Master Dhruv Mehta S/O Late Sh. Rajeev ... vs Sh. Virender Singh S/O Sh. Ram Kishan on 30 July, 2016

[Cites 29, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Master Dhruv Mehta S/O Late Sh. Rajeev ... vs Sh. Virender Singh S/O Sh. Ram Kishan on 30 July, 2016

          0IN THE COURT OF MS. SANTOSH SNEHI MANN,
  JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02, WEST DISTRICT,
                   TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
COMMON AWARD:


I.        Petition No.:  76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015)

         Master Dhruv Mehta S/o Late Sh. Rajeev Mehta
         R/o: A122, DDA Flat (LIG), Rajouri Garden Extn.,
         New Delhi 
         (Son of deceased Sh. Rajeev Mehta)
         (Petitioner being minor is represented through his 
         Uncle Sh. Sanjeev Mehta)                                             .......... Petitioner

                                                Versus

      1. Sh. Virender Singh S/o Sh. Ram Kishan
         R/o: Village & Post Office Kabulpur,
         Tehsil & District Rohtak, Haryana
         (Driver of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308 )

      2. Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Jai Chand
          R/o: 475, Wazirpur Jhajjar, Haryana
          2  nd  Address:
          C/o Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh
          House No. 374, Lakhan Majra,
          District Rohtak, Haryana
          (Owner of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

      3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
         105106, Express Arced Building,
         H10, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitam Pura,
         New Delhi - 110034. 
         (Policy/Cover Note - 200700151205
         Valid from 22.08.2007 to 21.08.2008)
         (Insurer of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308) .......... Respondents

II. Petition No.: 76404/2016 (Old No. 244/2015) Master Dhruv Mehta S/o Late Sh. Rajeev Mehta R/o: A122, DDA Flat (LIG), Rajouri Garden Extn., New Delhi (Son of deceased Smt. Anju Mehta) Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 1 of 55 (Petitioner being minor is represented through his Uncle Sh. Sanjeev Mehta) .......... Petitioner Versus

1. Sh. Virender Singh S/o Sh. Ram Kishan R/o: Village & Post Office Kabulpur, Tehsil & District Rohtak, Haryana (Driver of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

2. Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Jai Chand R/o: 475, Wazirpur Jhajjar, Haryana 2 nd Address:

C/o Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh House No. 374, Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak, Haryana (Owner of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 105106, Express Arced Building, H10, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitam Pura, New Delhi - 110034.

(Policy/Cover Note - 200700151205 Valid from 22.08.2007 to 21.08.2008) (Insurer of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308) .......... Respondents III. Petition No.: 76456/2016 (Old No. 245/2015) Master Dhruv Mehta S/o Late Sh. Rajeev Mehta R/o: A122, DDA Flat (LIG), Rajouri Garden Extn., New Delhi (Brother of deceased Baby Parul Mehta) (Petitioner being minor is represented through his Uncle Sh. Sanjeev Mehta) .......... Petitioner Versus

1. Sh. Virender Singh S/o Sh. Ram Kishan R/o: Village & Post Office Kabulpur, Tehsil & District Rohtak, Haryana (Driver of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

2. Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Jai Chand R/o: 475, Wazirpur Jhajjar, Haryana Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 2 of 55 2 nd Address:

C/o Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh House No. 374, Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak, Haryana (Owner of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 105106, Express Arced Building, H10, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitam Pura, New Delhi - 110034.

(Policy/Cover Note - 200700151205 Valid from 22.08.2007 to 21.08.2008) (Insurer of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308) .......... Respondents IV. Petition No.: 76517/2016 (Old No. 247/2015) Master Dhruv Mehta S/o Late Sh. Rajeev Mehta R/o: A122, DDA Flat (LIG), Rajouri Garden Extn., New Delhi (Petitioner being minor is represented through his Uncle Sh. Sanjeev Mehta) .......... Petitioner Versus

1. Sh. Virender Singh S/o Sh. Ram Kishan R/o: Village & Post Office Kabulpur, Tehsil & District Rohtak, Haryana (Driver of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

2. Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Jai Chand R/o: 475, Wazirpur Jhajjar, Haryana 2 nd Address:

C/o Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh House No. 374, Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak, Haryana (Owner of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 105106, Express Arced Building, H10, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitam Pura, New Delhi - 110034.

(Policy/Cover Note - 200700151205 Valid from 22.08.2007 to 21.08.2008) (Insurer of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308) ....... Respondents Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 3 of 55 V. Petition No.: 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015)

1. Sh. Sunil Dutt S/o Sh. R. L. Sharma (Husband of deceased Smt. Rajni Dutt)

2. Baby Sara Dutt D/o Sh. Sunil Dutt (Daughter of deceased Smt. Rajni Dutt)

3. Master Ehsaas Dutt S/o Sh. Sunil Dutt All R/o: I33A, Mohan Garden, New Delhi - 110059 (Son of deceased Smt. Rajni Dutt) (Petitioners No. 2 & 3 being minors represented through Petitioner No. 1 being their father/next friend/natural guardian) .......... Petitioners Versus

1. Sh. Virender Singh S/o Sh. Ram Kishan R/o: Village & Post Office Kabulpur, Tehsil & District Rohtak, Haryana (Driver of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

2. Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Jai Chand R/o: 475, Wazirpur Jhajjar, Haryana 2 nd Address:

C/o Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh House No. 374, Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak, Haryana (Owner of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 105106, Express Arced Building, H10, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitam Pura, New Delhi - 110034.

(Policy/Cover Note - 200700151205 Valid from 22.08.2007 to 21.08.2008) (Insurer of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

4. Master Dhruv Mehta S/o Late Sh. Rajeev Mehta R/o: A122, DDA Flat (LIG), Rajouri Garden Extn., New Delhi LR of Late Sh. Rajeev Mehta, owner of Santro Car No. DL4CP0670)

5. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 4 of 55 DO - Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (Vide Policy No. 31/2008/3875 Covering Note of Accident I.e. 21.04.2008) (Insurer of Santro Car No. DL4CP0670) .......... Respondents VI. Petition No.: 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015)

1. Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Braham Dutt Sharma (Husband of deceased Ms. Kamla Devi)

2. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma (Son of deceased Ms. Kamla Devi) Both R/o: F98, Mohan Garden, New Delhi - 110059 .......... Petitioners Versus

1. Sh. Virender Singh S/o Sh. Ram Kishan R/o: Village & Post Office Kabulpur, Tehsil & District Rohtak, Haryana (Driver of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

2. Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Jai Chand R/o: 475, Wazirpur Jhajjar, Haryana 2 nd Address:

C/o Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh House No. 374, Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak, Haryana (Owner of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 105106, Express Arced Building, H10, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitam Pura, New Delhi - 110034.

(Policy/Cover Note - 200700151205 Valid from 22.08.2007 to 21.08.2008) (Insurer of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

4. Master Dhruv Mehta S/o Late Sh. Rajeev Mehta R/o: A122, DDA Flat (LIG), Rajouri Garden Extn., New Delhi (LR of Late Sh. Rajeev Mehta, owner of Santro Car No. DL4CP0670)

5. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited DO - Paschim Vihar, New Delhi Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 5 of 55 (Vide Policy No. 31/2008/3875 Covering Note of Accident I.e. 21.04.2008) (Insurer of Santro Car No. DL4CP0670) .......... Respondents VII. Petition No.: 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015) Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma R/o: F98, Mohan Garden, New Delhi - 110059 (Father of deceased Baby Lamha) .......... Petitioner Versus

1. Sh. Virender Singh S/o Sh. Ram Kishan R/o: Village & Post Office Kabulpur, Tehsil & District Rohtak, Haryana (Driver of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

2. Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Jai Chand R/o: 475, Wazirpur Jhajjar, Haryana 2 nd Address:

C/o Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh House No. 374, Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak, Haryana (Owner of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 105106, Express Arced Building, H10, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitam Pura, New Delhi - 110034.

(Policy/Cover Note - 200700151205 Valid from 22.08.2007 to 21.08.2008) (Insurer of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

4. Smt. Leena D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma R/o: RZI19/2, Mahavir EnclaveI, New Delhi (Mother of deceased Baby Lamha)

5. Master Dhruv Mehta S/o Late Sh. Rajeev Mehta R/o: A122, DDA Flat (LIG), Rajouri Garden Extn., New Delhi (LR of Late Sh. Rajeev Mehta, owner of Santro Car No. DL4CP0670)

6. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited DO - Paschim Vihar, New Delhi Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 6 of 55 (Vide Policy No. 31/2008/3875 Covering Note of Accident i.e. 21.04.2008) (Insurer of Santro Car No. DL4CP0670) .......... Respondents VIII. Petition No.: 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015) Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma R/o: F98, Mohan Garden, New Delhi - 110059 (Father of deceased Master Prayas) .......... Petitioner Versus

1. Sh. Virender Singh S/o Sh. Ram Kishan R/o: Village & Post Office Kabulpur, Tehsil & District Rohtak, Haryana (Driver of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

2. Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Jai Chand R/o: 475, Wazirpur Jhajjar, Haryana 2 nd Address:

C/o Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh House No. 374, Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak, Haryana (Owner of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 105106, Express Arced Building, H10, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitam Pura, New Delhi - 110034.

(Policy/Cover Note - 200700151205 Valid from 22.08.2007 to 21.08.2008) (Insurer of truck/trolla bearing No. HR46C0308)

4. Smt. Leena D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma R/o: RZI19/2, Mahavir EnclaveI, New Delhi (Mother of deceased Master Prayas)

5. Master Dhruv Mehta S/o Late Sh. Rajeev Mehta R/o: A122, DDA Flat (LIG), Rajouri Garden Extn., New Delhi (LR of Late Sh. Rajeev Mehta, owner of Santro Car No. DL4CP0670)

1. By this Common Award, I shall decide eight (08) claim petitions registered vide No. 76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015), 76404/2016 (Old No. 244/2015), 76456/2016 (Old No. 245/2015), 76517/2016 (Old No. 247/2015), 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015), 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015), 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015) and 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015), all filed under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act) since they arise from the same vehicular accident that took place on 20.04.2008 in which seven (07) persons namely Sh. Rajiv Mehta, Smt. Anju Mehta, Baby Parul, Smt. Rajni Dutt, Smt. Kamla Devi, Baby Lamha & Master Prayas had died and Master Dhruv Mehta besides two other children suffered injuries. FIR No. 88/2008, under Section 283/337/304A IPC was registered at Police Station Padao, Ambala with respect to the accident.

2. Four claim petitions have been filed by Master Dhruv Mehta, through his Uncle Sh. Sanjeev Mehta, one as injured and three as sole surviving LR of deceased Sh. Rajiv Mehta, Smt. Anju Mehta and Baby Parul {(No. 76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015), 76404/2016 (Old No. 244/2015), 76456/2016 (Old No. 245/2015) and 76517/2016 (Old No. 247/2015)}. Two petitions are filed by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, father of deceased Baby Lamha and Master Prayas {{No.: 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015) & No.:

76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015)} and one each by Sh. Sunil Dutt, husband of deceased Smt. Rajni Dutt (76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015) and Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma, husband of deceased Smt. Kamla Devi {(76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015)}.

3. These claim petitions have been received on being remanded back by a common order of High Court of Delhi in MAC APP Nos. 313/2011, Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 8 of 55 318/2011, 335/2011, 363/2011, 450/2012, 490/2012, 491/2012 and 495/2012 dated 20.03.2015, passed in eight (08) appeals vide which four (04) separate judgments dated 25.01.2012 passed by Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi and four (04) judgments dated 04.02.2011 passed by Presiding Officer, MACT, West District, Delhi were setaside with the direction that all the claim petitions be tried by a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal of the West District which shall decide the question on negligence, quantum of compensation and liability afresh.

Consequently, vide order of Ld. District & Sessions Judge (West), Tis Hazari, Delhi dated 10.04.2015 these claim petitions were assigned to the Ld. Predecessor.

4. In view of the observations made by the High Court of Delhi in the order dated 20.03.2015 that there will be no bar for impleadment of any party/parties in the claim petitions, on the application of the petitioner(s) dated 25.05.2015 moved under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, Dhruv Mehta, LR of the deceased Sh. Rajiv Mehta (owner of Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL4CP0670) and insurer of the Santro Car (Oriental Insurance Company Limited) were impleaded as respondents vide order dated 22.08.2015 in four (04) Claim Petitions [No. 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015), 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015), 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015) and 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015)].

5. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the claim petitions are that on 20.04.2008 at about 06.30 pm deceased Sh. Rajiv Mehta alongwith his family members was returning in a Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL 4CP0670 from Phagwara, Punjab to Delhi after attending a marriage at Phagwara. Rajiv Mehta was driving the car and when the car reached at about 0810 kilometers ahead of Mohra Dukheri Morh at Ambala G. T. Road, it dashed on the rear side of a stationary truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46C0308. Consequently, Sh. Rajiv Mehta, driver of the Santro Car and six (06) others travelling in the car namely Smt. Anju Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 9 of 55 Mehta (wife of Sh. Rajeev Mehta), Baby Parul (Daughter of Sh. Rajeev Mehta), Smt. Rajni Dutt (sisterinlaw of Sh. Rajeev Mehta), Smt. Kamla Devi (motherinlaw of Sh. Rajeev Mehta), Baby Lamha (niece of Sh. Rajeev Mehta) & Master Prayas (nephew of Sh. Rajeev Mehta) suffered fatal injuries and three children including Master Dhruv Mehta (son of Sh. Rajeev Mehta) suffered grievous injuries. They all were taken to PGI Chandigarh by the local police. It is alleged that the accident was caused due to negligence and wrongful conduct of Virender Singh (Respondent No. 1), driver of the truck/trolla, who had wrongly parked the truck/trolla in the middle of the road without any indications and reflectors in compliance of traffic rules for safety of others. Surender Singh (Respondent No. 2) is the registered owner of the Truck/trolla which was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 3).

6. Respondents No. 1 & 2 (driver and owner of truck/trolla) have filed joint written statement wherein preliminary objection is taken on the ground that the accident was caused by driver of the Santro Car, who was driving at a very high speed on the wrong side without observing the norms of traffic rules as a result of which he lost control and hit the stationary truck/trolla, which was parked properly by its driver. On merits, it is claimed that respondent No. 1 has been falsely implicated and there was no fault on his part for causing the accident.

7. In the written statement filed by the respondent No. 3 (insurer of truck/trolla), though it is admitted that the vehicle as duly insured vide Policy No. 1305372314105318 valid from 22.08.2007 to 21.08.2008, including the date of the accident, liability is contested on the ground that accident was caused due to sole negligence of the driver of the Santro Car and not because of any wrongful act or negligence on the part of the driver of the truck/trolla.

8. In Petitions No. 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015) and 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015), Ms. Leena is respondent No. 4, who is mother of the deceased Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 10 of 55 Baby Lamha & deceased Master Prayas. She has filed the written statement and claimed that being mother of the deceased children she is also entitled for compensation.

9. In the written statement filed on behalf of Dhruv Mehta {Respondent No. 4 in Petitions No. 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015) & 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015) and Respondent No. 5 in Petitions No. 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015) & 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015)}, preliminary objection is taken on the ground that there is no cause of action against the answering respondent, who himself is a victim of the accident.

10. In the written statement filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (insurer of Santro Car), {Respondent No. 5 in Suits No. 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015) & 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015) and Respondent No. 6 in Suits No. 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015) & 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015)}, preliminary objection is taken on the ground that the accident was caused because of truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46C0308, which was parked wrongly in the middle of the road without observing any traffic norms and signals. Though, it is not disputed that the car was insured, liability is claimed on the grounds that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the driver of the car was not holding any valid or effective driving license at the time of the accident and number of passengers travelling in the car was more than authorized sitting capacity.

11. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, following issues were framed by the concerned Motor Accident Claim Tribunals separately in all the claim petitions:

I. Issues in Petition No.: 76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015):

1. Whether on 20.04.2008 at about 06.30 pm, at Mohra Dukheri Mor, Ambala, at G. T. Road, deceased Rajeev Mehta alongwith his parents alongwith other nine passengers was driving the Santro Car No. DL4CP0670 and hit the vehicle Truck/trolla No. HR46C0308 from behind, which was wrongly parked and resulted into the death of deceased Rajiv Mehta? OPP.

Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 11 of 55

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Relief II. Issues in Petition No.: 76404/2016 (Old No. 244/2015):

1. Whether on 20.04.2008 at about 06.30 pm, at Mohra Dukheri Mor, Ambala, at G. T. Road, deceased Rajeev Mehta alongwith his parents alongwith other nine passengers was driving the Santro Car No. DL4CP0670 and hit the vehicle Truck/trolla No. HR46C0308 from behind, which was wrongly parked and resulted into the death of deceased Anju Mehta? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Relief III. Issues in Petition No.: 76456/2016 (Old No. 245/2015):

1. Whether on 20.04.2008 at about 06.30 pm, at Mohra Dukheri Mor, Ambala, at G. T. Road, deceased Rajeev Mehta alongwith his parents alongwith other nine passengers was driving the Santro Car No. DL4CP0670 and hit the vehicle Truck/trolla No. HR46C0308 from behind, which was wrongly parked and resulted into the death of deceased Ms. Parul Mehta? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Relief IV. Issues in Petition No.: 76517/2016 (Old No. 247/2015):

1. Whether on 20.04.2008 at about 06.30 pm, at Mohra Dukheri Mor, Ambala, at G. T. Road, deceased Rajeev Mehta alongwith his parents alongwith other nine passengers was driving the Santro Car No. DL4CP0670 and hit the vehicle Truck/trolla No. HR46C0308 from behind, which was wrongly parked and resulted into the accidental injuries of Master Dhruv Mehta? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Relief V. Issues in Petition No.: 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015):

1. Whether the deceased Smt. Rajni Dutt had sustained fatal injuries on 21.04.2008 at about 06.00 am at G. T. Road, Mohra Dukheri More, Ambala within the area of PS Parao, Ambala due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 Sh. Virender Singh while Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 12 of 55 driving vehicle truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46C0308? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Relief VI. Issues in Petition No.: 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015):

1. Whether the deceased Smt. Kamla Devi had sustained fatal injuries on 21.04.2008 at about 06.00 am at G. T. Road, Mohra Dukheri More, Ambala within the area of PS Parao, Ambala due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 Sh. Virender Singh while driving vehicle truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46C0308? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Relief VII. Issues in Petition No.: 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015):

1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 21.04.2008 at about 06.00 am involving truck/trolla No. HR46C0380 parked by the respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Relief VIII. Issues in Petition No.: 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015):

1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 21.04.2008 at about 06.00 am involving truck/trolla No. HR46C0380 parked by the respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Relief

12. There is a typographical error in issue no. 1 in the Petitions no. 76362/2016 & 76393/2016 with respect to the Registration number of truck/trolla involved in the accident. The correct Regn. No. of the truck/trolla involved in the accident is HR46C0308 and it is read so accordingly.

13. In Suit No. 76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015), PW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar, Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 13 of 55 UDC, UPSC, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi, produced the salary record of the deceased Rajiv Mehta as Ex. PW1/A and order of the competent authority dated 04.03.2010 about revised Pay Scale of the deceased as Ex.

PW1/B. PW2 Sh. J. P. Khatri, UDC, UPSC, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi produced the Service Book of the deceased Rajiv Mehta as Ex. PW2/A and details of his family as Ex. PW2/B. PW3 Sh. Sanjeev Mehta, is an eye witness and brother of the deceased, who has deposed on the affidavit Ex. PW3/X and filed on record photocopies of the Death Certificate of the deceased Rajiv Mehta as Ex. PW3/A, Ration Card of the family as Ex. PW3/B and Income Tax Return filed by the deceased for the Assessment Year 20072008 as Ex. PW3/C. Original documents were produced by the witness during his examination, which were seen and returned.

14. In Suit No. 76404/2016 (Old No. 244/2015), eye witness Sh. Sanjeev Mehta, has testified as PW1 and deposed on the affidavit Ex. PW1/X. He has filed photocopies of the Death Certificate of the deceased Anju Mehta as Ex. PW1/A and Ration Card Ex. PW1/B, originals of which were produced by the witness during his examination, which were seen and returned.

15. In Suit No. 76456/2016 (Old No. 245/2015), eye witness Sh. Sanjeev Mehta, has testified as PW1 and deposed on the affidavit Ex. PW1/X. He has filed photocopies of the Death Certificate of deceased Parul Mehta as Ex. PW1/A, School Progress Report Card of the deceased as Ex. PW1/B and Ration Card as Ex. PW1/C. Original Death Certificate and Ration Card were produced, which were seen and returned.

16. In Suit No. 76517/2016 (Old No. 247/2015), eye witness Sh. Sanjeev Mehta, has testified as PW1 and deposed on the affidavit Ex. PW1/X. He has filed treatment record of the petitioner collectively as Ex. PW1/A (19 Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 14 of 55 sheets from 03 to 22) and original bills collectively as Ex. PW1/B (15 sheets from 23 to 37). The witness also produced the School Fee Card of the petitioner as Ex. PW1/C and photocopy of the Ration Card as Ex. PW 1/D, original of which was produced by the witness during his examination, which was seen and returned.

17. In Suit No. 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015), Petitioner No. 1 Sh. Sunil Dutt, husband of the deceased Smt. Rajni Dutt, has testified as PW1 and has deposed on the affidavit Ex. PW1/1. He has filed the certified copies of the criminal proceedings collectively as Ex. PW1/A, including copies of FIR, superdaginama, Insurance Policy of the truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46C0308, Mechanical Inspection Reports of the Santro Car and truck/trolla involved in the accident, Registration Certificate of Truck/Trolla, Driving License of the respondent No. 1 and copy of Notice given to the respondent No. 1 by the Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Ambala during trial. He also produced Provisional Graduate Certificate and Matriculation Certificate of the deceased and filed photocopies Ex. PW1/X and Ex. PW1/Z respectively, besides photocopy of fee receipt (Ex. PW 1/Y) in the name of the deceased for admission in M. A. (English Course) at Madurai Kamaraj University Study Centre.

In the additional evidence, after the case was remanded back by the High Court of Delhi, petitioners adopted the testimony of eye witness PW3 Sh. Sanjeev Mehta in Petition No. 76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015).

18. In Suit No. 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015), Petitioner No. 1 Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma, husband of the deceased Smt. Kamla Devi, has testified as PW1 and has deposed on the affidavit as Ex. PW1/1 in evidence. His name is wrongly typed as PW1 Sunil Dutt instead of PW1 Shiv Kumar Sharma. The mistake seems to have inadvertently occurred because it was one of the connected matters with the claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased Smt. Rajni Dutt, in which Sunil Dutt (husband of deceased Rajni Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 15 of 55 Dutt) has testified as PW1. There is no confusion about the fact that testimony of PW1 in this case is that of Shiv Kumar Sharma and not of Sunil Dutt as signatures of PW1 on record tally with the signatures of Shiv Kumar Sharma on the affidavit Ex. PW1/1. Therefore, name of the witness PW1 Sunil Dutt is read as PW1 Shiv Kumar Sharma. PW1 has filed on record certified copies of the criminal proceedings collectively as Ex. PW1/A, which includes copies of FIR, Postmortem Report, Superdaginama, Insurance Policy of the truck/trolla, Mechanical Inspection Reports of the two vehicles involved in the accident and Registration Certificate of the truck/trolla. In the additional evidence, after the case was remanded back by the High Court of Delhi, petitioners adopted the testimony of eye witness PW3 Sh. Sanjeev Mehta in Petition No.: 76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015).

19. In Suit No. 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015), petitioner Sh. Rajesh Kumar, father of the deceased Baby Lamha, has testified as PW1 and deposed on the affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He produced the original documents and placed on record photocopies of his Election Identity Card as Ex. PW1/1 and Birth Certificate of the deceased as Ex. PW1/2.

In the additional evidence, after the case was remanded back by the High Court of Delhi, petitioner adopted the testimony of eye witness PW3 Sh. Sanjeev Mehta in Petition No.: 76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015).

20. In Suit No. 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015), petitioner Sh. Rajesh Kumar, father of the deceased Master Prayas, has testified as PW1 and deposed on the affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He produced the original documents and placed on record photocopies of his Election Identity Card as Ex. PW1/1 and Birth Certificate of the deceased as Ex. PW1/2. In the additional evidence, after the case was remanded back by the High Court of Delhi, petitioner adopted the testimony of eye witness PW3 Sh. Sanjeev Mehta in Petition No.: 76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015).

Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 16 of 55

21. Certified copies of criminal proceedings including chargesheet, statement of eye witness Sh. Sanjeev Mehta, FIR, driving licence of Virender Singh (Respondent no. 1), arrest memo of Virender Singh (Respondent no. 1), RC of truck/trolla bearing no. HR46C0308, insurance policy, postmortem reports of all the seven persons who died in the accident and MLC of injured Master Dhruv Mehta have been filed on record by the petitioners.

22. No witness has been examined by any of the respondents in all the eight petitions.

23. I have heard Sh. Upender Singh, counsel for the petitioner Master Dhruv Mehta in four petitions (No. 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016 & 76517/2016), who is respondent in four petitions (No. 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016 & 76393/2016), Sh. Rakesh Talwar, counsel for the petitioners in remaining four petitions (No. 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016 & 76393/2016), Sh. R. K. Gupta, counsel for respondent No. 3 Reliance General Insurance Company(insurer of Truck/trolla) in all the eight petitions and Sh. S. K. Tyagi, counsel for the respondent Oriental Insurance Company Limited (insurer of Santro car) in the four petitions (No. 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016 & 76393/2016). None appeared on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 to address the arguments. I have carefully perused the record.

24. My findings on the issues are as under:

I Issue No. 1 in all the eight claim petitions [No.:76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015), 76404/2016 (Old No. 244/2015), 76456/2016 (Old No. 245/2015), 76517/2016 (Old No. 247/2015), 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015), 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015), 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015) and 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015)]:

In a claim petition filed by the LRs of deceased or by the injured for compensation under Section 166 of M. V. Act, onus is on the petitioners to prove that death or injury was caused in a vehicular accident due to wrongful act or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 17 of 55

25. Sh. Sanjeev Mehta is an eye witness, who has been examined as PW1 in three cases (76485/2016, 76600/2016 and 76362/2016) and as PW3 in five cases (76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016 and 76393/2016). He has deposed on the affidavits Ex. PW1/X and Ex. PW 3/X in these cases depending on the witness number in the case. He has deposed in the affidavit that on 20.04.2008 his brother Rajiv Mehta along with his wife Smt. Anju Mehta, daughter Baby Parul, son Master Dhruv Mehta, sisterinlaw Smt. Rajni Dutt, motherinlaw Smt. Kamla Devi, niece Baby Lamha, nephew Master Prayas and two other children, was returning to Delhi from Phagwara in a Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL4CP 0670, which was driven by Rajiv Mehta. At about 06.30 pm when the car reached at Mohra Dukheri Morh Ambala at G. T. Road, a truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46C0308 was parked in the middle of the road without any indicators and reflectors or any other mark, due to which the Santro Car dashed on the back side of the stationary trolla, as a result of which Rajiv Mehta, Smt. Anju Mehta, Baby Parul, Smt. Rajni Dutt, Smt. Kamla Devi, Baby Lamha & Master Prayas suffered fatal injuries and Master Dhruv Mehta alongwith two other children namely Baby Sara and Master Avi, cousins of Master Dhruv Mehta suffered injuries. It has come in the affidavit of the eye witness that accident was caused due to careless and negligent parking of the truck/trolla without any indication of its parking, in violation of traffic norms and rules of safety of others. The witness has deposed in the affidavit that he was also coming to Delhi from Phagwara, Punjab in another car.

26. In the crossexamination of the eye witness Sanjeev Mehta (PW1/PW3) by the counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2, driver and owner of truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46C0308, it has come that at the time of accident he was travelling in another car, which was about 150200 meters behind the car driven by his deceased brother (Rajiv Mehta). He stated that there were very few vehicles on the road and that he had seen Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 18 of 55 the accident. He admitted that no other vehicle had hit the truck/trolla and stated that Rajiv Mehta was driving the car at the speed of 5060 kmph. He denied the suggestion that Rajiv Mehta was driving the car at the speed of 100160 kmph due to which he (Rajiv Mehta) could not apply brakes and the car hit on the back side of the truck/trolla. He denied the suggestion that accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of deceased Rajiv Mehta.

27. The eye witness Sanjeev Mehta has not been crossexamined by respondent No. 3 Insurance Company (insurer of truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46C0308). He was not crossexamined by the respondent Dhruv Mehta, who was impleaded as respondent in 04 cases after the cases were remanded back by the High Court of Delhi {Petitions No.: 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015), 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015), 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015) and 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015)}.

28. In the crossexamination of the eye witness Sanjeev Mehta by the counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (insurer of Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL4CP0670), impleaded as respondent in 04 cases after the cases were remanded back {Petitions No. 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015), 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015), 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015) and 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015)}, he admitted that his statement given to the police is correct to the effect that truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46C0308 was wrongly parked in the middle of the road without any indication or diversion to indicate the presence of truck/trolla on the road and also that the blinkers of the truck/trolla were not switchedon. Eye witness also admitted that there was nobody near the truck/trolla to physically divert the traffic and stated that accident took place due to wrongful parking of the truck/trolla in the middle of the road.

29. It is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition under Section 166 of the M. V. Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 19 of 55 the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Section 166 & 140 of the M. V. Act.

30. Nevertheless, it is also a settled legal position that in a claim petition under Section 166 of the M. V. Act, burden is on the claimants/petitioners to prove negligence. The law to this effect declared in Minu B Mehta Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SC 441 was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Meena Variyal 2007 (5) SCC 428, which has been followed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devki & Ors., MAC APP 165/2013 decided on 29.02.2016.

31. PW3/PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Mehta has claimed to be an eye witness and has deposed on the lines of the petitions about the manner of the accident. In his crossexamination by the respondents the fact that he is an eye witness of the accident has gone unrebutted as it has not been rebutted or controverted by any of the respondents. Moreover, the fact that he is an eye witness of the accident is corroborated by the FIR, which was registered on his statement at Police Station Padao, Ambala, certified copy of which has been filed along with criminal proceedings collectively as Ex. PW1/A {(Suits No.: 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015) and 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015)}. Certified copies of the criminal proceedings are admissible in evidence and there is no rebuttal by the respondents. Therefore, it is proved on record on the basis of unrebutted deposition of eye witness Sh. Sanjeev Mehta (PW3/PW1) corroborated by FIR that he is an eye witness of the accident.

Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 20 of 55

32. According to the deposition of the eye witness Sanjeev Mehta, the Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL4CP0670, driven by his deceased brother Rajiv Mehta, dashed on the rear side of the truck/trolla because it (truck/trolla) was parked wrongly in the middle of the road in a negligent manner without any indication or reflectors or any other manner to indicate presence of stationary truck/trolla to ward off the moving traffic.

33. Testimony of the eye witness has gone absolutely unrebutted on the fact that the truck/trolla was parked in the middle of the road which is G. T. Road, a Highway, and there is no dispute between the parties about the manner of the accident and place of accident. While the petitioners have claimed that the accident was caused due to wrong parking of the truck/trolla in the middle of the road without any indication reflectors, it is claimed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 in the written statement that all due precautions were taken by the driver of the trolla and the accident was caused due to negligence of driver of the Santro Car.

34. Concededly the truck/trolla was stationary/parked on the road which is a highway. Since the road was a highway, the time of the accident was onset of evening (around 06.30 pm), there being no evidence that the traffic was dense, the speed of the vehicles moving on the highway would be more than the speed limits in the urban areas. All vehicles moving on the highway would presume the vehicles on the road to be moving, until and unless there are visible caution signs to indicate well in advance the presence of a stationary vehicle on such a road.

35. In the absence of any clear signal or indication about a stationary heavy vehicle on the highway, the drivers of the moving vehicles on the road will not be able to make assessment that the vehicle seen ahead on the road is stationary, because it would appear to be moving and by the time the driver of a moving vehicle will reach close to the stationary vehicle, he shall be taken by surprise and being on a high speed of the vehicle on a highway, he will have no time or occasion to divert the direction to avert collision with Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 21 of 55 the stationary vehicle.

36. For control of traffic and safety on the road, specific provisions have been made in the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. They are:

122. Leaving vehicle in dangerous position: No person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any public place in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers.

126. Stationary vehicles: No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place, unless there is in the driver's seat a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle or unless the mechanism has been stopped and a brake or brakes applied or such other measures taken as to ensure that the vehicle cannot accidentally be put in motion in the absence of the driver.

37. Nothing can be more dangerous than a vehicle parked or left stationary on the highway without any indication. They are virtually deathtraps for other vehicles moving on the road. Therefore, onus is on the driver (Respondent No. 1) of the truck/trolla to prove that he had diligently taken all due precautions while parking the vehicle on the road (highway).

38. Besides averments in the joint written statement of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 (driver and owner of the truck/trolla) that all due precautions were taken and a general suggestion in this regard to the eye witness in the crossexamination, there is not even an iota of evidence brought on record by the respondent no. 1 to show and to prove that he had taken all due precautions mandated in the Motor Vehicle Act. Surprisingly, he himself has not even deposed as a witness to prove his defence.

39. A highway is not meant to park vehicles. There is no evidence on record brought by the driver (Respondent No. 1) to prove what had forced him to leave and park the truck/trolla, which was a heavy commercial vehicle, in the middle of the road, which was a highway. Presuming for the sake of arguments that the truck/trolla had to be left on the road due to its brake Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 22 of 55 down, there is nothing on record to show as to when did the vehicle breakdown and since when it was left stationary in the middle of the road. Respondent No. 1 has not brought any evidence on record to show the steps taken by him to atleast shift the vehicle to the road side. He has not brought on record any evidence to prove or show about the steps taken by him to indicate the presence of the stationary vehicle to the drivers of the other vehicles moving on the highway. Respondent no. 1 has failed to prove as to whether he had put bricks or stones or the tree branches on the road or was manually diverting the traffic and whether indication was given from a sufficient distance so that the drivers of the moving vehicles on the highway will have enough time and opportunity to divert from the stationary vehicle.

40. Respondent No. 1 has miserably failed to discharge the onus that he took due care and precaution with respect to the stationary/parked truck/trolla on a highway. Considering the testimony of eye witness Sanjeev Mehta, which is very specific on the fact that the truck/trolla was parked wrongly in the middle of the road without any indication, it is established that Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL4CP0670 dashed on the rear side of the truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46C0308 as there was no indication about the truck/trolla being stationary on the highway, giving no time and opportunity to the driver of the car to avert the collision. Therefore, there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Rajiv Mehta, driver of the Santro Car.

41. As per the Postmortem Reports of deceased Sh. Rajiv Mehta, Smt. Anju Mehta, Baby Parul, Smt. Rajni Dutt, Smt. Kamla Devi, Baby Lamha & Master Prayas filed on record, they all died due to injuries suffered in a road side accident. As per the MLC of injured Dhruv Mehta, he suffered head injury and fracture of left femur in the road side accident. Postmortem Reports of the deceased and the MLC of the injured, with respect to cause of death and nature of injury have gone unrebutted and there is no reason Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 23 of 55 to disbelieve them.

42. On the basis of evidence on record, above observation and discussion, I hold that the accident involving truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46 C0308 and Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL4CP0670 took place due to gross negligence and wrongful conduct of respondent No. 1 Virender Singh, driver of the truck/trolla, who had parked the truck/trolla in the middle of the highway without indication and without taking due care and precautions. Further that deceased Sh. Rajiv Mehta, Smt. Anju Mehta, Baby Parul, Smt. Rajni Dutt, Smt. Kamla Devi, Baby Lamha & Master Prayas died of fatal injuries suffered in this accident and Master Dhruv Mehta suffered grievous injury in this accident.

43. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the Respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 in all the eight (08) petitions.

44. Findings on Issue No. 2 in all the eight (08) Claim Petitions [No.:76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015), 76404/2016 (Old No. 244/2015), 76456/2016 (Old No. 245/2015), 76517/2016 (Old No. 247/2015), 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015), 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015), 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015) and 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015)]:

Whether the petitioner(s) are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

Since the Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner(s), they are entitled for the compensation.

Guidelines and criteria for assessment of compensation in death cases

45. In Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principals for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:

18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:

Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 24 of 55

(a) age of the deceased;

(b) income of the deceased; and

(c) the number of dependents.

This issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:

(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;

(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and

(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.

If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.

19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following wellsettled steps:

Step1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.

Step3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added.

Guidelines and criteria for assessment of compensation in case of death of a housewife

46. Though, general principals for computation of compensation in death cases has been laid by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Supra), criteria in case of death of housewife has been laid by the Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others (2001) 8 SCC 197 wherein the Apex Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 25 of 55 Court fixed a notional sum estimating the value of services rendered by the housewife on the basis of her age. Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:

10. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000/ per annum in cases of some and Rs.

10,000/ for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that claimants, who ought to have given data for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the data for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such data and talking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs. 3000/ per month and Rs. 36,000/ per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore, should be recalculated, talking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs. 36,000/ and thereafter, applying the multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs. 50,000/ instead of Rs. 25,000/ given under the Report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs. 10,000/ per annum and the multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the values of services rendered at Rs. 10,000/ per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs. 20,000/ per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be redetermined, talking the value of services rendered at Rs. 20,000/ per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter, adding Rs. 50,000/ towards the conventional figure.

47. The issue of determination of compensation in case of death of a housewife came before the Delhi High Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs. Manmeet Singh & Others, 2012 ACJ 721, wherein various decisions of the Apex Court on the subject were discussed and considered including Lata Wadhwa case (Supra) and the principles & guidelines to determine the compensation in such cases were summed up. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:

19. In Lata Wadhwa, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC), a number of persons including women and children died; the Supreme Court assessed the compensation while taking the value of the services rendered by a housewife between the age group of 2259 as Rs. 3,000/ per month and Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 26 of 55 in the case of women aged 62 years and above at Rs. 20,000/per annum.

20. The minimum wages of a graduate at the time of the fire accident in Lata Wadhwa, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC) as notified in the State of Delhi were just Rs. 898/. The compensation was awarded in the year 2001 when the minimum wages of a graduate were Rs. 3,339/ of a matriculate were Rs. 3,027/ and that of a skilled worker were Rs. 3,003/. It is important to note that no interest on the compensation was awarded from the date of the accident till the date of payment in Lata Wadhwa (Supra).

Many Tribunals and High Courts have adopted the compensation granted in case of Lata Wadhwa (Supra) to be just and fair in motor accident cases, where the deceased was a housewife. But, the compensation in Lata Wadhwa (Supra) was awarded because there was loss of life of so many women and children when a fire broke out while they were participating in a function organized by Tata Iron & Steel Company. It was not a statutory compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Moreover, difficulty also arises on account of inflation, the wages and salaries have increased manifold. In this case, the Tribunal held that the compensation in Lata Wadhwa (Supra) was awarded in the year 2001 and doubled it to Rs. 6,000/ to compute the loss of dependency. The Tribunal further deducted 1/3rd of the assumed income towards the personal living expenses and computed the loss of dependency on the income of Rs. 4,000/ per month which according to the appellant is exorbitant and excessive. No deduction was made by Hon'ble Supreme in the assumed value services rendered at Rs. 3,000/ per month while computing the loss of dependency.

21. The services rendered by housewife cannot be counted; cooking, washing, ironing clothes and stitching clothes (in some cases) for the husband and children, teaching and guiding children, working as a Nurse whenever the husband or the child/children are sick, are some of the major activities of a housewife. She has no fixed hours of work; she is always in attendance to take care of each and every need of the whole family at the cost of her personal comfort and health. The services rendered by a housewife may differ from place to place considering her qualification, financial strata and the social status of the family to which she belongs.

22. The claimants, therefore, must lead evidence to prove the services rendered by a nonworking female. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the value of the services, if I may say so, has to have some relation to the educational qualification of the deceased.

29. While awarding compensation for loss of gratuitous services rendered by a homemaker, the Claims Tribunal or the Court simply value the services. It goes without saying that the husband looks after the wife and some amount is definitely spent on her maintenance. But, whether that amount is liable to be deducted from the value of the gratuitous services rendered by her?

33. Thus, if a deceased housewife who lost her life in a motor accident would have died a natural death, the pecuniary advantage on account of savings made of the expenditure required for her maintenance would have otherwise also accrued to the benefit of the claimants. Since this pecuniary advantage does not become receivable only on account of accidental death, in my view, the portion of the husband's income (spent Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 27 of 55 on the deceased maintenance) cannot be deducted.

34. To sum up, the loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife shall be:

(i) Minimum salary of a graduate where she is a graduate.

(ii) Minimum salary of a matriculate where she is a matriculate.

(iii) Minimum salary of a nonmatriculate in other cases

(iv) There will be an addition of 25% in the assumed income in (i), (ii) and

(iii) where the age of the homemaker is upto 40 years; the increase will be restricted to 15% where her age is above 40 years but less than 50 years; there will not be any addition in the assumed salary where the age is more than 50 years.

(v) When the deceased homemaker in the above 55 years but than 60 years, there will be deduction of 25% and when the deceased home maker was above 60 years, there will be a deduction of 50% in the assumed income as the services rendered decrease substantially.

Normally, the value of the gratuitous services rendered will be nil (unless there is evidence to the contrary) when the homemaker is above 65 years.

(vi) If a housewife dies issueless, the contribution towards the gratuitous services is much less, as there are greater chances of the husband's remarriage. In such cases, the loss of dependency shall be 50% of the income as per the qualification stated in (i), (ii) and (iii) above and addition and deduction thereon as per (iv) and (v) above.

(vii) There shall not be any deduction towards the personal and living expenses.

(viii) As an attempt has been made to compensate the loss of dependency, only a notional sum which may be upto Rs. 25,000/ (on present scale of the money value) towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/ towards loss of consortium, if the husband is alive, may be awarded.

(ix) Since a homemaker is not working and thus not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss to estate.

48. Taking note of the view in Royal Sundaram Alliance (Supra) and relying on dictum of Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Supra), High Court of Delhi in Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Murgan & Ors; MAC. APP. 1177/2014 & CM APPL. 21175/2014 decided on 25.02.2016 has held that while calculating loss of dependency in a case arising out of death of housewife, deduction should be made towards personal and living expenses as per general rule.

Guidelines and criteria for assessment of compensation in cases of death of child

49. The criteria for assessment of compensation in respect of death of a minor was considered by the Delhi High Court in National Insurance Company Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 28 of 55 Limited Vs. Farzana & Others (2009 ACJ 2763) and parameters and various heads for compensation in such cases have been identified taking into consideration various decisions of the Apex Court on the subject (Manju Devi Vs. Musafir Paswan, VII (2005) SLT 257; Sobhagya Devi Vs. Sukhvir Singh, II (2006) ACC 1997; Shyam Narayan Vs. Kitty Tours & Travels, 2006 ACJ 320; R. K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, III (2006) ACC 26 & R. K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, 2009 (8) Scale 451). Accordingly, in cases of death of a minor, notional income of a nonearning person provided in the 2nd Schedule of Section 163A of the M. V. Act is taken into consideration alongwith the multiplier provided therein. In addition to this, compensation of Rs. 75,000/ is to be awarded towards nonpecuniary heads and future prospects, each.

50. A similar matter was dealt with by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MAC APP No. 728/2007 Mona Kumari Dokania Vs. Surender Kumar Singh & Another, decided on 02.07.2014. The High Court of Delhi while following the basis for assessment of compensation in case of death of a child as summarized in Farzana's case (Supra), also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh & Others Vs. Rajbir Singh & Others (2013) 9 SCC 54 for calculating compensation under the nonpecuniary heads and held that the parents of the deceased child were entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000/ towards funeral expenses.

51. Recently Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram;

MAC. APP. 554/2010 decided on 13.05.2016 along with 15 other cases relating to death of children (MAC APP Nos. 226/2010, 580/2007, 1106/2013, 421/2015, 1288/2012, 881/2015, 1079/2013, 1187/2014, 729/2013, 250/2013, 510/2014, 100/2013, 564/2014, 956/2014, 175/2014) took cognizance of the fact that notional income in the 2 nd Schedule of Section 163A of M. V. Act has been static and the schedule has not been amended by the Central Government, despite the fact that there is rise in Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 29 of 55 the cost of living. Relying on the various decisions of the Apex Court on the subject, High Court has laid down the criteria for computation of compensation on account of death of a child. Relevant paras of the judgment are :

71. Subject to all other requisite conditions being fulfilled, for the foregoing reasons, in order to bring about consistency and uniformity in approach to the issue, it is held that claims for compensation on account of death of children shall be determined as follows:

(i) Till such time as the law is amended by the legislature, or the Central Government notifies the amendment to the Second Schedule in exercise of the enabling power vested in it by Section 163A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and except in cases wherein the prospects of employability and earnings (in future or present) of the deceased child are proved by cogent and irrefutable evidence, this having regard inter alia, to the academic record or training in special talents or skills, for computing the pecuniary damages on account of the loss to estate, the notional income of nonearning persons (Rs. 15,000/ p.a.) as specified in the Second Schedule (brought in force from 14.11.1994), shall be assumed to be the income of the deceased child, and taken into account after it is inflationcorrected with the help of Cost Inflation Index (CII) as notified by the Government of India from year to year under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by applying the formula indicated hereinafter.

(ii) For inflationcorrection, the financial year of 19971998 shall be treated as the "base year" and the value of the notional income relevant to the date of cause of action shall be computed in the following manner: Rs. 15,000/ X A / 331 [wherein the figure of Rs. 15,000/ represents the notional income specified in the second schedule requiring inflationcorrection; 'A' represents the CII for the financial year in which the cause of action arose (ie., the accident/death occurred); and the figure of '331' represents the CII for the 'base year']

(iii) After arriving at an appropriate figure of the present equivalent value of the notional income (ie., inflation corrected amount), it shall be rounded off to a figure in next thousands of rupees.

Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 30 of 55

(iv) The amount of notional income thus calculated shall be reduced to twothird, the deduction to the extent of onethird being towards personal & living expenses of the deceased, the balance taken as the annual loss to estate (hereinafter also referred to as "the multiplicand").

(v) For assessment of the pecuniary damages on account of the death of children upto the age of 10 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated, capitalizing the multiplicand, by applying the multiplier of ten (10).

(vi) For children of the agegroup of more than 10 years upto 15 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of fifteen (15).

(vii) For children of the agegroup of more than 15 years but less than 18 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of eighteen (18).

(viii) After the pecuniary loss to estate has been worked out in the manner indicated above, an amount equivalent to the amount thus computed shall be added to it as the composite nonpecuniary damages taking care of not only the conventional heads but also towards future prospects as awarded in R.K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal (2009) 14 SCC 1.

(ix) The final sum thus arrived at, appropriately rounded off, if so required to the nearest (if not next) thousands of rupees, shall be awarded as compensation for the death of the child.

73. Thus, in cases founded on cause of action arising on or after 10.05.2000, the amount of compensation shall not in any case be less than Rs. 3,75,000/ which was awarded in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Farzana (2009 ACJ 2763).

Guidelines and criteria for assessment of compensation in injury cases

52. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:

5 The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 31 of 55 make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with ref erence to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.

6 The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary damages (special damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Nonpecuniary damages (general damages)

(iv) Damages to pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii), (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii), (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent dis ability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.

CASE WISE COMPUTAITON OF COMPENSATION I. Claim Petition No. 76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015) titled Master Dhruv Mehta vs. Virender Singh & Others Age of the deceased Sh. Rajeev Mehta

53. PW2 Sh. J. P. Khatri, UDC, UPSC, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi produced the Service Book (Ex. PW2/A) of the deceased Rajeev Mehta containing the details of the family (Ex. PW2/B), according to which his Date of Birth is 23.11.1964. Record produced by this witness has gone unrebutted and Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 32 of 55 there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Accident took place on 20.04.2008. Accordingly, age of deceased Sh. Rajeev Mehta was 43 years & 05 months at the time of the accident.

Income of the Deceased

54. PW3 Sh. Sanjeev Mehta, brother of the deceased Rajeev Mehta, has deposed in the affidavit Ex. PW3/X that deceased was Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and was an Income Tax Payee. He has filed on record the Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the Assessment Year 20072008 as Ex. PW3C.

55. PW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar, UDC, UPSC, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi produced the Salary Record of the deceased (Ex. PW1/A) alongwith an Order dated 04.03.2010 of Under Secretary (Administration), Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi (Ex. PW1/B) vide which Pay Scale of the deceased was fixed for implementation of 6 th Pay Commission Report. It has come in the testimony of PW1 that at the time of death, deceased Rajeev Mehta was getting the gross salary of Rs. 13,941/ per month. Nothing has come in the crossexamination of this witness by the counsels for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to create any doubt about the record produced with respect to employement and monthly salary of the deceased at the time of his death in the vehicular accident.

56. On the basis of testimony of PW1 and PW2 it is proved that deceased Rajeev Mehta was working as Under Division Clerk in Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 13,941/ at the time of the accident. Accordingly, his annual income would be Rs. 1,67,292/ {(Rs. 13,941/ X 12) (Rupees One Lac Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Two Only)}.

Addition in the income towards future prospects:

57. PW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar, UDC, UPSC, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi has testified that according to the pay fixation order dated 04.03.2010 (Ex. PW 1/B), deceased Rajeev Mehta was entitled to 3% yearly increment and had Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 33 of 55 he not died, he would be entitled for ACPs also. Despite crossexamination by the counsels for the respondents, nothing has come on record to discredit the testimony of this witness with respect to future prospects of regular increase in the salary of the deceased by yearly increment and ACPs.

58. The issue of addition in the income towards future prospects was considered recently by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC. Appeal No. 622/2014 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lekharaj @ Lekh Raj & Ors.) decided on 27.01.2016. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced for reference:

4. In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court interalia, ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted in cases where the deceased was "self employed" or was working on a "fixed salary". Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Resham Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.

(2013) 9 SCC 65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, interalia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.

5. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 Sunil Kumar Vs. Pyar Mohd & Ors., this court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.01.2015, presently taking the decision in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospects for those who are "self employed" or engaged in gainful employment at a "fixed salary" is clarified by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. This applies to the matter at hand because the claimant here pleaded about gainful employment at a fixed salary and has not led any evidence showing the salary was subject to any periodic increase.

59. On the basis of testimony of PW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar, UDC, UPSC and PW2 Sh. J. P. Khatri, UDC, UPSC on record, it is proved that deceased was a permanent Government employee with future prospects of regular increase in the salary by yearly increment and ACP.

60. In view of above legal position keeping in view the criteria laid down in Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 34 of 55 Sarla Verma (Smt) & Others (Supra) considering the age of the deceased at the time of the death, 30% of monthly income/salary of the deceased is required to be added towards future prospects.

Number of dependents

61. It has been proved on record by the testimony of PW3 Sh. Sanjeev Mehta and not disputed that petitioner Master Dhruv Mehta is the sole surviving dependent LR of the deceased, being his minor son. Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased:

62. Since the deceased is survived by one dependent LR, on the basis of criteria laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Others, half 1/2 of the income of the deceased would be deducted towards his personal living expenses. Therefore, annual contribution to the petitoner, who is the sole surviving dependent LR of the deceased would be Rs. 1,08,740/ {{Rs. 1,67,292/ (annual income) + Rs. 50,188/ (30% of annual income) X 1/2} which is ascertained as multiplicand.

Selection of multiplier:

63. Age of the deceased was 43 years & 05 months on the date of the accident. Keeping in view the criteria laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra), multiplier applicable according to age of deceased would be 14. Loss of financial dependency:

64. In the facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, total loss of financial dependency of the LR of the deceased would be Rs. 15,22,360/ {Rs. 1,08,740/ (multiplicand) X 14 (multiplier)}. (Rupees Fiftten Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Only). Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:

65. In view of the judgment in Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others (2013) 9 SCC 54, petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac Only) towards loss of love & affection, Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/ Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 35 of 55 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards loss of estate.

66. Computation of compensation:

           Sl.                           Heads                                       Amount
           No.
            1.     Loss of financial dependency                                              15,22,360
            2.     Loss of Love and Affection                                                  1,00,000
            3.     Funeral Expenses                                                              25,000
            4.     Loss of Estate                                                                10,000
                                        Total                                                16,57,360

Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs. 16,57,360/ (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Only).

II. Claim Petiton No.: 76404/2016 (Old No.244/2015) titled Master Dhruv Mehta vs. Virender Singh & Others Age of the deceased Smt. Anju Mehta

67. PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Mehta produced the Ration Card of the family of the deceased Ms. Anju Mehta (Ex. PW1/B), according to which year of birth of the deceased is 1975. This document has not been controverted by any of the respondents. There is no reason to disbelieve the year of birth of the deceased mentioned in the Ration Card. Accident took place on 20.04.2008. Accordingly, age of deceased Ms. Anju Mehta was 33 years at the time of the accident.

Income of the Deceased

68. PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Mehta, has deposed in the affidavit Ex. PW1/X that deceased was a selfemployed Tutor, was running a Tuition Centre in the name and style of M/s Anju Tuition Centre and was earing Rs. 6,000/ per month. However, there is no evidence in support of this claim. There is no evidence about educational qualification of the deceased. In the absence of any evidence about the educational qualification of the deceased, it cannot Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 36 of 55 be believed that she was a Tutor. Therefore, deceased is deemed a housewife and loss of dependency of the family on account of gratuitous services is to be determined on the basis of criteria laid down in this regard in Royal Sundaram Alliance (Supra).

69. Since there is no document to indicate the educational qualification of the deceased, Minimum Wages Rate of NonMatriculates prevailing in Delhi at the time of the accident is taken into consideration. Accident took place on 20.04.2008, when the Minimum Wages Rate of NonMatriculates prevailing in Delhi was Rs. 3,826/. Accordingly, her notional annual income would be Rs. 45,912/ {(Rs. 3,826/ X 12) (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve Only).

Number of dependents

70. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the petitioner Master Dhruv Mehta is the sole surviving LR of the deceased being her minor son. Addition in the assumed income:

71. In view of decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Royal Sundaram Alliance (Supra) since deceased was less than 40 years of age, 25% of the assumed income of the deceased is to be added towards future prospects.

Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased:

72. In view of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Murun & Others (Supra) and Sarla Verma (Supra), since the deceased is survived by one dependent LR , half (1/2) of the income of the deceased would be deducted towards her personal living expenses. Therefore, annual contribution to the petitioner, who is the sole dependent LR of the deceased would be Rs. 28,695/ {(Rs. 45,912/ (annual income) + Rs. 11,478/ (25% of annual income towards future prospects) X 1/2} which is ascertained as multiplicand.

Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 37 of 55 Selection of multiplier:

73. Age of the deceased was 33 years on the date of the accident. Keeping in view the criteria laid down in Sarla Verma (Supra), multiplier applicable according to age of deceased would be 16.

Loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services

74. In the facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, total loss of dependency on account of loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased as a housewife shall be Rs. 4,59,120/ {Rs. 28,695/ (multiplicand) X 16 (multiplier)}. (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred Twenty Only).

Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:

75. In view of the judgment in Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others (2013) 9 SCC 54, petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac Only) towards loss of love & affection and Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards funeral expenses.

76. Computation of compensation:

           Sl. No.                            Heads                                    Amount
              1.       Loss of financial dependency                                            4,59,120
              2.       Loss of Love and Affection                                              1,00,000
              3.       Funeral Expenses                                                          25,000
                                        Total                                                  5,84,120

Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs. 5,84,120/ (Rupees Five Lacs Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred Twenty Only).

III Claim Petition No.: 76456/2016 (Old No. 245/2015) titled Master Dhruv Mehta vs. Virender Singh & Others Entitlement of LR of deceased Baby Parul

77. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner Master Dhruv Mehta is the brother of deceased Baby Parul and is the sole surviving LR since parents Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 38 of 55 of the deceased also died in the accident. In a claim petition for compensation due to death of a child, the basis for computation of compensation is not the financial dependency of the LR but the pecuniary loss to estate. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to claim compensation being the brother and sole surviving LR of the deceased Baby Parul. Age of the deceased Baby Parul

78. According to the ration card (Ex. PW1/C), deceased child was born in the year 1999. Respondents have not disputed the year of brith of the deceased child mentioned in the ration card. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. Accident took place on 20.04.2008. Accordingly, age of deceased Baby Parul was 9 years at the time of accident. Pecuniary loss to estate

79. There is no plea for any higher consideration than the notional income.

Death occurred on 20.04.2008, therefore, Cost Inflation Index (CII) for the financial year 20082009 ie., (582) would apply. Consequently, inflation corrected notional income comes to Rs. 26,375/ (Rs.15,000/X582/331), rounded off to Rs. 27,000/. Deceased child was 9 years old and thus the multiplier of 10 would apply. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal & living expenses, the pecuniary loss to estate is computed as Rs. 1,80,000/ (Rs. 27,000/X2/3X10). Adding similar amount towards composit nonpecuniary damages, the total compensation payable to the LR of deceased Baby Parul would be Rs. 3,60,000/. However, in view of Chetan Malhotra (Supra), the amount of compensation awarded shall be Rs. 3,75,000/ (Rs. Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Only).

IV. Claim Petition No. 76517/2016 (Old No. 247/2015) titled Master Dhruv Mehta vs. Virender Singh & Others PECUNIARY DAMAGES Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines

80. PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Mehta has deposed on the affidavit Ex. PW1/X that his Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 39 of 55 nephew Master Dhruv Mehta, who was 12 years old at the time of the accident suffered grievous injuries and was admitted at PGI Chandigarh where his MLC was prepared. He further deposed that for further treatment Dhruv Mehta was admitted in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi and Rs. 20,000/ were spent on his medical treatment.

81. PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Mehta has placed on record medical treatment record of the petitioner collectively Ex. PW1/A, which includes treatment record of PGI Chandigarh where he was admitted after the accident, discharge report of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where petitioner was admitted from 21.04.2008 to 29.04.2008 and OPD Cards of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and other private hospitals/clinics. The treatment records show that petitioner suffered head injury and fracture of left femur & left tibia besides other injuries. According to the treatment record, he remained under treatment till 21.08.2008.

82. The entire treatment record has gone unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the credibility of the record which has been filed in original, according to which petitioner remained under active treatment for about four (04) months after the accident. Original bills are filed collectively as Ex. PW1/B amounting to Rs. 7,115/. The bills are in the name of the petitioner and coincide with the period of treatment. Total amount of the bills is Rs. 7,115/ and there is no reason to disbelieve the claim in this regard. Therefore, petitioner/injured Master Dhruv Mehta is entitled to claim Rs. 7,115/ (Rupees Seven Thousand One Hundred Fifteen Only) towards expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines. Expenses towards conveyance and food (Special Diet)

83. As per the medical treatment record Ex. PW1/A, petitioner remained under treatment for about four (04) months, which includes hospitalization in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for eight (08) days. Expenditure must have been incurred by the family for hospital visits and the petitioner who was 12 years at the time of the accident, required special diet and speedy Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 40 of 55 recovery during this period.

84. Keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner Master Dhruv Mehta, an amount of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards Conveyance and Rs. 20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards Special Diet would be just and fair compensation under this head.

Attendant Charges

85. Since petitioner was 12 years old at the time of the accident and remained under active treatment for about four (04) months, considering his age and nature of injury suffered by him, he required full time care of a family member.

86. In DTC vs. Lalit. AIR 1981 Delhi 558, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that the victim is entitled to compensation even if no attendant is hired as some family member renders gratuitous services.

87. In United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Rama Swamy and Others, 2012 (2) T. A. C. 34 (Del.), value of gratuitous services rendered by a family member of the claimant has been assessed at Rs. 2,000/ per month.

88. Keeping in view the injury suffered by the petitioner/injured, body parts involved, period of hospitalization and duration of treatment, he would have required care of a family member for atleast four (04) months after the accident. Therefore, petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,000/ {(Rs. 2,000 X 4) (Rupees Eight Thousand Only)} towards the attendant charges.

NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES) Pain, Sufferings & Trauma

89. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain vs. Jai Kishan, FAO No: 709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 are as under:

Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 41 of 55 On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensa tion which has to be paid must bear some objectives corelation with the pain and suffering.

The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:

(a) Nature of injury.

(b) Body part affected.

(c) Duration of the treatment.

90. Applying the above criteria to the facts of the present case where petitioner/injured suffered grievous injury, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 40,000/ (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) would be just and fair compensation for pain, sufferings and trauma suffered by the petitioner as consequences of injury.

91. Computation of Compensation:

The total compensation is assessed as under:

          Sl. No.                                  Heads                                      Amount
             1.     Expenses   relating   to   treatment,   hospitalization   and                   7,115

                    medicines 
             2.     Expenses towards conveyance and food (Special Diet)                           30,000
             3.     Attendant Charges                                                               8,000
             4.     Pain, Sufferings and Trauma                                                   40,000
                                               Total                                              85,115

Accordingly, petitioner/injured Master Dhruv Mehta is entitled to get Rs. 85,115/ (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand One Hundred Fifteen Only) as compensation.

V. Claim Petition No. 76485/2016 (Old No. 246/2015) titled Sunil Dutt & Others vs. Virender Singh & Others Age of the deceased Smt. Rajni Dutt

92. PW1 Sh. Sunil Dutt, husband of the deceased Smt. Rajni Dutt, has deposed on the affidavit Ex. PW1/1 and filed the photocopy of Matriculation Certificate of the deceased as Ex. PW1/Z, the original of Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 42 of 55 which was produced at the time of the evidence. This document has not been rebutted and contested by any of the respondents and there is no reason to disbelieve the Date of Birth of the deceased mentioned in this document, according to which her Date of Birth is 02.03.1973. Accident took place on 20.04.2008. Accordingly, age of deceased Ms. Rajni Dutt was 34 years & 11 months at the time of the accident.

Income of the Deceased

93. PW1 Sh. Sunil Dutt, husband of the deceased Ms. Rajni Dutt, has deposed on the affidavit Ex. PW1/1 that her deceased wife was working as a Teacher besides being a LIC Agent and was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month. He produced the Provisional Certificate of B. A. Pass Examination of the deceased, issued by the University of Delhi and filed photocopy as Ex. PW1/X. This document has not been controverted or disputed by any of the respondents and there is no reason to disbelieve the fact that deceased was a Graduate.

94. PW1 Sh. Sunil Dutt produced a Certificate issued by LIC of India that Smt. Rajni Dutt was a LIC Agent, but since it has not been proved legally, it cannot be considered as proof of income of deceased as LIC agent.

95. In the absence of any evidence brought on record to prove or show that deceased was a Teacher and LIC Agent, her income can be assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages Rate of a Graduate prevailing in Delhi at the time of the accident. Accident took place on 20.04.2008, when the Minimum Wages Rate of a Graduate prevailing in Delhi was Rs. 4,393/. Accordingly, her annual income would be Rs. 52,716/ {(Rs. 4,393/ X 12) (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Sixteen Only).

Addition in the income towards future prospects:

96. This issue was considered recently by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC. Appeal No. 622/2014 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lekharaj @ Lekh Raj & Ors.) decided on 27.01.2016. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced for reference:

Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 43 of 55 In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpo ration & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court interalia, ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted in cases where the deceased was "selfemployed" or was working on a "fixed salary". Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Resham Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, interalia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.

Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 Sunil Kumar Vs. Pyar Mohd & Ors., this court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.01.2015, presently taking the decision in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospects for those who are "self employed" or engaged in gainful employment at a "fixed salary" is clarified by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. This applies to the matter at hand because the claimant here pleaded about gainful employment at a fixed salary and has not led any evidence showing the salary was subject to any periodic increase."

97. In view of the above settled legal position, no addition can be made in the monthly income of the deceased Ms. Rajni Dutt towards future prospects, because there is no proof of employment.

Number of dependents

98. PW1 Sh. Sunil Dutt, husband of the deceased, has deposed on the affidavit Ex. PW1/1 he is a Government Employee and his deceased wife was contributing for running the household expenses and expenditure towards education and needs of their two (02) school going children, who are petitioners No. 2 & 3 and were about 14 & 12 years old at the time of accident.

99. For the purpose of present claim petition, petitioners No. 2 & 3, namely Baby Sara Dutt and Master Ehsaas Dutt, who were minor children of the deceased at the time of the accident, are considered as her dependent LRs.

Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased:

100. Since the deceased is survived by two dependent LRs, on the basis of criteria laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Others (Supra), 1/3rd of the Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 44 of 55 income of the deceased would be deducted towards her personal living expenses. Therefore, annual contribution to the petitoners, who are the sole surviving dependent LRs of the deceased would be Rs. 35,144/ {{Rs.

52,716/ (annual income) - Rs. 17,572/ (1/3rd of the annual income)} which is ascertained as multiplicand.

Selection of multiplier:

101. Age of the deceased was 34 years & 11 months on the date of the accident. Keeping in view the criteria laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra), multiplier applicable according to age of deceased would be 16.

Loss of financial dependency:

102. On the basis of facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, total loss of financial dependency of the LRs of the deceased would be Rs. 5,62,304/ {Rs. 35,144/ (multiplicand) X 16 (multiplier) (Rupees Five Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Three Hundred Four Only)}. Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:

103. In view of the judgment in Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others (2013) 9 SCC 54, petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac Only) towards loss of love & affection, Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards loss of estate.

Petitoner No. 1 Sh. Sunil Dutt, husband of the deceaed, is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac Only) towards loss of consortium.

104. Computation of compensation:

          Sl. No.                            Heads                                     Amount
              1.      Loss of financial dependency                                             5,62,304
              2.      Loss of Love and Affection                                               1,00,000
              3.      Funeral Expenses                                                           25,000
              4.      Loss of Estate                                                             10,000
              5.      Loss of Consortium                                                       1,00,000
                                        Total                                                  7,97,304

Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 45 of 55 Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs. 7,97,304/ (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Three Hundred Four Only).

VI Claim Petitions No.: 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015) titled Shiv Kumar Sharma & Another vs. Virender Singh & Others Age of the deceased Smt. Kamla Devi

105. PW1 Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma, husband of deceased Smt. Kamla Devi has deposed on affidavit Ex. PW1/1 that at the time of accident deceased was 50 years old. As per the postmortem report filed along with certified copies of the documents collectively Ex. PW1/A, age of the deceased was 50 years. Though, the documents filed on record also include photocopy of Matriculation mark sheet of the deceased but since it has not been legally proved by producing original document, it cannot be read in evidence of date of birth. Therefore, for the purpose of present petition, age of the deceased mentioned in the postmortem report is taken into consideration, according to which she was 50 years old at the time of accident. Income of the deceased

106. PW1 Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma has deposed in the affidavit that his deceased wife was giving tuitions at home and was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month. There is no evidence to prove this fact. Educational qualification of the deceased has not been proved by leading any evidence. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence about educational qualification of the deceased, it is not believable that she was qualified to give private tuitions at home. Therefore, deceased is deemed a housewife and loss of dependency of the family on account of gratuitous services is to be determined on the basis of criteria laid down in this regard in Royal Sundaram Alliance (Supra).

107. Since there is no document to indicate the educational qualification of the Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 46 of 55 deceased, Minimum Wages Rate for NonMatriculate prevailing in Delhi at the time of the accident is taken into consideration. Accident took place on 20.04.2008, when the Minimum Wages Rate of NonMatriculate prevailing in Delhi was Rs. 3,826/. Accordingly, her notional annual income would be Rs. 45,912/ {(Rs. 3,826/ X 12) (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve Only). Number of dependents

108. Being a house wife, deceased was rendering gratuitous services to her husband Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma (petitioner no. 1) and adult son Rajesh Kumar Sharma (petitioner no. 2).

Addition in the assumed income

109. In view of Royal Sundaram Alliance (Supra), Since the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of death, there will be no addition in the assumed salary towards future prospects.

Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased

110. In view of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Murun & Others (Supra) and Sarla Verma (Smt) (Supra), since the deceased is survived by two LRs , 1/3rd of the income of the deceased would be deducted towards her personal living expenses. Therefore, annual contribution to the petitioners, who are LRs of the deceased would be Rs. 30,608/ {(Rs. 45,912/ (annual income) X2/3} which is ascertained as multiplicand.

Selection of multiplier:

111. Age of the deceased was 50 years on the date of the accident. Keeping in view the criteria laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra), multiplier applicable according to age of deceased would be 13. Loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services

112. In the facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, total loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased as a housewife shall be Rs. 3,97,904/ {Rs.30,608/ (multiplicand) X 13 Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 47 of 55 (multiplier)}. (Rupees Three Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Four Only).

Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:

113. In view of the judgment in Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others (2013) 9 SCC 54, Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma (petitioner no. 1) is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac Only) towards loss of consortium. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma (petitioner no. 2) is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards love and affection in view of judgment in Royal Sundaram Alliance (Supra). Petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards funeral expenses in view of judgment of Apex Court Rajesh & Ors. (Supra). Since the deceased was not working, no amount would be awarded towards loss of estate.

114. Computation of compensation:

           Sl. No.                            Heads                                    Amount
              1.       Loss of financial dependency                                            3,97,904
              2.       Loss of consortium                                                      1,00,000
              3.       Loss of love and affection                                                25,000
               4       Funeral Expenses                                                          25,000
                                        Total                                                  5,47,904

Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs. 5,47,904/ (Rupees Five Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Four Only).

VII Claim Petition No.:

76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015) titled Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Virender Singh & Others Entitlement of LRs of deceased Baby Lamha

115. Petitioner is the father of deceased child Baby Lamha and respondent no. 4 Smt. Leena is the biological mother. Though, their marriage has been disolved by Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 48 of 55 decree of divorce, nevertheless, they both are entitled to claim compensation for loss to estate due to death of their minor daughter. Age of the deceased Baby Lamha

116. According to the birth certificate (Ex. PW1/2), date of birth of the deceased is 25.01.2002. Respondents have not disputed the document. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. Accident took place on 20.04.2008. Accordingly, age of Baby Lamha was 6 years at the time of accident. Pecuniary loss of estate

117. There is no plea for any higher consideration than the notional income.

Death occurred on 20.04.2008, therefore, Cost Inflation Index (CII) for the financial year 20082009 ie., (582) would apply. Consequently, inflation corrected notional income comes to Rs. 26,375/ (Rs.15,000/X582/331), rounded off to Rs. 27,000/. Deceased child was 6 years old and thus the multiplier of 10 would apply. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal & living expenses, the pecuniary loss to estate is computed as Rs. 1,80,000/ (Rs. 27,000/ X 2/3 X 10). Adding similar amount towards composite non pecuniary damages, the total compensation payable to the LRs of deceased Baby Lamha would be Rs. 3,60,000/. However, in view of Chetan Malhotra (Supra), the amount of compensation awarded shall be Rs. 3,75,000/ (Rs. Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Only).

VIII Claim Petition No.:

76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015) titled Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Virender Singh & Others Entitlement of LRs of deceased Master Prayas

118. Petitioner is the father of deceased Master Prayas and respondent no. 4 Smt. Leena is the biological mother. Though, their marriage has been disolved by decree of divorce, nevertheless, they both are entitled to claim compensation for loss to estate, due to death of their minor son.

Age of the deceased Master Prayas Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 49 of 55

119. According to the birth certificate (Ex. PW1/2) date of birth of the deceased is 24.09.2004. Respondents have not disputed the document. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. Accident took place on 20.04.2008. Accordingly, age of Master Prayas was 3 years and 7 months at the time of accident.

Pecuniary loss of estate

120. There is no plea for any higher consideration than the notional income.

Death occurred on 20.04.2008, therefore, Cost Inflation Index (CII) for the financial year 20082009 ie., (582) would apply. Consequently, inflation corrected notional income comes to Rs. 26,375/ (Rs.15,000/X582/331), rounded off to Rs. 27,000/. Deceased child was 3 years and 7 months old and thus the multiplier of 10 would apply. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal & living expenses, the pecuniary loss to estate is computed as Rs. 1,80,000/ (Rs. 27,000/ X 2/3 X 10). Adding similar amount towards composite nonpecuniary damages, the total compensation payable to the LRs of deceased Master Prayas would be Rs. 3,60,000/. However, in view of Chetan Malhotra (Supra), the amount of compensation awarded shall be Rs. 3,75,000/ (Rs. Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Only). Liability in all the (08) eight claim petitions :

121. Virender Singh (Respondent No. 1), is liable to pay the compensation being the driver of the offending vehicle ie. Truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46C0308 as the accident took place due to his gross negligence and wrongful conduct for parking the truck/trolla in the middle of the highway without indication and without taking due care and precautions. Surender Singh (Respondent No. 2) is vicariously liable for the conduct of the driver, being owner of the offending vehicle.

122. Admittedly, the offending vehicle i.e., truck/trolla bearing Registration No. HR46C0308 was duly insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 3) vide Policy No. 200700151205 valid from 22.08.2007 to 21.08.2008, including the date of accident. There is no Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 50 of 55 statutory defence pleaded. Therefore, Respondents no. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to all the petitioners/claimants. However, since the offending vehicle was duly insured to cover the third party risk, respondent No. 3 Insurance Company is under the statutory liability to pay the compensation.

123. Master Dhruv Mehta (LR of deceased owner of Santro Car No. DL4CP 0670) and M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Insurer of Santro Car), who are respondents in (04) four claim petitions (No. 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016 and 76393/2016) have no liability in view of the findings on issue no. 1.

CASE WISE RELIEF AND APPORTIONMENT I. Petition No. 76394/2016 (Old No. 243/2015) titled Master Dhruv Mehta vs. Virender Singh & Others

124. In view of the findings on Issues No. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.

16,57,360/ (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Only) as compensation to the petitioner. Petitioner is also entitled to get interest @ 9% pa from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e 13.05.2008 till realisation.

II. Petiton No.: 76404/2016 (Old No.244/2015) titled Master Dhruv Mehta vs. Virender Singh & Others

125. In view of the findings on Issues No. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.

5,84,120/ (Rupees Five Lacs Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred Twenty Only) as compensation to the petitioner. Petitioner is also entitled to get interest @ 9% pa from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e 13.05.2008 till realisation.

III.    Petition 
                 No.:  76456/2016 (Old 
                                       No. 245/2015) titled Master Dhruv Mehta
         vs. Virender Singh & Others

126. In view of the findings on Issues No. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.

3,75,000/ (Rs. Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Only) as compensation to the petitioner. Petitioner is also entitled to get interest @ Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 51 of 55 9% pa from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e 13.05.2008 till realisation.

IV. Petition No. 76517/2016

(Old No. 247/2015) titled Master Dhruv Mehta vs. Virender Singh & Others

127. In view of the findings on Issues No. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.

85,115/ (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand One Hundred Fifteen Only) as compensation to the petitioner. Petitioner is also entitled to get interest @ 9% pa from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e 13.05.2008 till realisation.

V. Petition No. 76485/2016

(Old No. 246/2015) titled Sunil Dutt & Others vs. Virender Singh & Others

128. In view of the findings on Issues No. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.

7,97,304/ (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Three Hundred Four Only) as compensation to the petitioners. Petitioners are also entitled to get interest @ 9% pa from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e 22.11.2008 till realisation.

Apportionment:

129. Share of the petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:

          Sr.              Name                   Relationship with                Share in the
          No.                                       the deceased                  award amount
            1.         Sh. Sunil Dutt                     Husband                          20%
                     (Petitioner no. 1) 
            2.        Baby Sara Dutt                 Minor Daughter                        40%
                     (Petitioner no. 2)
            3.        Master Ehsaas                      Minor Son                         40%
                     (Petitioner no. 3)

VI. Petitions No.: 76600/2016 (Old No. 248/2015) titled Shiv Kumar Sharma & Another vs. Virender Singh & Others

130. In view of the findings on Issues No. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.

5,47,904/ (Rupees Five Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Four Only) as compensation to the petitioners. Petitioners are also entitled Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 52 of 55 to get interest @ 9% pa from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e 22.11.2008 till realisation.

Apportionment:

131. Share of the petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:

         Sr.                   Name                       Relationship             Share in the
         No.                                                with the              award amount
                                                           deceased
           1.       Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma                     Husband                      50%
                       (Petitioner no. 1) 
           2.      Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma                       Son                       50%
                        (Petitioner no. 2)

VII     Petition  No.: 76362/2016 (Old No. 241/2015)  titled Rajesh Kumar  Sharma  
        Vs. Virender Singh & Others

132. In view of the findings on Issues No. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.

3,75,000/ (Rs. Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Only) as compensation to the petitioner and respondent no. 4. They are also entitled @ 9% pa from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e 22.11.2008 till realisation.

Apportionment:

133. Share of the petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:

          Sr.              Name                   Relationship with                Share in the
          No.                                       the deceased                  award amount
           1.      Sh. Rajesh Kumar                        Father                          50%
                   Sharma (Petitioner)
           2.         Smt. Leena                           Mother                          50%
                   (Respondent No. 4)
 
VIII    Petition  No.: 76393/2016 (Old No. 242/2015)  titled Rajesh Kumar  Sharma  
        Vs. Virender Singh & Others

134. In view of the findings on Issues No. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.

3,75,000/ (Rs. Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Only) as compensation to the petitioner and respondent no. 4. They are also entitled Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 53 of 55 to get interest @ 9% pa from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e., 22.11.2008 till realisation.

Apportionment:

135. Share of the petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:

          Sr.              Name                   Relationship with                Share in the
          No.                                       the deceased                  award amount
           1.      Sh. Rajesh Kumar                        Father                          50%
                   Sharma (Petitioner)
           2.         Smt. Leena                           Mother                          50%
                   (Respondent No. 4)
 
Mode of payment and disbursement:

136. Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioners under intimation to the petitioners and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, respondent/Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.

137. Any amount if paid towards interim award or in compliance of judgments set aside by the Delhi High Court, shall be adjusted towards the final award passed by this judgment.

138. While making the deposit, Insurance Company shall mention the particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision on the back side of the cheque. Insurance Company shall also file copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank at the time of deposit.

Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to the petitioners in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc. in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.

139. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, entire share of the petitioner Master Dhruv Mehta in three petitions as LR of the Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 54 of 55 deceased (Nos. 76394/2016, 76404/2016 and 76456/2016) and Baby Sara and Master Ehsaas (petitioner no. 2 and 3 in Petition No. 76485/2016) would be kept in FDRs in their respective names for the period till after five (05) years of their attaining the age of majority. No loan or advance shall be allowed against these deposits. However, the quarterly interest from these deposits can be withdrawn by their guardians for their education and other expenses.

140. Petitioners shall open accounts in State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi. Manager of the Bank shall comply and release the award amount to the petitioners in terms of the Award.

141. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of cost.

142. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance report and put up the same on 03.09.2016.

143. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open Court (Santosh Snehi Mann) on 30.07.2016 Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Common Award in Petitions No.: 76394/2016, 76404/2016, 76456/2016, 76517/2016, 76485/2016, 76600/2016, 76362/2016, 76393/2016 Page No. 55 of 55

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Master Dhruv Mehta S/O Late Sh. Rajeev ... vs Sh. Virender Singh S/O Sh. Ram Kishan on 30 July, 2016