Delhi District Court
Harish Chugh vs . Praveen Kumar & Ors. on 6 September, 2017
Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,
JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), DELHI.
Suit No. 562/10
MACT No. 356406/16
Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000044-2010
Mr. Harish Chugh
S/o Sh. Harbhagwan Das
R/o Sr. Sales Executive,
M/s, Instrumentation Laboratory,
21, Rama Road, New Delhi-15.
........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Praveen Kumar
S/o Sh.Ram Dhan
R/o H. No. 95/1, Vikash Nagar,
Bahadur Garh, District Jhajjar (Haryana)
..........Respondent No.1
(Driver)
2. M/s Shiv Oil Company Selani Gate, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
..........Respondent No.2 (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regd. Office Rohtak Haryana.
..........Respondent No.3 (Insurer) MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 1 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
AND Suit No. 563/10 MACT No. 356405/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000043-2010 Mr. Uma Shankar Srivastaqva S/o Sh. Brij Bhushan Srivastava R/o Regional Service Manager, M/s, Instrumentation Laboratory, 21, Rama Road, New Delhi-15.
........Petitioner VERSUS
1. Sh. Praveen Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Dhan R/o H. No. 95/1, Vikash Nagar, Bahadur Garh, District Jhajjar (Haryana) ..........Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. M/s Shiv Oil Company Selani Gate, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
..........Respondent No.2 (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regd. Office Rohtak Haryana.
..........Respondent No.3 (Insurer) MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 2 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Date of filing of both claim Petitions : 11.10.2010 Arguments heard on : 10.08.2017 Date of passing of Award : 06.09.2017 Present: Mr. O.P.Tarar, Advocate, counsel for petitioner Mr. Durga Prasad, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2 Mr. M. Awasthi, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3 AWARD:
1. The above two claim suits are the subject matter of this order as both the cases arose from the same motor vehicular accident, which took place on January 9, 2010. Though the accident had not taken place within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, yet the claim suits have been filed before this Tribunal as claimants have been working for gain within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. In both the claimed suits, petitioners claim compensation to the sum of ` 5 lac each.
2. The present claim suits have been preferred under Section 166 read with 140 of Motor Vehicle Act (in short M.V Act) claiming a compensation of ` 5 lac each in respect of grievous injuries caused to claimants namely Harish Chugh & MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 3 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on January 9, 2010.
3. Facts in brief as emerged from the claim suits are that petitioner Harish Chugh was working as Sr. Sales Executive whereas petitioner Uma Shankar Srivastava was working as Regional Service Manager in M/s Instrumentation Laboratory India Pvt. Ltd, Rama Road, New Delhi. It was alleged that on January 9, 2010, petitioners alongwith their colleagues were returning to Delhi from Panchkula by car bearing registration No. DL-4CU-3096. It was alleged that at about 8:30PM when their car passed through village Samgarh, G.T. Road, Karnal, offending Tata Motor container bearing registration No. HR-63-A-2083 came from Karnal side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and after breaking the road divider, hit their car from opposite side. Consequently, the car fell down in a ditch (Khadan) and all occupants of car including claimants sustained injuries. Accordingly, claimants alongwith other occupants shifted to District Hospital, Karnal, Haryana. Thereafter, petitioner Harish Chugh shifted to N.C.Jindal Institute of Medical Science, Hissar, Haryana for Orthopacdic surgery where he remained admitted till January 22, 2010 whereas petitioner Uma Shankar Srivastava was shifted to Metro hospital where he remained admitted till January 12, 2010. In this regard, an FIR bearing No. 311/2009 under Section 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Taraori, Haryana.
MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 4 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
(i) It was alleged that the offending Tata Motor container was being driven by respondent No.1 and it belonged to respondent No.2 and same was insured with respondent no.3.
(ii) The claim suits were contested by respondent no.1 by filing his written statement wherein he took the plea that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car of the victims. It was further submitted that respondent No.1 was not driving the offending truck at the time of accident.
(iii) Respondent No.2 did not file any written statement.
(iv) Respondent No.3 in its written statement took the plea that the insurance company has no liability as respondent No.1 had no valid licence at the time of accident. However, it is admitted that the vehicle was duly insured with the company.
4. Vide order dated September 12, 2011, both the cases were consolidated and the MACT Suit No. 562/2010 was treated as leading case. On the same day, following issues were also framed:-
(1) Whether the petitioner Sh. Harish Chugh/Sh. Uma Shankar Srivastava had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 5 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
accident on 09.01.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. DL-4CU- 3096 by respondent No.1?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?
(3) Relief.
(i). During arguments, it was revealed that there is a typographical error in the registration number of the offending vehicle as mentioned in the Issue No.1. Indisputably, in the claim petition, it was alleged that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Motor container bearing registration No. HR-63A-2083 and the respondents are also related to the said vehicle whereas inadvertently, the registration number of the offending vehicle DL-4CU-3096 has been mentioned in the Issue No.1, accordingly said error is rectified and it is made clear that the registration number DL-4CU-3096 shall be read as HR-63A-2083.
5. In support of claim suit No. 562/2010, claimant examined following witnesses:
PW1 Sh. Harish Chugh, claimant
PW2 Dr. Anil Goyal, Jindal Hospital, Hissar
PW3 Sh. Syed Zayaul Haque, Sr. Area Sales
Manager, Instrumentation Laboratory Pvt. Ltd.
MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 6 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
(i). In claim suit No. 563/2010, claimant examined following witnesses:
PW1 Sh. Uma Shankar Srivastar, Injured PW2 Sh. Syed Zayaul Haque, Sr. Area Sales Manager, Instrumentation Laboratory Pvt. Ltd.
PW3 Sh. Love Sharma, from Metro hospital Noida
6. Respondents did not examine any witness in rebuttal in both the matters.
7. On completion of evidence led by both the parties, statement of claimants namely Harish Chugh & Uma Shanker Srivastava were recorded on July 14, 2017 regarding their financial status in terms of clause 26 of Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs Jaibir Singh & others, FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014.
8. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of petitioners and respondents, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
9. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 7 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Issue No. 1:
Whether the petitioner Sh. Harish Chugh/Sh. Uma Shankar Srivastava had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident on 09.01.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. HR- 63A-2083 by respondent No.1?
10. Though counsel appearing for the respondents did not raise any dispute over the rashness and negligence of respondent No.1, yet I deem it appropriate to deal with this aspect. In this regard, the testimony of claimants Harish Chugh & Uma Shanker Srivastava are relevant. Both in their examination-in-chief categorically deposed that when their car reached village Samgarh, G.T. Road Karnal, the offending container bearing registration No. HR-63A-2083 came from Karnal side at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit their car after breaking the road divider, consequently, their car fell down in a ditch (khadan) and they sustained injuries. Though both the witnesses were cross-examined at length, but nothing could be extracted during their cross-examination, which may help the respondents to establish that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of respondent No.1. Since, the offending container hit the car after breaking the road divider, this itself establishes that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in both the claim petitions.
MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 8 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
11. Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if yes, to what amount and from whom?
INCOME OF INJURED PERSONS:
12. In both the matters, petitioners examined Sh. Syed Zayaul Haque, Sr. Area Sales Manager of their company to prove their income. Sh. Syed Zayaul Haque filed the certificate of employment of both the petitioners alongwith their salary slips. As per the salary slip Ex. PW3/3, petitioner Harish Chugh was getting a total gross salary of ` 17,198/- per month and his net salary was ` 16,331/- per month, whereas as per Ex. PW2/3 petitioner Uma Shanker Shrivastava was getting gross salary of ` 33,645/- and his net salary was ` 30,565/- per month.
(i) Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that since their salary also included various personal allowances such as conveyance allowance, medical reimbursement, special allowance, car reimbursement, vehicle maintenance, petrol reimbursement etc., all such allowances are liable to be deducted from their salary. However, counsel appearing for petitioners refuted the said contention by arguing that since the said allowances are part of salary, the same are liable to be considered as income of the petitioners. MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 9 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
13. I have perused their appointment letter of claimant Harish Chugh (Ex. PW3/2) and appointment letter of claimant Uma Shankar Srivastava (Ex. PW2/3). As per their appointment letters, the breakup of their annual package is as under:-
ANNUAL COMPENSATION PACKAGE OF UMA SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA:
PARTICULARS AMOUNT (P.M) AMOUNT (P.A) Basic Salary 10000 120000 HRA 5000 60000 Conv. Allowance 800 9600 Special Allowance 6850 82200 LTA 1200 14400 Petrol Reimbursement 0 0 Vehicle Maint. 0 0 Reimbursement Medical 1250 15000 Reimbursement Provident Fund 2400 28800 Performance Linked 2500 30000 Incentive Total 30000 360000 MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 10 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors. Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
ANNUAL COMPENSATION PACKAGE OF HARISH CHUGH:
PARTICULARS AMOUNT (P.M) AMOUNT (P.A) Basic Salary 8000 96000 HRA 3200 38400 Conv. Allowance 800 9600 Special Allowance 5790 69480 Medical 1250 15000 Reimbursement Provident Fund 960 11520 Petrol Reimbursement 0 0 Vehicle Maint. 0 0 Reimbursement LTA 0 0 Bonus 0 0 Total Salary 20000 240000 Monthly Take Home 18080 60000 Performance Linked Incentive Total CTC 300000
14. From the appointment letter of Harish Chugh, it becomes clear that he was confirmed as Sr. Sales Executive w.e.f April 1, 2010 and he was also getting some allowances such as conveyance allowance, special allowance and medical reimbursement. In his salary slip Ex. PW3/3, all such allowances are mentioned. No doubt, in the appointment letter, the medical MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 11 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
reimbursement is mentioned as ` 1250/, but there is nothing on record which may show that petitioner would get this amount only on submitting bills to the office. Rather, from the appointment letter, it appears that it was infact as medical allowances. Since, the medical allowances can be utilized by the family members also, it cannot be said that it was an allowance of personal in nature. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the said allowance is liable to be included in the income of the petitioner. Similarly, the special allowance is also liable to be included in the income of petitioner. Sofar, the conveyance allowance is concerned, it is given to an employee to commute from home to office and back. Thus, the said allowance is considered as personal in nature because employee cannot get conveyance allowance, if he remains absent from duty or remains on leave beyond a particular limit. Thus, the said allowance is liable to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner .
(i) Similarly, conveyance allowance is also liable to be deducted from the salary of Uma Shankar Srivastava. Though in his appointment letter, the figure of petrol and vehicle maintenance reimbursement is not mentioned, but in his salary slip Ex. PW2/3, petrol reimbursement is mentioned as ` 5000/- and car reimbursement is mentioned as ` 4,725/-. But there is nothing on record, which may show that the said amount was payable to Uma Shankar Srivastava only on production of bills. Rather, it shows that the same were given to petitioner Uma Shankar Srivastava to maintain his personal car. Since the car MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 12 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
can be utilized by the family members also, it cannot be said that it was the allowance of personal in nature. Accordingly, I am of the view that the said allowances are not liable to be deducted from the salary of petitioner Uma Shankar Srivastava.
(ii) After deducting the conveyance allowance of ` 800/- from the salary of Harish Chug, his monthly income is assessed at ` 15,531/- per month (`16331- `800) whereas income of Uma Shankar Srivastava is assessed at ` 29,765/- per month (` 30,565- `800).
(iii) PW Syed Zayaul Haque in his examination-in- chief deposed that Harish Chug remained on leave w.e.f January 11, 2010 to April 19, 2010 whereas Uma Shankar Srivastava remained on leave from January 11, 2010 to January 19, 2010. Since, Harish Chug remained on leave till April 19, 2010, he is entitled to claim loss of income for 100 days i.e ` 51,770/- (15,531÷ 30 X100). Similarly, the loss of income of Uma Shankar Shrivastava is for 11 days i.e ` 10,913/- (29,765÷ 30 X11).
Medical Bills:
15. Petitioner Harish Chugh claimed medical bills to the tune of ` 31,010/- and the same is not disputed by the counsel for the Insurance company. Medical bills are Ex. PW2/1 and Ex. PW2/3. As per bill Ex. PW2/3, total sum of ` 31,010/-
MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 13 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
was charged by the hospital for the treatment of claimant Harish Chugh and this fact is also deposed by PW2 Dr. Anil Goyal in his deposition. Accordingly, a sum of ` 31,010/- is awarded to claimant Harish Chugh.
(i) Petitioner Uma Shankar Shrivastava claimed the medical bills to the tune of ` 15,998/- and same are Ex. PW3/2 and Ex. PW3/3. Since same are not disputed by the counsel, accordingly same is awarded to the petitioner Uma Shankar Shrivastava.
CONVEYANCE CHARGES/SPECIAL DIET/NURSING ATTENDANT:
16. Counsel appearing for petitioner Harish Chugh claimed ` 1 lac on account of conveyance charges, special diet and nursing attendant whereas counsel for insurance company submitted that he is entitled only for ` 5,000/- each for conveyance and special diet.
(i) Counsel appearing for petitioner Uma Shankar Srivastava claimed ` 50,000/- on behalf of conveyance charges and special diet whereas counsel for insurance company submitted that he is entitled only for ` 2,500/- each on account of conveyance and special diet.
MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 14 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
(ii) Indisputably, the accident had taken place on January 9, 2010 at Karnal and firstly both petitioners were taken to government hospital i.e. Karnal District Hospital and thereafter, Harish Chugh was shifted to N.C.Jindal Institute of Medical Science, Hissar while Uma Shankar Srivastava was shifted to Metro Hospital, Noida. As already stated that petitioner Harish Chugh remained in the hospital till January 22, 2010 and he could not join his duty till April 19, 2010 whereas petitioner Uma Shankar Srivastava remained in the hospital till January 12, 2010 and he could not join his duty till January 19, 2010.
(iii) Since, Harish Chugh was shifted to N.C.Jindal Institute of Medical Science, it can safely be presumed that he must have incurred substantial expenditure in shifting from Karnal to Hissar. Similarly since Uma Shankar Shrivastava was shifted from Karnal to Metro Hospital, Noida, it can safely be presumed that he must have also incurred substantial expenditure on shifting.
(iv) Even during their admission, their family used to visit the hospital from their residence. Even after discharge, petitioners must have visited to the hospital for follow up the treatment.
(v) Considering the fact that Harish Chugh remained admitted in the hospital till January 22, 2010, a sum of ` 20,000/- is awarded to him on account of conveyance MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 15 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
charges.
(vi) Considering the fact that Uma Shankar Srivastava remained admitted till January 12, 2010, a sum of ` 10,000/- is awarded to him on account of conveyance charges.
17. Since Harish Chugh remained admitted in the hospital till January 22, 2010 and remained on leave till April 19, 2010, it can safely be presumed that he must have taken special diet for the purpose of fast recovery. Accordingly, special diet @ ` 5,000/- per month for 3 months is awarded to him. Accordingly, a sum of ` 15,000/- is awarded on account of special diet.
(i) As already discussed that Uma Shankar Srivastava remained admitted in the hospital till January 12, 2010 and he remained on leave till January 19, 2010, it can safely be presumed that he must have taken special diet for the purpose of fast recovery. Considering the period of absence from duty and admission in the hospital, a sum of ` 3,000/- is awarded towards special diet.
18. As already discussed that Harish Chugh remained admitted in the hospital till January 22, 2010, it can safely be presumed that he must be attended by one attendant either paid or family member. As already stated that he remained on leave till MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 16 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
April 19, 2010, it means that he was not fit to join duty till April 19, 2010. Accordingly, at home also he must be attended either by family member or paid attendant. Considering the duration of his admission in the hospital and the fact that he sustained multiple fractures, attendant charges for 3 months @ ` 5000/- in total ` 15,000/- is awarded to him.
(i) As already stated that Uma Shankar Srivastava remained admitted in the hospital till January 12, 2010 and he remained on leave till January 19, 2010, it can safely be presumed that he must be attended either by family member or paid attendant in the hospital and at home. Accordingly, a sum of ` 4000/- is awarded on this account.
19. COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS:-
Mental & Physical Shock:-
(i). Counsel for the petitioners claimed ` 50,000/-
each on account of mental & physical shock whereas counsel appearing for insurance company submitted that they are not entitled for any such amount.
(ii). As already discussed that they met with an accident all of sudden when they were returning to Delhi from Panchkula when their car was hit by offending container after breaking the road divider. Due to injuries, they not only sustained MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 17 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
multiple fractures, but they had to remain admitted in the hospital. Thus, it can safely be presumed that they must have suffered acute mental and physical shock not only at the time of accident, but even thereafter. Though the mental & physical shock cannot be quantified in monetary terms, yet considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 50,000/- each is awarded on this account.
Pain & suffering:-
(i). Counsel appearing for Harish Chugh claimed ` 1 lac towards pain and suffering whereas counsel appearing for Uma Shankar Srivastava claimed ` 50,000/- on this account.
(ii). As already discussed that both claimants met with an accident when they were returning to Delhi from Panchkula. Due to rashness and negligence of respondent No.1, they had not only sustained multiple injuries, but had also to remain admitted in the hospital. Harish Chugh could not attend his duty for more than 3 months due to injuries as he sustained multiple fractures and undergone surgery, whereas Uma Shanker Srivastava could not join his duties till January 19, 2010, it can safely be presumed that both must have suffered acute pain and suffering due to injuries caused to them by the rashness and negligence of respondent No.1. Though the pain and suffering cannot be quantified in monetary terms, yet considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 1 lac is MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 18 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
awarded to Harish Chugh whereas ` 25,000/- is awarded to Uma Shankar towards pain and suffering.
Disfigurement:
(i). Though counsel for petitioners claimed ` 50,000/- on account of disfigurement, yet during inquiry, petitioners failed to establish any disfigurement, accordingly, petitioners are not entitled any compensation under this head.
Loss of Marriage Prospect:
(i). Counsel appearing for Harish Chugh claimed ` 1 lac on account of marriage prospect. But during inquiry, he failed to adduce any such evidence. Accordingly, he is not entitled for any compensation under this head.
Loss of Earning/inconvenient/hardship:
(i). Counsel appearing for petitioners claimed ` 50,000/- each under this head whereas counsel appearing for insurance company submitted that they are not entitled for any compensation under this head.
(ii). In my opinion, the adequate compensation is awarded to the petitioners under the head of loss of income. Loss of inconvenience/hardship also includes under the head of pain MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 19 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
and suffering. Moreover, no separate evidence has been led by the petitioners in this regard, accordingly, they are not entitled for any compensation under this head.
20. As discussed above, the overall compensation is tabulated as under:
NAME OF THE CLAIMANTS HARISH CHUG UMA SHANKAR SHRIVASTAVA NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (IN `) AMOUNT (IN `) Loss of Income 51,770/- 10,913/-
Medical Expenses 31,010/- 15,998/-
Conveyance charges 20,000/- 10,000/-
Special Diet 15,000/- 3,000/-
Attendant Charges 15,000/- 4,000/-
Mental & physical shock 50,000/- 50,000/-
Pain & suffering 1,00,000/- 25,000/-
2,82,780/- 1,18,911/-
Total
Round off :- ` 2,83,000/-
(Rupees Two Lac Eighty Three Thousands Only) Round off :- ` 1,19,000/-
(Rupees One Lac Nineteen Thousands Only) MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 20 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
(i) The claimants/petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petitions i.e. October 11, 2010.
21. LIABILITY TO PAY:-
(i) Since the offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.1 (Parveen Kumar), it belonged to respondent No.2 (M/s Shiv Oil Company) and insured with respondent No.3 (Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.), all are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
(ii) Accordingly, issue No.2 is decided in favour of petitioners in both claim matters and against the respondents.
22. DISBURSEMENT:-
(i) In their statement recorded on July 14, 2017 regarding their financial status in terms of clause 26 of Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs Jaibir Singh & others, FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014, claimant Harish Chugh deposed that his monthly expenditure is ` 40,000/- to ` 45,000/- whereas Uma Shankar Srivastava deposed that his monthly expenditure is ` 30,000/- to ` 40,000/- per month.
MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 21 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
(ii) In view of their statement, on realization, from the share of Harish Chugh, a sum of ` 83,000/- with interest up-to date shall be released to him and balance amount of ` 2,00,000/- shall be put in 5 fixed deposits in the name of petitioner/claimant in a nationalized bank of equal amount for a period of one (1) month to five (5) months.
(iii) Similarly, on realization, from the share of Uma Shankar Srivastava, a sum of ` 29,000/- with interest up-to date shall be released to him and balance amount of ` 90,000/- shall be put in 3 fixed deposits in the name of petitioner/claimant in a nationalized bank of equal amount for a period of one (1) month to three (3) months.
(iv) The above FDRs shall be made with the following conditions as enumerated by the High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/03 Rajesh Tyagi & others vs. Jaibir Singh & others decided on February 13, 2017 case:-
(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity of FDR and maturity amount of the FDRs be given to the claimants.
(ii)The maturity amount of the FDR be credited in the saving account of the claimants near the place of their residence.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to the claimants in the MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 22 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
savings bank account without permission of the court.
(iv) No loan, advance or premature withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(v) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim.
23. Relief:
Since, the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3, respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the award amount of ` 2,83,000/- in MACT Suit No. 562/2010 and ` 1,19,000/- in MACT Suit No. 563/2010 with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. October 11, 2010 till realization with Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners failing which the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
24. Insurance company, driver and owner of the offending vehicle are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioners/claimants and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days from today.
MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 23 of 24 Harish Chugh vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
Uma Shankar Srivastava vs. Praveen Kumar & ors.
(i) A copy of this judgment be sent to Respondent No.3 for compliance within the time granted.
(ii) Nazir is directed to place a report on record on October 9, 2017 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(iii) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court on December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(iv) The original award is signed and placed in the MACT Suit no. 562/2010. Copy of the same be placed in MACT Suit No. 563/2010.
(v) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court
on this 6th day of September 2017 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN)
Judge, MACT-1 (Central),
THC, Delhi/sv
MACT No. 356406/16 (Suit No. 562/2010) MACT No. 356405/16 (Suit No. 563/10) Page 24 of 24