Delhi District Court
Kishan Suzi & Ors. vs . Budh Singh on 27 January, 2014
Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
In Petition No. : 168/13
Unique Case ID : 02406C0057432012
1. Kishan Suzi
S/o Sh. Dil Bahadur Suzi ..... Father
2. Smt. Subadhra Suzi
W/o Sh. Kishan Suzi ..... Mother
3. Km. Sanjana Suzi
D/o Sh. Kishan Suzi ..... Unmarried sister
4. Km. Savita
D/o Sh. Kishan Suzi ..... Unmarried sister
5. Master Vicky Suzi
S/o Sh. Kishan Suzi ..... Unmarried brother
6. Manzil Suzi
S/o Sh. Kishan Suzi ..... Unmarried brother
All R/o H. No. WZ829/1,
Naraina Village, New Delhi - 110 028
In FIR No. 276/12
PS : R K Puram
1. Deepak
S/o Sh. Sudesh Kumar
R/o H. No. 23, BlockD,
Kidwai Nagar (East),
New Delhi - 110023 ..... Injured
2. Santosh Kumar Pandey
S/o Sh. Ram Pat Pandey
R/o Vill. & Post Dadra,
Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 1 of 25
Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh
Teh. Musafirkhana,
Distt. Sultanpur,
UP
and also at
BN43, BSF Camp,
Sector1, R K Puram,
New Delhi ..... Injured
..... Petitioners / Claimants
Versus
1. Budh Singh @ Malkit
C/o Harish, S/o Panna Lal
R/o H. No. K113, Ekta Vihar,
Jaitpur, Badarpur
Permanent address :
Vill. Ganduan Teh. Sunam,
Distt. Sangrur, Punjab. ..... Driver
2. Unique Tourism Pvt. Ltd.
through Proprietor/Director
Govind Singh, S/o Sh. Buta Singh
R/o 178/2, IGNOU Road,
Neb Sarai, New Delhi ..... Owner
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
ICICI Lombard House,
414, Veer Savarkar Marg,
Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 25 ..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 2 of 25
Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh
Date of Institution : 22.02.2013 (Petition no. 168/13)
11.01.2013 (DAR)
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 08.01.2014
Date of pronouncement : 27.01.2014
J U D G M E N T :
1. Detailed Accident Report was filed by the SHO of the police station of an accident which took place on 10.11.12 at about 11.45 AM at the red light of Sector1, R K Puram in front of West Globe Gate, Vivekanand Marg, New Delhi resulting into injuries on the person of Deepak and S K Pandey and death of Vikas Suzi. Separate claim petition was also filed by Kishan Suzi and ors. parents of the deceased Vikas Suzi which was clubbed with the DAR.
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 11.12.12 Vikas Suzi and Deepak were coming home from DLF Mall, Vasant Kunj on a motorcycle bearing no. DL 12 S 4286 being driven by Deepak. At about 1.55 PM when they reached Sector1, Red light, R K Puram a Xylo car bearing no. HR 55 LT 6754 being driven by respondent no.1 rashly and negligently came at a high speed from the side of Munirka and hit their motorcycle from behind. The car also hit an Ambassador car which was being driven by Santosh Kumar Pandey. All of Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 3 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh them sustained injuries. They were taken to JPN Trauma Center, AIIMS where Vikas Suzi was declared dead. Case was registered vide FIR 276/12 at the police station R K Puram. Respondent no.1 was arrested. Xylo car was owned by respondent no.2 and it was insured with respondent no.3. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted. The cause of death was opined as shock as a result of multiple injuries caused by blunt force impact possible in road traffic accident. On the MLC of S K Pandey and Deepak, doctor opined the injuries grievous.
Santosh was aged about 45 years. He was Assistant SubInspector with Border Security Force. He used to get Rs. 35,000/ p.m. Due to the accident he remained bed ridden for long. He got his treatment in BSF Hospital.
Deepak Kumar and the deceased Vikas used to work with Shine Star Retail at DLF Mall, Saket. Deepak Kumar used to get Rs. 11,000/ p.m. He was Sales Executive. He took his further treatment from Adiva Super Speciality Care at Green Park.
Deceased Vikas was 23 years of age. He was unmarried. He used to work as Sales Executive with Shine Star Retail at DLF Mall, Saket and get Rs. 11,000/ p.m. He was survived by his parents, two unmarried sisters, one married and one unmarried brother.
3. On getting notice of the DAR and the petition, parties appeared. All the Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 4 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh respondents contested the petition/DAR and filed their reply.
Respondent no.1 alleged that the motorcycle had come from behind at a high speed being driven in a zig zag manner. The rider while overtaking the vehicles on the road fell down and the accident had occurred due to his negligence near Sector1, R K Puram. He (Respondent no.1) was driving his vehicle at a normal speed. At that time, the signal was green. As his vehicle reached few steps away another Ambassador car came from Hyatt Regency side, took turn and hit the right side of his car as a result both the vehicles got damaged. The Ambassador car driver suddenly crossed the road without any indicator or signal and hit the front side of his car with Xylo car. He was also negligent. He stated that he had a valid licence and his vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 vide cover note ECVP10475354 for the period from 11.10.12 to 10.10.2013. Respondent no.2 also stated on the lines of respondent no.1 and reiterated the facts. Respondent no.3 alleged that as per report received from the RTO, Sangrur, Punjab, the respondent no.1 was not authorised to drive the offending vehicle with the licence he had possessed. It is a case of willful breach of terms of the policy by the insured.
4. Vide order dated 19.07.2013, the petition / DAR were consolidated. Following issues were framed vide order dated 20.04.2013 :
1. To what amount of compensation, claimants entitled due to fatal injuries/injuries owing to negligent driving of car Xylo bearing registration no. HR 55 LT 6754 by its driver and insured with ICICI Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 5 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.?
2. Relief.
5. To substantiate their claim, the claimants/petitioners examined Smt. Subhadra Suzi (Petition no. 168/13) as PW1, Santosh Kumar Pandey as PW2 (DAR) and Deepak Kumar as PW3 (DAR).
The respondents did not examine any witness.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel Sh. Ajay Kumar for the claimants/injured, Ms. Soni for the LRs of the deceased Vikas, Sh. Radhey Shyam for respondent no.1, Ms. Manu for respondent no.3 and have gone through the entire evidence on record. My findings on the issues are as follows :
ISSUE NO.1
7. PW2 who was the motorcycle rider has stated that on 10.12.12 at about 11.45 PM he was going to Naroji Nagar from Vasant Kunj, DLF Mall on a motorcycle bearing no. DL 12 S 4286 on which Vikas was pillion rider. When they were at the red light of Sector1, R K Puram, a Mahindra Xylo car bearing no. HR 55 LT 6754 driven by Budh Singh in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed knocked their motorcycle from behind and escaped from the place of accident towards Hyatt Hotel. In the course of escaping, it knocked an Ambassador car bearing no. DL 9S G 5405 from Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 6 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh conductor side. The car was turning from Hyatt Regency to West Block. He and his friend Vikas fell down on the road with the motorcycle. He sustained fracture in his back bone. They were taken to JPN Trauma Center where Vikas was declared dead. After discharge he was admitted in Adiva Super Speciality Care, Green Park. He proved the documents i.e. FIR, site plan, driving licence, seizure memo, MLC, policy etc. Ex.PW2/1 and also filed his driving licence Ex.PW3/2 as well as discharge summary and certificate issued by the hospital Ex.PW3/4 to Ex.PW3/9. He denied that he was overtaking the offending vehicle and due to high speed he had fallen on the road with the motorcycle or the accident had occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. He also denied that he and the deceased were not wearing helmet.
PW3 who was driving the Ambassador car at that time has stated that on 10.12.12 at about 11.45 PM when he was taking turn to Hyatt side, a Mahindra Xylo car bearing no. HR 55 LT 6754 driven by Budh Singh in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed knocked his car from the left side as a result he sustained injuries on his head. His car also got damaged. It was revealed to him that the Xylo car had hit a motorcycle prior to hitting his car. He was taken to JPN Trauma Center, AIIMS and thereafter, he took his treatment from BSF Hospital. He also proved his MLC and other documents including the hospital record Ex.PW2/3 to Ex.PW2/4. He admitted that the accident took place at the crossing, however, he stated that Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 7 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh there was no red light at that place. He was in the course of entering the CRPF main gate when the Xylo car knocked his car. He denied that he was driving the Ambassador car rashly and negligently.
PW1 also stated on the lines of her petition but admitted that she was not present at the time of accident. She proved the postmortem report. On perusal of the documents placed with the DAR, I find that the case was registered on the statement of Ct. Rajesh who was on patrolling duty in the area of R K Puram with H.C. Kabool Singh. He had stated that at about 11.00 PM, they saw a Xylo car bearing no. HR 55 LT 6754 coming from the side of Munirka at a high speed being driven rashly and negligently. It hit a motorcycle DL 12 S 4268 from behind on which two persons were sitting. The Xylo car driver then ran away with the car towards Hyatt Hotel. He chased the car. At about 1.50 PM an Ambassador car bearing no. DL 9C G 5405 was coming from Hyatt and was taking turn towards West Block. The Xylo car also hit that car towards conductor side resulting injuries to the car driver. He had stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Xylo car by the respondent no.1. The mechanical inspection report also shows fresh damages on the vehicles. No evidence contrary to this fact was led by the respondent no.1 and 2 as stated in the written statement.
8. On an analysis of the testimony of PW2 and PW3, coupled with the Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 8 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh documents placed with the record, I find that it was the respondent no.1 who was driving the Xylo car bearing no. HR 55 LT 6754 rashly and negligently. He first hit the motorcycle bearing no. DL 12 S 4286 and then hit an Ambassador car bearing no. DL9C G 5405 causing death of Vikas, the pillion rider of the motorcycle and grievous injuries on the person of Deepak Kumar, motorcycle rider and Santosh Kumar the Ambassador car driver. Documents show that the car was owned by respondent no.2 and it was insured with respondent no.3.
9. Now, coming to compensation.
Petition No. 168/13 (Death case of Vikas Suzi)
10. It has been held in a catena of judgments that emphasis in cases of personal injury and fatal accident should be on awarding substantial, just and fair compensation and not a token amount. General principle in calculating such sum of compensation, should be so as to put the injured or legal heirs of a deceased in case of fatal accident, in the same position as he would have been, if accident had not taken place. The amount of compensation no doubt cannot bring back the dead but it certainly helps the LR's and dependents to live life with dignity and comfort as they were living during the lifetime of the deceased. The amount of compensation is awarded on the basis of age, the earning capacity and other liabilities of the deceased. The Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 9 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh appropriate method of calculating compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments has laid down that in India, the multiplier method is proper for calculation of compensation.
11. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads :
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
12. PW1 has stated that her son left behind his parents, two sisters and two brothers who were fully dependent on his income. He was 23 years of age. He was having good health. He had been working as Sales Executive with Shine Star Retail on a salary of Rs. 11,000/ p.m. She placed on record her election Icard and the election Icard of the deceased. She also proved his salary certificate Ex.PW1/C and death certificate Ex.PW1/D. She stated that the deceased had been working in the company for about 78 months. He was not an incometax assessee. He was 10th class pass. PW2 has stated that he and the deceased used to work with Shine Star Retail at DLF Mall Saket as sales Executive and get Rs. 11,000/ p.m. The Investigating Officer had also collected the salary slip of Deepak Kumar, as per which he had been getting Rs. 11,000/ p.m. which included Rs. 1,700/ towards conveyance allowance. PW1 has also filed the salary slip of the deceased for the period from July, 2012. His salary in the month of November, 2012 Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 10 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh Rs. 11,000/ on which Rs. 1,700/ was paid as conveyance. The net income for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency comes to Rs. 9,300/ p.m. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,11,600/ (12 x Rs. 9,300). He was survived by his parents. PW1 has stated that he was financially dependent on the deceased. As per the ration card she was born in the year 1973, so her age as on the date of his death was 39 years. In the case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563 it was held as under :
Since, the Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Manu/SC/0322/2012, actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) Scale 129 and to make it applicable also to the selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of selfemployed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Additional should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
13. In the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. MAC App. No. 846/2011 the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 30.09.2013 considered the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 11 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh 2009 (6) Scale 129, Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Manu/SC/0322/2012, Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Ors. 2013 (5) Scale and Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vohra Community & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 673 and held as under :
"In view of the above, this Court is guided by the legal principles as set out in Reshma Kumari and Rajesh in order to assess the just compensation as it is envisaged in Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In Reshma Kumar, the Apex Court affirmed the findings of Sarla Verma; and in Rajesh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has agreed with the dictum of Santosh Devi. Specifically, for the assessment of future prospects in respect of the persons falling under the category of selfemployment/fixed wages this court is guided by the dictum laid down in Rajesh. In my considered opinion, there is no contradiction in the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Reshma Kumari and Rajesh.
14. The Hon'ble High Court has also referred the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raja Ram decided by this Court on 25.08.09 in MAC App. 175/2006 and case of Sajha Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 ACJ 627 whereby it was held that schedule of minimum wages show wages slightly increases from time to time after every six months; and within next 10 years wages would have become double. Therefore, the increase in the Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 12 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh wages has to be taken into consideration while assessing the compensation on account of future prospects. It was held that in view of the dictum laid down in Rajesh (Supra), the Trial Court / Tribunal has rightly added 50% towards future prospects. Adding the future prospects @ 50% the total income comes to Rs. 1,67,400/. The deceased was unmarried. It was held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129 that in regard to the bachelor, normally 50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there was a possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which time the contribution to the parents and siblings would be cut drastically. So, after deducting onehalf from the total income of the deceased the net income for calculating the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 83,700/ p.a. It was also held in Sarla Verma (Supra) that while calculating the dependency, the multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of the mother in the case of a bachelor. Hence, a multiplier of '15' is taken for calculating the loss of dependency. Using the multiplier of '15', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 12,55,500/ (15 x 83,700/). I therefore, award Rs. 12,55,500/ to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
LOVE AND AFFECTION :
15. Petitioners at this stage of their life have lost their son/brother. The love and Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 13 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh care which they could have got from him cannot be measured in terms of money. In view of the law laid down in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563 I award Rs. 1,00,000/ to the petitioners towards "Love and Affection".
FUNERAL EXPENSES :
16. It was held in the case of "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563" that the funeral expenses does not mean the fee paid in the Crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the Cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with the funeral and if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expense. It will be just, fair and equitable under the head of funeral expenses in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/. Following the case law (Supra), I award Rs. 25,000/ to the petitioners towards "Funeral Expenses".
LOSS OF ESTATE :
17. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Estate".
18. The total compensation in favour of the claimants is calculated as under : Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 14 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh
1) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 12,55,500/
2) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 1,00,000/
3) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 25,000/
4) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 10,000/ ============= Rs. 13,90,500/ Less : Interim award vide order dated 30.04.2013 = Rs. 50,000/ ============= TOTAL = Rs. 13,40,500/ ============= Injury case of Santosh Kumar Pandey
19. 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 nonpecuniary 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; Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 15 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh
(iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
Let me assess the compensation which the claimant is entitled to under different heads.
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
20. The claimant after the accident was removed to AIIMS Trauma Center where his MLC was prepared. He was discharged on the same day. As per the discharge summary he sustained head injury. He also sustained laceration over Lt. Temporal region (4 x 1 x .5 cm.). In the instant case the medical bills of the injured/claimant have been reimbursed. Therefore, No amount is awarded to the claimant on account of medical expenses. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
21. The claimant sustained head injury and other injuries. The injuries on his person were grievous. He was advised followup. After discharging from AIIMS he also took treatment from BSF Hospital. His treatment continued for long. He might have suffered pain and agony for a long time. I therefore, award Rs. 40,000/ to the claimant towards pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 16 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
22. The claimant sustained multiple injuries in the accident. He was advised followup. He was advised special diet for early recovery. The injuries on his person were such that he might have taken the help of attendant. Keeping in view all these facts, I award Rs. 25,000/ to the claimant towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME :
23. The claimant has been working on the post of ASIGD in Border Security Force. He has filed his salary slip for the month of October, 2012. As per which he was getting gross salary of Rs. 38,947/ p.m. which included Rs. 3162/ as Transport, Rs. 3454/ as bonus and Rs. 2055/ at RMA which needs to be deducted. After deducting the said amount his net salary comes to Rs. 30,276/ p.m. He remained hospitalised for about 15 days. The injuries were such that he might have remained bed ridden for about 02 months for which period he took leave which leave he could have utilised for some constructive work. Taking the salary of the claimant as Rs. 30,276/ and a period of 02 months as bed rest, the loss of income comes to Rs. 60,552/ which is rounded off to Rs. 60,600/. I therefore, award Rs. 60,600/ to the injured/claimant towards loss of income.
24. The total compensation in favour of claimant is assessed as under :
Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 17 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh Pain, sufferings & Enjoyment of Life : Rs. 40,000/ Special Diet, Conveyance & Attendant Charges : Rs. 25,000/ Loss of Income : Rs. 60,600/ ============= TOTAL : Rs. 1,25,600/ ============= Injury case of Deepak Kumar MEDICAL EXPENSES :
25. The claimant after the accident was removed to AIIMS Trauma Center where his MLC was prepared. He sustained multiple injuries for which he got treatment from ADIVA Super Specialist Care. As per the discharge summary, he underwent MRI Lumbo Sacral Spine which shows - Fracture of the spinous process of L5 and L4 vertebrae with edema in the adjacent soft tissues. Diffuse disc bulge at L5S1 level resulting in mild indentation of the anterior epidural fat with mild narrowing of the bilateral neural foramina. He was treated conservatively with symptomatic treatment and physiotherapy. He remained in the Hospital from 11.12.12 to 15.12.12. He filed medical bills of Rs. 43,848/. I therefore, award Rs. 44,000/ to the claimant towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
26. The claimant sustained multiple injuries. The injury on his person was grievous. He was advised followup. After discharging from AIIMS he also Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 18 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh took treatment from ADIVA Super Specialist Care. His treatment continued for long. He might have suffered pain and agony for a long time. I therefore, award Rs. 40,000/ to the claimant towards pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
27. The claimant sustained multiple injuries in the accident. He was advised followup. He was advised special diet for early recovery. The injuries on his person were such that he might have taken the help of attendant. Keeping in view all these facts, I award Rs. 25,000/ to the claimant towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME :
28. The claimant was 23 years of age at the time of accident. He was working as Sales Executive in Shine Star Retail. At the time of accident he was posted at Outlet of the company at DLF Mall, Vasant Kunj. He used to get Rs. 11,000/ p.m. which included conveyance allowance of Rs. 1,700/. Due to the injuries he took bed rest of five months. Taking the salary of the claimant as Rs. 9,300/ and a period of 05 months as bed rest, the loss of income comes to Rs. 46,500/. I therefore, award Rs. 46,500/ to the claimant towards loss of income.
Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 19 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh
29. The total compensation in favour of claimant is assessed as under :
Medical Expenses : Rs. 44,000/
Pain, sufferings & Enjoyment of Life : Rs. 40,000/
Special Diet, Conveyance & Attendant Charges : Rs. 25,000/
Loss of Income : Rs. 46,500/
=============
TOTAL : Rs. 1,55,500/
=============
L I A B I L I T Y
30. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 therefore, primary liability to compensate the petitioners/claimants remain with that of respondent no. 1. Since the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 so, it is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners/claimants. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3, therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners /claimants for the above mentioned amount.
31. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3 in order to exonerate the company from its liability contended that the driving licence produced by the respondent no. 1 was not valid for the category of the offending vehicle.
32. I have perused the file. In the instant case the offending vehicle was Mahindra Xylo car bearing no. HR 55 LT 6754. As per the licence produced by the respondent no.1, it was issued for the category of the vehicle Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 20 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh motorcycle, car, LMV by the Licensing Authority, Sangrur, Punjab. It was issued on 30.07.08 and valid till 29.07.2011. It was renewed on 05.10.11 for the period upto 04.10.2014. It was also got verified by the IO. As per the report given by District Transport Officer, Sangrur dated 07.08.2013, the licence is valid from 05.10.2011 to 04.10.2014 for the category of vehicle Motorcycle, Car and LMV. It was issued for a period of three years which licence is usually issued for transport vehicles. The offending vehicle is LMV i.e. transport vehicle/passenger carrying vehicle. The licence is also for the category vehicle LMV i.e. passenger/transport vehicle. I am of the view that with the licence the respondent no.1 could drive the offending vehicle i.e. Mahindra Xylo, a passenger carrying vehicle. Thus, his licence was valid and effective at the time of accident and there was no violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Liability is therefore, of the insurance company to compensate the claimants/petitioners.
R E L I E F
33. In view of my findings on issues, I award Rs. 13,40,500/ (in petition no.
168/13) to the petitioners as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation of the amount. I also award Rs. 1,25,600/ to the claimant Santosh Kumar Pandey and Rs. 1,55,500/ to the claimant Deepak Kumar with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till realisation of the amount.
Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 21 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh In Petition No. : 168/13 : RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of petitioner no. 1 and 2: (Parents of the deceased)
34. A sum of Rs. 6,70,250/ each alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioners being parents of the deceased.
Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ each be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioners for a period of 3 years and 6 years respectively.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
35. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
36. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled "New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ganga Devi & Ors bearing MAC. App. 135/2008" as well as in another case titled as " Union of India V/s Nanisiri" bearing M.A.C. Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 22 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the petitioners.
37. In consonance to the idea 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 claimants with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners.
within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no. 3 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
38. 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:
(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 petitioners /claimants after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / claimants to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to petitioners /claimants 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 Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 23 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh petitioners /claimants alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioners /claimants 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 petitioners /claimants, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Petitioners/Claimants 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.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 3
39. 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.
40. The Respondent no.3 shall intimate to the petitioners/claimants about its having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioners/claimants 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. Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 24 of 25 Kishan Suzi & Ors. Vs. Budh Singh
41. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the petitioners/ claimants who are directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after their having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount from the Insurance company.
42. The case is now fixed for compliance by the insurance company for 28.02.2014.
Announced in the open court
on 27th Day of January, 2014 (SANJIV JAIN)
Presiding Officer : MACT
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 27.01.2014
Petition No. : 168/13 and FIR no. 276/12, PS R K Puram Page No. 25 of 25