Copy of his PAN Card Ex. PW2/3 Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018
4. Copy of Election I Card of Ex. PW2/4 Smt. Prem
5. Copy of PAN Card of Sh Ex PW2/5 Madan Lal
27. During his crossexamination, he deposed that he is unemployed. He admitted not to have filed any document showing that deceased was doing work of mechanic of mobile repairing or that he was earning Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 20,000/ per month.
28. During the course of arguments, counsel for petitioners fairly conceded that for want of any cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners regarding monthly income of deceased, his income should be considered as per Minimum Wages Act in order to calculate the loss of dependency. He however argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
29. Apart from bald testimonies of PW1 & PW2 that deceased Amit was earning Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 20,000/ per month at the time of accident, no documentary proof has been brought on record to show that either deceased was working as Mechanic of Mobile Repair or was selling mobile phones or that he was singing in Jagran at the time of accident. No document concerning educational qualification of deceased has been placed on recdord. Hence, the monthly income of deceased has to be assessed as that of unskilled worker under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. The Minimum Wages of an unskilled work were Rs. 8554/ per month at the time of accident, which is 10.07.14.
30. PW1, who is widow of deceased, has categorically testified that age of deceased was 25 years at the time of accident. In copy of PM Report ( which is part of criminal case record Ex. PW1/4 colly), the age of deceased is mentioned as 25 years. The respondents have neither challenged the relevant portion of the testimony of PW1 concerning age of deceased nor they Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 have disputed the age of deceased as mentioned in copy of his PM Report brought on record. They have also not led any evidence in order to controvert the said age of deceased as claimed by the petitioners. Hence, the age of deceased is accepted as 25 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
31. Considering the fact that deceased is claimed to be self employed and there being no cogent evidence that he was having permanent job, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
32. Considering the fact that there were four dependents at the time of accident (there being no cogent evidence that father of deceased was also dependent upon him), there has to be deduction of ¼ th as held in the case of Pranay Sethi mentioned supra. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 19,40,050/ (rounded off) (Rs. 8554 X 3/4 X 140/100 X 12 X
18). Hence, a sum of Rs. 19,40,050/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
33. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra, has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
34. In view of celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra delivered by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ is awarded in favour of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Riya (being widow of deceased) towards loss of consortium.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
35. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 19,40,050/
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses Rs. 30,000/ Total Rs. 20,10,050/ Rounded Off to Rs. 20,10,100/ Compensation Amount in MAC Petition No. 4814/16 LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
36. As already stated above, the petitioners in this claim petition have claimed that deceased Charanjeet Singh was aged 44 years old; he was working as driver and was earning Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 20,000/ per month at the time of accident in question.
37. PW4 Smt. Mohini (widow of deceased) has deposed in her Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW4/A) on the lines of averments made in the claim petition. She categorically deposed that all the petitioners were fully dependent upon the income of deceased who was the only earning member in the family. She has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of Remarks documents
1. Copy of Death Certificate Ex PW4/1 of deceased
2. Copies of Aadhar Card of Ex. PW4/2 deceased Charanjit
3. Copy of her Election I Ex. PW4/3 Card
4. Copy of Birth Certificate Ex. PW4/4 of her minor son Sharnjeet Singh
5. Copy of Birth Certificate Ex PW4/5 of minor son Gurpreet Singh
6. Copy of Ration Card Ex. PW4/6
38. During her cross examination, she deposed that deceased had studied upto 10th class but could not produce any document in this regard. She further deposed that deceased was driver by profession and used to drive heavy vehicles but expressed ignorance as to whether deceased was having any DL in respect of heavy vehicle or not. She admitted not to have filed any document to show that deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 20,000/ per month at the time of accident.
39. During the course of arguments, counsel for petitioners fairly conceded that for want of any cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners regarding monthly income of deceased, his income should be considered as per Minimum Wages Act in order to calculate the loss of Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 dependency. He however argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
40. Apart from bald testimony of PW4 that deceased Charanjeet Singh was earning Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 20,000/ per month at the time of accident, no documentary proof has been brought on record to show that either deceased was professional driver at the time of accident or that he was earning the aforesaid amount. No document concerning educational qualification of deceased has been placed on record. Hence, the monthly income of deceased has to be assessed as that of unskilled worker under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. The Minimum Wages of an unskilled work were Rs. 8554/ per month at the time of accident, which is 10.07.14.
41. PW4, who is widow of deceased, has categorically testified that age of deceased was 44 years at the time of accident. In copy of Aadhar Card( Ex. PW4/2 ), the year of birth of deceased is mentioned as 1970. The respondents have neither challenged the relevant portion of the testimony of PW4 concerning age of deceased nor they have disputed the age of deceased as mentioned in copy of Aadhar Card of deceased brought on record. They have also not led any evidence in order to controvert the said age of deceased as claimed by the petitioners. Hence, the age of deceased is accepted as 44 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 14 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra.
42. Considering the fact that deceased is claimed to be self employed and there being no cogent evidence that he was having permanent job, future prospects @ 25% ( age of deceased being between 40 to 50 years) has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra.
43. Considering the fact that there were four dependents at the time of accident, there has to be deduction of ¼ th as held in the case of Pranay Sethi mentioned supra. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 13,47,255/ (rounded off) (Rs. 8554 X 3/4 X 125/100 X 12 X 14). Hence, a sum of Rs. 13,47,255/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
44. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra, has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
45. In view of celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra delivered by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ is awarded in favour of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Mohini Devi (being widow of deceased) towards loss of consortium.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
46. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 3,47,255
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses Rs. 30,000/ Total Rs. 14,17,255/ Rounded Off to Rs. 14,18,000/ Compensation in MACP No. 5200/16(Injured Himanshu) MEDICAL EXPENSES
47. PW3 Himanshu has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A) that due to the accident in question, he had sustained grievous/crush injuries. He was removed to District Hospital, Sonipat, where he was examined and thereafter, he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak, Sonipat and thereafter, he was taken to Altius Maharaja Agarsain Hospital,Panipat, where he remained hospitalized from 10.07.14 to 13.07.14. He deposed to have spent more than Rs. 50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on his medical treatment. He has relied upon his original medical bills as Ex. PW3/1 colly. During cross examination, he admitted not to have filed Discharge Slips of the concerned hospitals as well as the OPD Receipts or Prescriptions for purchase of medicines in respect of the medical bills relied by him in this case. However, he denied the suggestion that the medical bills ( Ex. PW3/1 colly) are false or fabricated documents.
48. It is quite evident from the aforesaid discussion that apart from bald suggestion given to the witness that his medical bills were forged and fabricated, nothing has been brought on record from the side of respondents to create any doubt on the genuineness and authenticity of said medical bills Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 during the course of inquiry. The injured has filed original medical bills to the tune of Rs. 5885/. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 5885/ is awarded to him under this head.
Loss of Income
49. PW3 Himanshu has deposed that he was working as Salesman of Mobile and mobile parts and was earning Rs. 10,000/ to Rs. 15,000/ per month at the time of accident. He further deposed that due to accident, he could not attend his duty for considerable period. During his cross examination, he deposed that he had studied upto 12 th class and he was working in Telcom company at the time of accident. He however could not produce any documentary proof concerning his monthly salary. He denied the suggestion that he was not working anywhere or that he was not earning the aforesaid amount per month at the time of accident.
50. During the course of arguments, counsel for injured argued that the injured has suffered loss of income as he could not attend his duty as Salesman for considerable period. He also submitted that the nature of injury sustained by Himanshu is grievous and therefore, appropriate compensation amount may be awarded to him. However, no cogent or definite evidence has been led by injured to prove the exact nature of injuries sustained by him or the exact period till which he could attend his duty. Apart from the fact that affidavit in evidence (Ex. PW3/A) of injured is completely silent on this aspect, he also failed to examine his employer for producing the relevant leave record to show the period of his absence from duty on account of injuries sustained by him due to the accident.
51. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner remained admitted in Altius Maharaja Agarsain Hospital, Panipat from 10.07.14 to 13.07.14. Even thereafter, he visited the said hospital as OPD patient from time to time. Copies of his Discharge Summary as also OPD Receipts have been filed by injured alongwith his claim petition. Copies of his Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 medical treatment record would reveal that he had sustained fracture of left knee and had undergone surgery during the period of his admission in the said hospital, during which open reduction and internal fixation of plate was done. In the absence of complete treatment record of injured being placed on record, it would involve guess work on the part of Tribunal to assess the loss of his income. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by him due to the accident in question and in view of the fact that he had sustained fracture and had undergone surgery, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work atleast for a period of three months.
52. As already noted above, the petitioner has failed to lead any definite evidence concerning his monthly income at the time of accident. Rather, he admitted during his cross examination that he cannot produce any documentary proof concerning his monthly salary. However, he has filed copy of his Senior Secondary Certificate issued by Haryana Board, alongwith the claim petition. Said document would clearly show that the petitioner had studied upto 12th class. Thus, his notional monthly income as that of Matriculate has to be taken into consideration in order to calculate the loss of income. The Minimum Wages of Matriculate as on the date of accident which is 10.07.14 were Rs. 10,374/ per month. Hence, a sum of Rs. 31,122/ (Rs. 10374 x 3) is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
53. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under: " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
54. Injured himself as PW3 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW3/A) that he had sustained grievous/crush injuries due to the accident in question. Apart from the fact that the relevant portion of his testimony in this regard, has gone unchallanged and unrebutted from the side of respondents, his ocular testimony is duly corroborated by copies of his medical treatment record filed alongwith claim petition. As already noted above, the injured is shown to have sustained fracture and had undergone surgery during his period of admission in the aforesaid hospital. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
55. Ld. Counsel of petitioner argued that the petitioner is also entitled to compensation under this head as he had sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in question. It can not be overlooked that since the petitioner had sustained fracture and surgery was performed on the injured limb, he would have remained confined to his residence for considerable period and during which he would not have been able to enjoy general amenities of life and quality of his life has also been affected. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as noted above, I award notional amount of Rs.
Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 30MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 25,000/ towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to him.
CONVEYANCE , SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
56. Although, injured Himanshu (PW3) has deposed that he had spent Rs. 10,000/ each on special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. However, no definite evidence has been led by him to prove the same. At the same time, he is shown to have sustained grievous injuries including fracture on knee and had undergone surgery. Thus, it would involve guess work on the part of Tribunal to award notional amount under this head since petitioner would have definitely taken rich protein diet for his speedy recovery. He would have also used the facility of conveyance for visiting the hospital from time to time as OPD patient during the period of his treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ each on account of special diet and attendant charges and Rs. 5,000/ on account of conveyance charges to the petitioner.
Thus, t he total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 5,885/
2. Loss of Income Rs. 31,122/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/
4. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000/
5. Conveyance, special diet and attendant Rs. 25,000/ charges Total Rs. 1,37,007/ Rounded off to Rs. 1,37,100/ Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018
57. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence since it had no statutory defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
58. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 to 2, I award a sum of Rs. 20,10,100/ (including interim award amount if any) in MAC Petition No. 5201/16, a sum of Rs. 14,18,000/ (including interim award amount if any) in MAC Petition No. 4814/16 and a sum of Rs. 1,37,100/ in MAC Petition No. 5200/16, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of petitions i.e. 11.09.2014 respectively in favour of petitioner(s) and against the respondents no. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016). Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
59. Statements of petitioners in MAC Petition Numbers 5201/16 & 4814/16 in terms of Clause 27 MCTAP were recorded. However, injured/claimant Himanshu (MACP No. 5200/16) did not come forward alongwith requisite documents for recording his statement in terms of Clause 27 of MCTAP despite grant of repeated opportunities. He also failed to produce his pass book containing requisite endorsement that no cheque book and ATM Card had been issued against his Savings Bank Account. His counsel made statement today that his compensation amount may be kept in the form of FDR with liberty to get the same released as and when he produces the relevant documents on record.
Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 30MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018
60. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 5201/16, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Riya shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 10,00,000/ (Rs. Ten Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioners no. 2 & 3 Ms. Mahi Sachdeva and Harsh Sachdeva shall be entitled to share amounts of Rs. 4,00,000/ (Rs. Four Lacs Only) each alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 4 namely Smt Prem shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 1,10,100/ ( One Lakh, Ten Thousand & One Hundred) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 5 namely Sh Naresh shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ ( Rs. One Lakh Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
61. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ (Rupees One Lakh & Twenty Five Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to her through her saving bank account no. 34495000649 (of Smt. Riya) with SBI Sector12, Panipat Branch, having IFSC Code SBIN0016969 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/ each for a period of 6 months,12 months, 18 months and so on and so forth.
62. The entire share amount of petitioners no. 2 & 3 namely Mahi Sachdeva and Harsh Sachdeva shall be kept in the form of FDRs till they attain the age of majority. However, monthly interest is allowed to be withdrawn by them through her mother/natural guardian namely Smt. Riya, to be used for their welfare and upbringment.
63. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 4, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to her through her saving bank account no. 37575371761 (of Smt. Prem) with SBI Fertilizer Complex Panipat, Branch, having IFSC Code SBIN0050286 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/ each for a period of 6 months,12 Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 months, 18 months and so on and so forth.
64. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 5, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to him through his saving bank account no. 37575353957 (of Sh Naresh) with SBI Fertilizer Complex Panipat, Branch, having IFSC Code SBIN0050286 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/ each for a period of 6 months,12 months, 18 months and so on and so forth.
65. It is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 4814/16, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Mohani Devi shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 8,00,000/ (Rs. Eight Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 2 namely Sh Sharnjeet Singh shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ ( Rs. One Lakh Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioners no. 3 & 4 shall be entitled to share amounts of Rs. 2,59,000/ (Rs. Two Lacs & Fifty Nine Thousand Only) each alongwith proportionate interest.
66. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lakh Only) shall be immediately released to her through her saving bank account no. 2945001700243845 (of Smt. Mohani Devi) with PNB Pojewal, Distt Nawanshar Branch, having IFSC Code PUNB0294500 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/ each for a period of 6 months,12 months, 18 months and so on and so forth.
67. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2 , a sum of Rs. 20,000/ (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to him through his saving bank account no. 2945001700243766 (of Sh. Sharanjit Singh) with PNB Pojewal, Distt Nawanshar Branch, having IFSC Code PUNB0294500 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/ each for a Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 30 MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 period of 6 months,12 months, 18 months and so on and so forth.
68. The entire share amount of petitioners no. 3 & 4 shall be kept in the form of FDR till they attains the age of majority. However, monthly interest is allowed to be withdrawn by them through their mother/natural guardian namely Smt. Mohini Devi, to be used for their welfare and upbringment.
69. The entire compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 5200/16 is directed to be kept in the form of FDR in the name of claimant Sh Himanshu initially for a period of one year having auto renewal clause, with direction to get the same renewed for similar period from time to time, till further directions of this Claims Tribunal. However, the said claimant shall be at liberty to approach this Claims Tribunal for release of compensation amount, alongwith relevant documents including bank pass book containing endorsement in terms of directions issued by the Tribunal as and when so desired.
70. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposits be paid monthly to the claimants.
(ii) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs alongwith photocopies of the FDRs be given to the claimants/petitioners. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank accounts of the Claimants/petitioners.
(iii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimants/petitioners without permission of the Court.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(v) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank accounts or fixed deposit account of the victims.
(vi) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
71. During the course of hearing of final arguments, the claimants submitted that they are entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS as their annual income do not exceed from the taxable limit prescribed under the law.
Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 30MACT Nos. 5201/16, 4814/16 & 5200/16 (Old Nos. 404/14, 405/14 & 406/14) FIR No. 206/14.; PS Murthal,Sonipat DOD: 19.07.2018 They have also furnished Form Nos. 15G on record.
72. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of offending vehicle is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amount as mentioned above in the aforesaid saving bank accounts of petitioners mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Order be given dasti alongwith Form Nos. 15G in original of all the claimants (except claimant Himanshu) (on retaining photocopies thereof on record) to counsel for insurance company. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copies of bank passbooks and copies of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form V in terms of MCTAP is annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be placed on the judicial records of MAC Petition No. 4814/16 & 5200/16, as per the rules.
Announced in the open
Court on 19.07.2018 (VIDYA PRAKASH)
Judge MACT2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Smt. Riya & Ors, Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. & Sh Himanshu Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 30