Delhi District Court
Hazra ( Aged About 39 Years) vs Mohd. Imran & Ors on 13 February, 2018
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
In the Court of Sh. G. N. Pandey
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 15368/15
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Hazra ( aged about 39 years)
W/o Late Sh. Chhotey Qureshi
2. Tahir Hussain ( aged about 19 years)
S/o Late Sh. Chhotey Qureshi
3. Baby Nazia ( aged about 16 years)
D/o Late Sh. Chhotey Qureshi
4. Babuy Rabia ( aged about 15 years)
D/o Late Sh. Chhotey Qureshi
5. Baby Gulafsa ( aged about 14 years)
D/o Late Sh. Chhotey Qureshi
6. Rehan Raza ( aged about 13 years)
S/o Late Sh. Chhotey Qureshi
7. Baby Fareena ( aged about 12 years)
D/o Late Sh. Chhotey Qureshi
8. Baby Ilma ( aged about 10 years)
D/o Late Sh. Chhotey Qureshi
( Petitioner No. 3 to 8 are minor, hence through their natural
guardian i.e. mother/ petitioner No. 1)
All R/o E17/8, Taj Colony,
New Seelampur, Delhi53
................ Petitioners
MACT No. 15368/15 1 of 19
Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
V E R S U S
1. Mohd. Imran ( Driver)
S/o Mohd. Arif
R/o A52/2, Chand Bagh, Delhi94
2. Chini S/o Sh. Ram ( owner )
R/o N17/C, 312, JJ. Colony,
Wazipur, Delhi.
3. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd.
A8, Big Jos Tower, 2nd Floor, Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, Delhi88
................. Respondents
Date of Institution of petition : 22.01.2015 Date of Judgment/Order : 13.02.2018 A W A R D:
1. By this order, I shall dispose off the claim petition filed by the petitioner / injured for grant of compensation in view of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 17.03.2014, the deceased alongwith his wife Smt. Hazra and his children were coming towards Prem Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad from Seelampur, Dehli by an auto( TSR) No. DL 1 RJ 3467 driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. He was warned by the deceased and his wife to drive the auto rickshaw slowly but the auto rickshaw driver did not care and when at about 1 PM, the said auto rickshaw reached near Delhi International Secondary School, Delhi in front of Gulab Vatika, Loni, the said auto rickshaw collided with the motorcycle No. DL 9 SSS 0315 and turned turtle. As a result of which, the husband of MACT No. 15368/15 2 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
petitioner No. 1 i.e. deceased sustained sustained multiple serious injuries, who was immediately taken to St. Stephen Hospital, Tis Hazari Delhi by petitioner No. 1 with the help of the some passersby but due to injuries suffered in the said accident, he succumbed to the injuries.
3. None had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2 since morning despite repeated calls therefore respondent No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte vide order dt. 21.04.2015.
Respondent No. 3 filed the WS of the petition contending that this petition is not maintainable. As further contended, vehicle No. DL 1 RJ 3497 was insured with the answering respondent vide policy No. / Cover Note No. 328353741 for the period from 10.11.2013 to 09.11.2014 in the name of Chini.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether deceased Chhotey Qureshi died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 17.03.2014 at about 1 PM near Delhi International Secondary School at Loni Road in front of Gulab Vatika within the jurisdiction of PS Loni, Ghaziabad, UP due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL 1 RJ 3467 by respondent No. 1 ?OPP
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
5. Petitioner No. 1/ wife of deceased filed her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW 1/A and examined herself as PW1. The witness deposed nothing but deposed regarding the contention in the petition. She also deposed regarding the documents i.e:
MACT No. 15368/15 3 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
(i) Photocopy of ration card Ex. PW 1/ 1
(ii) Photocopy of election ID Card of deceased Ex. PW 1/ 2
(iii) Photocopy of election ID Card and adhar card of claimant
No. 1 Ex. PW 1/ 3
(iv) Photocopy of adhar card of claimant No. 2 Ex. PW 1/ 4
(v) Photocopy of adhar card of claimant No. 3 Ex. PW 1/ 5
(vi) Photocopy of adhar card of claimant No. 4 Ex. PW 1/ 6
(vii) Photocopy of adhar card of claimant No. 5 Ex PW 1/ 7
(viii) Photocopy of adhar card of claimant No. 6 Ex. PW 1/ 8
(ix) Photocopy of adhar card of claimant No. 7 E.x PW 1/ 9
(x) Photocopy of adhar card of claimant No. 8 ex. PW 1/ 10
(xi) Certified copies of criminal case record i.e. chargesheet , FIR, mechanical inspection report, MLC, PMR Ex. PW 1/11.
(xii) Original bills and prescription Ex. PW 1/ 12
(xiii) Photocopy of death certificate of claimant No. 9 Ex. PW 1/ 13. Petitioners also summoned and examined the witness i.e. Suman Kumar, Inspector of Income Tax, Ward No. 57(1), Room No. D5, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi as PW2 appeared with the record of income tax assessment of Chhote Qureshi pertaining to assessment year 201314 vide Ex. PW 2/ 1. As per this assessment, the total annual income of the assessee is Rs. 2,20,960/.
Petitioner also summoned and examined the witness i.e. Bijumon P , Accounts Clerk, St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi as PW3 appeared with the bill No. 011400414780 and receipts Ex. PW 3/1. The interim bill/ estimate bill MACT No. 15368/15 4 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
NO. 0100048849 Ex PW 3/ 2. This bill is included in final bill Ex. PW 3/3. The OPD receipts for the medicine purchased by the patients from the out side Ex PW /3 4 and the death summary Ex. PW 3/ 5. The PE was thereafter closed.
6. Respondent No. 3 summoned and examined the witness i.e. Mohd. Ali Raza, Record keeper, Transport Department/NEZ, Loni Road, Delhi as R3W1 appeared with the report of DL No. DL0520110131443 in the name of Mohd. Imran, date of issuance 20.05.2011 and valid upto 19.05.2031 which is valid to drive the MCL, LMV NT. The attested copy of the same Ex. R3W1/1. The present DL is valid to drive the non transport vehicle only and the driver is not authorized to drive a TSR or a commercial vehicle. Endorsement on the DL is necessary for driving commercial vehicle. There is no endorsement on record DL produced by him.
Respondent No. 3 examined other witness i.e. Ms. Shreshtha, Legal Executive, Bharti Axa General Insurance Company as R3W2 appeared with the certified copy of insurance policy bearing No. FCV/S1693998/13/11/D11311S in the name of Chini for vehicle No. DL 1 RJ 3497 which was valid for the period 10.11.2013 to 09.11.2014 Ex. R3W2/1. The notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued to the respondent No. 1 and 2 to produce the DL of respondent No. 1 but no response was received to the notice. The copy of notice alongwith postal receipts Ex. R3W2/2. As there is breach of terms and condition of the policy regarding respondent No. 1 driving the offending vehicle without any valid and effective license to drive the TSR, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2. RE was thereafter closed.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for petitioner and ld. Counsel for respondent MACT No. 15368/15 5 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
No. 3 and considered the relevant materials on record. My issue wise findings are as below : ISSUE No. 1:
1. Whether deceased Chhotey Qureshi died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 17.03.2014 at about 1 PM near Delhi International Secondary School at Loni Road in front of Gulab Vatika within the jurisdiction of PS Loni, Ghaziabad, UP due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL 1 RJ 3467 by respondent No. 1 ?OPP
8. To succeed in the claim petition in view of Section 166 of the MV Act, it is for the claimant to prove that vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Wife of deceased i.e. petitioner No. 1 deposed about the facts of the case. She was crossexamined by ld. Counsel for respondents and during crossexamination nothing has come forward in her testimony to disbelieve the version of PW. On the other hand, the testimony of RWs did not rebut the testimony of PWs to deny the claim of the petitioner and mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the claim of the petitioner. No witness was produced or examined by respondents as well to prove as to how accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased; the respondent No. 1 was not at fault and was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of witnesses. I have gone through the record and documents in respect of the accident caused to the petitioner which is prima facie suggestive of negligence of respondent No. 1 in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
Relied judgment in (Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport MACT No. 15368/15 6 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530 and the judgment in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC
646).
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Ors. V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
9. In judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel & Ors., 2014 (2), T.A.C. 846 (Del.), it was held that in a case, where FIR is lodged, chargesheet is filed, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the vehicle in question was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side. In case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the Claimant had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.
10. I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana to MACT No. 15368/15 7 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
examine the aspect of negligence wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that: In case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo and the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in MACT No. 15368/15 8 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit.
11. Therefore, in view of the criminal case record, it is proved that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 17.03.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing No. DL 1 RJ 3467 driven by its driver i.e. respondent No. 1. The issue is decided accordingly.
Issue No. ii :
(ii) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa V/s Gurdayal Singh reported as 2003(2) SCC 274 ruled that the main guiding principle for determining the compensation is that it must be just and further that it must be reasonable. As observed in UP State Road Transport corporation V/s Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the compensation awarded in such cases has primarily two elements; the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident and the pecuniary loss sustained by members of his family on account of his death in addition to the conventional award under non pecuniary heads of damages( e.g. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc).
MACT No. 15368/15 9 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
13. The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation on pecuniary benefit or benefits reduceable to money value. In General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V/s Susamma Thomas reported as (1994) 2 SCC 176, the court ruled that in fatal accident action, the measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered or likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of death and that : "9.The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that that deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether".
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma V/s DTC reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 held as under:
16. ... "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profits.
MACT No. 15368/15 10 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While, it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation same or similar facts should lead to award in the same range. When the factors/ inputs are the same, and the formula/ legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation.
15. No amount of compensation can restore, eliminate or ameliorate the loss suffered on account of death ( or injury with lasting effect) the endeavor by such award is to repair the damage done so as to restore the victim( which includes the dependent) to the extent possible to the preaccidental position. The pecuniary damages are meant to take care of the prospective pecuniary loss of future income and the non pecuniary damages to compensate, to an extent, for pain and suffering , loss of love, companionship, expectation of life etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K Malik V/s Kiran Pal reported as 2009 (14) SCC 1 observed as under:
22. It is extremely difficult to quantify the non pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But, the same could not be a ground for non payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is MACT No. 15368/15 11 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy.
23. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualised and understood. Perhaps , the only mechanism known to law in this kind of situation is to compensate a person who has suffered non pecuniary loss or damages as a consequence of the wrong done to him by way of damages / monetary compensation. Undoubtedly, when a victim of a wrong suffers injuries he is entitled to compensation including compensation for the prospective life, pain and suffering, happiness, etc., which is sometimes described as compensation paid for "loss of expectation of life".
16. The challenge in determining the ' just and reasonable' compensation in such cases is mainly due to the fact that there is virtually no evidence in actual loss of earning of the deceased child. Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K. Malik(supra) noted:
25. That being the position, the crucial problem arises with regard to the quantification of such compensation. The injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of a child is extremely difficult to quantify. In view of the uncertainties and contingencies of human life, what would be an appropriate figure, an adequate solatium is difficult to specify. The courts have therefore used the expression "standard compensation"
MACT No. 15368/15 12 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
and conventional amount/ sum" to get over the difficulty that arises in quantifying a figure as the same ensures consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation."
17. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete records. The petitioners have prayed amount of Rs. 40,0,000/ towards compensation from respondents. It is argued by Ld counsel for respondents that petitioners have not suffered any monetary loss on account of the fatal accident and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation.
There is no dispute at all regarding the offending vehicle nor there is dispute that deceased Chhottey Qureshi received fatal injuries due to the accident. The factum of accident as well as death is not denied. The testimony of PW1/ wife of deceased remained unimpeached / uncontroverted and witness proved the relevant documents. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the respondents.
18. PW1 i.e. wife of the deceased deposed that deceased was doing the business of cloth merchant and earning a handsome amount; he was an income tax payee and as per income tax record, his annual net profit income in the latest year was Rs. 2,20,965/. In support of contentions, petitioners has summoned and examined the witness i.e. Sh. Suman Kumar, Inspector from Income Tax department as PW2 appeared with the record of deceased pertaining to assessment year 20132014 Ex. PW 2/ 1 and as per Ex. PW 2/ 1, the total income of the deceased is Rs. 2,20,960/. The monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 18,413/ ( 2,20,960/ / 12). As per adhar card of deceased, the year of birth of deceased is 1970. The accident took place on 17.03.2014. His age is taken as about 45 years on the date of accident i.e. 17.03.2014. In the judgment Munna Lal Jain and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar MACT No. 15368/15 13 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Sharma and Others reported as MANU/SC/0640/2015 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/05/2015 and National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, it has been held that multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. As the age of the deceased was 45 years, he is entitled for an addition of 25 % of income towards future prospects. Thus, the total monthly amount is assessed as Rs. 23,016/ ( Rs. 18,413/ + Rs. 4,603/ ) ( 25 % ). The annual actual income is therefore calculated as Rs. 23,016/ x 12 = 2,76,192/.
19. In the present case, there are eight petitioners i.e. petitioner No. 1 is wife of deceased and petitioner No. 2 to 8 are children of the deceased. As there are eight dependents of the deceased, the deduction on account of personal living expenses had to be made to the extent of 1/5th. In the judgment as per dictum laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, multiplier to be applied is
14. 1/5th is deducted towards personal and living expenses and after such deduction, the contribution of the family comes to Rs. 2,20,954/ per annum ( Rs. 2,76,192/ - Rs. 55,238/) ( 1 /5th ). Thus, the compensation under the head Loss of Dependency would be Rs. 30,93,356/( Rs. 2,20,954/ x 14).
The total amount towards loss of dependency is accordingly Rs. 30,93,356/.
20. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, the petitioners are entitled for the loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively.
Counsel for petitioners submits that deceased was admitted in St. MACT No. 15368/15 14 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Stephen Hospital, Tis Hazari, Delhi and in support of contentions, he has summoned and examined the witness i.e. Sh. Sandeep Vats, Account Asstt. St. Stephen Hospital as PW3 who brought the treatment record of the deceased. After perusal of the medical bills as well as record, petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,41,551/ towards medical bills.
Therefore, petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the following heads: Loss of dependency Rs. 30,93,356/ Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/ Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ Medical bills Rs. 1,41,551/ Total Rs. 33,04,907/ I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 33,04,907/ in favour of the Claimant and against respondents. Liability: Respondent No. 3 is the insurance company which admittedly has issued a valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle. Respondent No. 3 being insurance company in its written statement has admitted that there is valid insurance policy issued. Ld counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle without any valid and effective DL therefore respondent No. 3 has no liability.
Respondent No. 1 and 2 did not lead RE despite opportunities to deny the claim of the petitioners.
I have gone through the documents on record. Respondent No. 3 MACT No. 15368/15 15 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
examined the witness i.e. Mohd. Ali Raza, Record keeper, Transport Department/NEZ, Loni Road, Delhi as R3W1 appeared with the report of DL No. DL0520110131443 in the name of Mohd. Imran, date of issuance 20.05.2011 and valid upto 19.05.2031 which is valid to drive the MCL, LMV NT. The attested copy of the same Ex. R3W1/1. The present DL is valid to drive the non transport vehicle only and the driver is not authorized to drive a TSR or a commercial vehicle. Endorsement on the DL is necessary for driving commercial vehicle. There is no endorsement on record DL produced by him.
Respondent No. 3 examined other witness i.e. Ms. Shreshtha, Legal Executive, Bharti Axa General Insurance Company as R3W2 appeared with the certified copy of insurance policy bearing No. FCV/S1693998/13/11/D11311S in the name of Chini for vehicle No. DL 1 RJ 3497 which was valid for the period 10.11.2013 to 09.11.2014 Ex. R3W2/1. The notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued to the respondent No. 1 and 2 to produce the DL of respondent No. 1 but no response was received to the notice. The copy of notice alongwith postal receipts Ex. R3W2/2. As there is breach of terms and condition of the policy regarding respondent No. 1 driving the offending vehicle without any valid and effective license to drive the TSR, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2. The testimony of R3W1 and R3W2 remained un impeached and uncontroverted. In view of testimony of R3W1 and R3W2, it appears that respondent No. 1 and 2 have breached the terms and condition of insurance policy and also violated the provisions of M. V. Act. In view of the evidence on behalf of Insurance company, the insurance company has right to recover the amount from respondent No. 1 and 2. Hence, I am of the opinion that respondent No. 3 being insurance company is liable to pay the compensation MACT No. 15368/15 16 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2 with right to recovery. Interim award if any paid to injured/ petitioner be adjusted in the award amount. Award :
21. Resultantly, the Claim petition stands allowed. Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 33,04,907/ within one month to the Claimants. Claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC).
22. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.
23. Out of the total award amount of Rs. 33,04,907/, UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to keep the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/ in 10 FDRs of Rs. 1,00,000/ each for the maturity period of one year to ten years respectively ( at the interval of one year each) with cumulative interest in the name of petitioner No. 1.
24. An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ each in favour of petitioner No. 3 to 8 shall be deposited in form of six FDRs till they attain the age of maturity.
25. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to keep the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ in 6 FDRs of Rs. 50,000/ each for the maturity period of six month to three years ( at the interval of six month each) with cumulative interest in the name of petitioner No. 2. The interest of the FDRs be transferred to the bank account of the petitioner No. 2 near the place of the residence after producing the passbook with the endorsement that no debit card or cheque MACT No. 15368/15 17 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
book has been issued against the said account.
26. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to release the remaining amount alongwith interest in favour of petitioner No. 1 in her saving bank account at Central Bank of India, Branch Brahampuri, Delhi bearing account No. 3942153535, IFSC Code No. CBIN0282443 after producing the original pass book containing endorsement of cancellation of cheque book or debit card issued against the said account to the petitioner No. 1 before the Tribunal. Manager, Central Bank of India, Branch Brahampuri, Delhi is directed to make the endorsement on the pass book of petitioner No. 1 and is directed not to issue any cheque book or Debit Card to the account holder.
27. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to the petitioner after due verification.
28. All the original FDRs shall be retained by the UCO bank, KKD Courts. However, the statement containing the FDRs number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the UCO Bank to the petitioner/ beneficiary. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiary. The beneficiary shall intimate regarding his bank and account number for automatic credit of the maturity amount.
29. No loan, advance or premature discharge of the FDRs shall be permitted without permission of this court.
30. The maturity amount of the FDRs alongwith interest thereon be transferred to the saving bank accounts of the beneficiary.
31. The liberty is given to the petitioner/ injured to approach this court for release of further amount in event of any financial exigency.
32. On request of Claimant, bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any MACT No. 15368/15 18 of 19 Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
other branch in the name of petitioner and the bank of the petitioner are directed not to issue any cheque book or Debit Card to the account holder.
33. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.
34. FormV shall be read as a part of the judgment.
Digitally signed by GORAKH GORAKH NATH PANDEY
Location: Court No.69, North
Announced in open Court NATH East District, Karkardooma
Court, Delhi
on this 13th day of February, 2018 PANDEY Date: 2018.02.13 16:25:44
+0530
G. N. Pandey
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
District North East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 15368/15 19 of 19
Hazra & Ors. V/s Mohd. Imran & Ors.