Delhi District Court
Rajani Kochar & Ors. vs . Aman Deep Singh & Ors . on 18 September, 2018
Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,
JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), THC, DELHI.
Suit no. 321/14
MACT No. 356817/16
Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-001224-2014
Date of filing of petition: 24.09.2014
1. Smt. Rajinder Kaur,
W/o Late Sh. Jaitinder Pal Singh
2. Ms. Nancy,
D/o Late Sh. Jaitinder Pal Singh
3. Sh. Mandeep Singh
S/o Late Sh. Jaitinder Pal Singh
4. Ms. Gagan Deep Kaur,
D/o Late Sh. Jaitinder Pal Singh
5. Sh. Madan Singh Vij,
S/o Late Sh. Harnam Singh
6. Smt. Pritam Kaur Vij,
W/o Sh. Madan Singh Vij
All of R/o:-
L-59, Near M Block, West Patel Nagar,
Delhi-110008,
(Petitioner no. 4 being minor through her mother
petitioner no. 1).
........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Aman Deep Singh
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 1 of 79
Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
S/o Sh. Santokh Singh,
R/o Village & Post - Maragpur,
Tehsil Muzaffarnagar,
Distt. Muzaffarnagar, UP
Also At:-
C/o Sh. Keshar Singh, S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o H. No. 360-361, Sector-24,
Mandi Govind Garh, Distt, Fatehgarh Sahib Sarhind,
Punjab-140175
...........Respondent No.1
(Driver)
2. Sh. Keshar Singh, S/o Sh. Amar Singh R/o H. No. 360-361, Sector-24, Mandi Govind Garh, Distt, Fatehgarh Sahib Sarhind, Punjab-140175 ...........Respondent No.2 (Driver)
3. M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
Iffco Tokio Sadan, C-1, Distt. Center Saket, New Delhi-110017 ...........Respondent No.3 ( Insurer) AND Suit no. 322/14 MACT No. 356783/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-001159-2014 MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 2 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Date of filing of petition: 24.09.2014
1. Smt. Geeta, W/o Late Puran Chand
2. Twinkle, D/o Late Puran Chand
3. Smt. Kiran D/o Late Sh. Puran Chand, W/o Ravinder Sharma
4. Vikram, S/o Late Sh. Puran Chand
5. Meenu D/o Late Sh. Puran Chand
6. Smt. Dayawanti, (Since died on dated 05.03.2017) All Resident of:
T-317/10-C, Near Sanatan Dharm Mandir, Baljeet Nagar, Patel Nagar, Delhi110008.
........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Sh.Aman Deep Singh S/o Sh. Santokh Singh, R/o Village & Post - Maragpur, Tehsil Muzaffarnagar, Distt. Muzaffarnagar, UP Also At:-
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 3 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
C/o Sh. Keshar Singh, S/o Sh. Amar Singh R/o H. No. 360-361, Sector-24, Mandi Govind Garh, Distt, Fatehgarh Sahib Sarhind, Punjab-140175 ...........Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. Sh. Keshar Singh, S/o Sh. Amar Singh R/o H. No. 360-361, Sector-24, Mandi Govind Garh, Distt, Fatehgarh Sahib Sarhind, Punjab-140175 ...........Respondent No.2 (Driver)
3. M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
Iffco Tokio Sadan, C-1, Distt. Center Saket, New Delhi-110017 ...........Respondent No.3 ( Insurer) AND Suit no. 339/14 MACT No. 356382/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000294-2014 Date of filing of petition: 15.10.2014
1. Smt. Rajni Kochar W/o Late Sh. Vikas Kochar
2. Master Pranav S/o Late Sh. Vikas Kochar (Petitioner no. 2 is minor and is being represented MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 4 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
through his mother/ petitioner no. 1)
3. Smt. Shobha Kochar W/o Sh. Raj Kumar
4. Sh Raj Kumar Kochar, S/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal (Since expired on 26.10.2014) All Residents of:-
T-162/1, Near Sanatan Dharam Lal Mandir, Baljeet Nagar, Patel Nagar, SO Central Delhi, 110008 ........Petitioners VERSUS
1. Sh.Aman Deep Singh S/o Sh. Santokh Singh, R/o Village & Post - Maragpur, Tehsil Muzaffarnagar, Distt. Muzaffarnagar, UP ...........Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. Sh. Keshar Singh, S/o Sh. Amar Singh R/o H. No. 360-361, Sector-24, Mandi Govind Garh, Distt, Fatehgarh Sahib Sarhind, Punjab-140175 MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 5 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
...........Respondent No.2 (Driver)
3. M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
Iffco Tokio Sadan, C-1, Distt. Center Saket, New Delhi-110017 ...........Respondent No.3 ( Insurer) And Suit no. 397/15 MACT No. 356641/16 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-001306-2015 Date of filing of petition: 11.09.2015
1. Sh. Raman Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, R/o H. no. T-226, Near Kamal Sweet Shop, Baljeet Nagar, PS Patel Nagar, Delhi-110008 ........Petitioner VERSUS
1. Sh.Aman Deep Singh S/o Sh. Santokh Singh, R/o Village & Post - Maragpur, Tehsil Muzaffarnagar, Distt. Muzaffarnagar, UP MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 6 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
...........Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. Sh. Keshar Singh, S/o Sh. Amar Singh R/o H. No. 360-361, Sector-24, Mandi Govind Garh, Distt, Fatehgarh Sahib Sarhind, Punjab-140175 ...........Respondent No.2 (Driver)
3. M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
Iffco Tokio Sadan, C-1, Distt. Center Saket, New Delhi-110017 ...........Respondent No.3 ( Insurer) Arguments heard on : 03.08.2018 Date of passing of Award : 18.09.2018 Present: Sh. RP Singh, Advocate, counsel for petitioners Respondent No.1 & 2 are ex-parate Sh. P S Tomar, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.3 AWARD:
1. The above four claim suits are the subject MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 7 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
matter of this award as all the claim suits have arisen from the same motor vehicular accident which allegedly took place on 24.08.2014 within the jurisdiction of PS Banaur, District Patiala, Punjab.
2. All the claim petitions have been preferred by the petitioners under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short M.V Act).
(i) MACT Suit No. 35664/16 pertains to the grievous injuries caused to petitioner Raman Kumar wherein claimant claimed a compensation of ` 25 lac; MACT Suit no.
356382/16 pertains to the fatal injuries caused to Mr. Vikas Kauchor wherein claimants claimed a compensation of ` 50,00,000/-; MACT Suit No. 356783/16 pertains to the fatal injuries caused to Mr. Puran Chand and claimants claimed a compensation of ` 50,00,000/- and MACT Suit no. 356817/16 pertains to the fatal injuries caused Mr. Jaitinder Pal Singh wherein claimants compensation of ` 50,00,000/-
(ii) Though the accident in question had not taken place within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, yet the claim petitions have been filed before this Tribunal as petitioners have been residing in Delhi and respondent no.3 (insurance company) is working for gain in Delhi.
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 8 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
3. Facts in brief as emerged from the above claim petitions are that on 24.08.2014 petitioner Raman Kumar along with deceased persons namely Vikas Kochar, Puran Chand and Jiatinder Pal Singh were going to Baba Dera Sahib in their car bearing no. DL-9CQ-0625. Car was being driven by Vikas Kochar (since deceased). It was alleged that at about 5.00 am when they reached near Gaoshala, Tepla Road, Vilallage Khaspur, within the jurisdiction of Banaur, District Patiala, Punjab, offending truck bearing no. HR69-1708 was parked on the wrong side of road without any indication or precaution. Due to that reason, their car rammed in the rear portion of the truck, consequently all the occupants of car sustained multiple injuries. Due to the forceful impact, Vikas Kochar, Puran Chand and Jaitinder Pal Singh died at the spot whereas Raman Kumar sustained multiple injuries. As per MLC he sustained grievous injury. In this regard an FIR no. 87/2014 under section 279/304A/427 IPC was got registered.
(i) It was alleged that at the time of accident, offending truck was being driven by respondent no. 1 and it was registered in the name of respondent no.2 whereas same was insured with respondent no. 3.
4. Claim petitions were contested by all the respondents by filing their separate written statements.
(i) Respondent no. 1 & 2 in their joint written MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 9 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
statement took the plea that the accident had taken place due to the sole rash and negligence of car driver as he hit the car in the truck, which was stationed on Kacha Road. It was categorically denied that the truck was stationed at the wrong side. It was further submitted that truck was duly insured with the respondent no.3, thus liability if any, insurance company is liable to indemnify the same.
(ii) Respondent no. 3 took the plea that the since the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the car driver, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It was further submitted that even car driver was not holding a valid license at the time of accident. It was further submitted that since driver, owner and insurer of the car are not impleaded as necessary parties claim petitions are liable to be dismissed.
5. Vide order dated 03.06.2015 and 25.02.2016 following issues were framed:
In MACT Suit No. 356641/16:
(i) Whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 24.08.2014 within the jurisdiction of PS Banur, Disst. Patiala Punjab, due to negligent/wrongful parking of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-69- 1708 by respondent no.1?
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 10 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT Suit No.356783/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Puran Chand had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 24.08.2014 within the jurisdiction of PS Banur, Disst. Patiala, Punjab due to wrongful and negligent parkding of the truck bearing registration No. HR-69-
1608 by respondent no. 1?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT Suit No. 356382/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Vikas Kochar had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 24.08.2014 within the jurisdiction of PS Banur, Disst. Patiala, Punjab due to wrongful and negligent parking of Truck bearing registration No. HR-69-1608 by respondent no. 1 Aman Deep Singh?
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 11 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
In MACT Suit No. 356817/16:
(i) Whether the deceased Jaitinder Pal Singh had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 24.08.2014 within the jurisdiction of PS Banur, Disst. Patiala, Punjab due to wrongful and negligent parking of Truck bearing registration No. HR-69-1608 by respondent no. 1 Aman Deep Singh?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
(i). Vide order dated 22.07.2016 respondent no.
1 and 2 were proceeded exparte.
6. In order to prove their case, petitioners examined following witnesses:
In MACT Suit No. 356641/16:
PW1 Sh. Raman Kumar, injured MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 12 of 79
Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors. Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
In MACT Suit No.356783/16:
PW1 Smt. Geeta
PW2 Tapan Kumar Kochar, eye witness
In MACT Suit No. 356382/16:
PW1 Rajani Kochar
PW2 Sh. Tapan Kumar Kochar, eye witness
In MACT Suit No.356817/16:
PW1 Smt. Rajinder Kaur
PW2 Sh. Tapan Kumar Kochar, eye witness
(i) In rebuttal, respondent No. 3 examined Sh.
Mohit Nagar, Sr. Manager as R3W1 in all the matters.
(ii) Vide order dated 07.11.2015 an interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/-each with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petitions till realization of the amount was awarded in favour of petitioners and against the insurance company in all the three fatal cases, the amount had already been deposited by the insurance company and released to the petitioners.
7. On completion of evidence led by both the MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 13 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
parties, statement of petitioners in all the matters was recorded in compliance of clause 27 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & ors. vs. Jaivir Singh & ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017.
8. I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for petitioners and respondent no. 3, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
9. My Issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1 in all the matters:
(i) Learned counsel appearing for insurance company raised three contentions; firstly that since the accident had taken place due to the sole rash and negligence of driver of the car, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Secondly that even if we believed the petitioners claim, it was a case of composite negligence and since petitioners have not impleaded the driver, owner and insurer of the car, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Thirdly that since the car was being driven by the Vikas Kochar at high speed and he rammed the car into the rear portion of stationary truck, which was parked at extreme at left side of the road, there was a major contributory negligence on the part of Vikas Kochar, consequently 2/3rd of MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 14 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
the compensation amount is liable to be deducted towards contributory negligence on his part.
(ii) Per contra counsel appearing for petitioners refuted the said contentions by arguing that since the accident had taken place due to the sole rash and negligence of truck driver, there is no question of any composite and contributory negligence. It was urged that the negligence on the part of truck driver was that he parked the truck on the wrong side without taking necessary precautions.
10. In this regard testimony of injured Raman kumar and PW 2 Tapan Kumar Kochar are relevant.
(i) PW Raman Kumar was traveling in the car in question whereas Tapan Kumar Kochar was following the car of deceased persons in his own car. Both the above witnesses supported the claim of the petitioners in their examination-in- chief.
(ii) PW Raman Kumar in his cross examination deposed that at the time of accident car was being driven by deceased Vikas Kochar. He admitted that truck was parked on the left side of the road and there was no road divider. He further testified that the road was so wide that two vehicles could pass simultaneously. He further testified that the headlight of their car was on and they had seen the truck from MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 15 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
the distance of 10-15 feet. He also admitted that there was no fog, rain and weather was clear. PW2 Tapan Kumar in his cross-examination testified that the distance between his car and car of the deceased persons was about 25 meters. He further testified that though he cannot tell the approximate speed of the car of deceased but it was being driven at normal speed. PW2 Tapan Kumar in his examination-in-chief also testified that sharp headlight of the vehicles coming from opposite direction blinded the eyes of deceased Vikas Kochar for a moment and his car dashed in the truck parked by side of the road.
(iii) From the testimony of PW Raman Kumar and Tapan Kumar Kochar it is clear that the car was coming from behind and truck was parked at the left side of the road. Though Tapan Kumar Kochar failed to depose approximate speed of the car in question but he testified that the distance between his car and car of the deceased was about 25 meters, which is sufficient to conclude that speed of the car in question was higher than the speed of the car of Tapan Kumar.
(iv) Since both the witnesses testified that driver of the Truck had not taken any precaution while parked the truck at the left side of the road and the fact that respondents did not lead any evidence to establish that driver had taken any precaution, this Tribunal has no reason to disbelieve the MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 16 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
version of witnesses. Thus, it is established the truck was parked at the left side of the road without any indication.
(v) PW Raman Kumar in his cross-examination categorically stated that the weather was clear and there was no fog. It means that visibility was quite good at the time of accident. In these circumstances if the car was being driven at reasonable speed i.e. between 60-70 km/hour, driver of the car would have noticed the truck from a considerable distance and would be in a position to control the car, but he failed to do so. PW Raman Kumar testified that they saw the truck first time from the distance 10-15 feets. If it is so, there are two possibility, first is that Vikram Kochar was not vigilant otherwise he could see the truck from a considerable distance as the weather was clear. Second possibility is that some other vehicle was going ahead to their car and due to the shadow of said vehicle they could not see the truck and when they tried to overtake the said vehicle their car rammed into the rear portion of the said truck.
(vi) Since three persons died at the spot, it can safely be culled out that speed of the car must be quite excessive. Had the car been driven at normal speed or at a reasonable speed, impact would not have been so sever. Since as per PW Raman Kumar they have seen the car at the distance 10-15 feets, it means that Vikas Kochar had opportunity to apply the brake but despite that he failed to stop MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 17 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
the car and collided with the truck which further shows that the car must be driven at excessive high speed.
(vii) In view of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of car driver Vikas Kochar. Had he been driven the car at reasonable speed or had he been vigilant, he could have certainly avoided the accident. Thus, I am of the view that there was a contributory negligence on the part of Vikas Kumar Kochar also.
(viii) Since the truck was parked without any indication the driver of the truck was also negligent.
(ix) No doubt it is a case of composite negligence as the accident had taken place due the negligence on the part of truck driver and contributory negligence on the part of the car driver but it is settled law that in case of composite negligence it is the discretion of claimants to decide from whom they wish to claim compensation. Since in the present case claimants decided to seek compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the truck it cannot be said that the claim petitions are not maintainable.
(x) Considering the significant contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Vikas Kumar Kochar, I MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 18 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
am of the view that ends of justice would be met if 50% of the award amount from the share of claimants of deceased Vikas Kumar Kochar be deducted on the part of the contributory negligence of Vikas Kochar. Since other two deceased and injured Raman Kumar were just traveling in the car, it cannot be said that there was any contributory negligence on their part, accordingly, no amount is liable to be deducted from their share.
(xi) In view of the above, Issue no. 1 in all the matters is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE No.2 in all the matters:
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation if so, to what amount and from whom?
11. Before proceeding further, I deem it appropriate to refer the judgment titled National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 decided by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court on October 30, 2017. Hon`ble Bench reconsidered all the previous judgments relating to just compensation under Motor Vehicle Act including Sarla Verma MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 19 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
& ors. vs. DTC & another, 2009 (6) SCC 121; Reshma Kumari & others vs. Madan Mohan & anr (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh & ors. (2013) 9 SCC
54.
(i) After analyzing all the precedents, Hon`ble Bench held as under:-
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 20 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein-
before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be ` 15,000/-, ` 40,000/- and ` 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
(i) In case Bajaj Allianz general Insurance MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 21 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Company Ltd. vs. Pooja & ors. MAC Appeal No. 798/2011 decided on November 02, 2017, Hon`ble High Court held that the benefit of Future Prospects shall also be applicable where the income of the deceased is ascertained on the basis of minimum wages. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under;-
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (insurer) is that the Constitution Bench in its decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) has laid stress on income which is established by evidence. She submitted that the benefit of future prospects, therefore, cannot apply to cases where there is no clear proof of the avocation of the victim or as to his income, particularly where the income has to be notionally assessed with the help of minimum wages.
10. This court is not impressed with the above submissions. It may be noted here that in earlier portion of the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Supreme Court has taken note of the fact that the category of self- employed persons may include even an unskilled labourer. The court has gone by the expression "income" and has not drawn a distinction between the income earned in the form of "salary" or one earned by any other mode. The income may accrue as profits from business, fee or remuneration (by whatever name called) from the professional services or wages earned by services rendered, even such services as are rendered through manual labour.
11. The standardization for purposes of MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 22 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
factoring in the future prospects has been adopted as the fair principle to determine "just compensation" taking into account various factors including not only the "competing attitude in the private sector ... to get better efficiency" but also others such as a self-employed person garnering his resources to raise his charges / fees to "live with dynamism and move and change with the time", as indeed, and more particularly, taking into account the effect of "price rise"
or "purchasing capacity" having a bearing on the efforts made to enhance one‟s income "for sustenance".
12. All the above considerations apply in equal measure, if not with greater force, to the marginalized sections of society dependent on minimum wages, a right which is guaranteed by the Constitution and by the law through enactments such as Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In these circumstances, it is most unfair on the part of the insurer to seek to draw a new distinction by attempting to interpret the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) on above lines and deny to the poorest of the poor the benefit of future prospects, a factor intended to apply universally.
13. The submission of the counsel for the insurer that such benefit of future prospects be granted only if there is a proven income ignores the ground realities. If this argument were to be accepted, the marginal sections of the society who are unable to muster formal proof as to the nature of avocation or their earnings will always be denied just compensation. To illustrate the point, a rickshaw puller (or a cobbler, hawker, porter or similar other daily earner) can perhaps never bring on record proof of the earnings MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 23 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
he brings home to the family for their sustenance at the end of each working day. Such labour class do not have the resources to earn sufficiently to make the two ends meet and, more often than not, cannot even dream of saving any money for the rainy day. They generally would not have access to a bank to collect (or invest) the savings from which they would be able to arrange proof from the authorities, should the unfortunate need arise, as to the level of their earnings.
(ii) Now, I proceed to examine the facts of the case at hand.
In MACT Suit no. 356382/16Income of Deceased (Vikas Kumar Kochar):
(i) PW1 Rajani Kochar, wife of the deceased testified that her husband was earning ` 20,000/- per month.
She further testified that he was working with two firms namely M/s Maan Packaging and M/s Perfection Engineering Corporation. PW3 is a proprietor of M/s Maan Packaging and he testified that Vikas Kochar was working with him for the last three years prior of his death. He further testified that he was drawing a salary of ` 8,560/- per month. He produced the attendance register and salary record of the deceased. Though witness was cross-examined at length but nothing could be extracted during his cross examination which may raise any MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 24 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
suspicion over his testimony. Thus, it is established that deceased was earning ` 8,560/- from M/s Maan Packaging.
(ii) PW4 Kuldeep Rai Mago is the partner of M/s Perfection Engineering Corporation and testified that deceased Vikas Kochar was working as fund collector/clerk since 2013 and his duty hours was from 5.00 pm to 8.00 pm. He further testified that he was drawing salary between ` 8,000/- to ` 9,000/- per month. He filed the salary vouchers and certificate and attendance register.
(iii) Though PW4 testified that Vikas Kochar was getting the monthly salary between ` 8000/- to ` 9000/- per month but as per vouchers Ex. PW4/1, he drew salary of ` 10,900/- and ` 11000/- in the month of May & June-2014 respectively.
(iv) No doubt from the above contradiction and coupled with the fact that for the part time of job, he was getting salary between ` 10,900/- to ` 11,000/- whereas for the full time job he was just getting ` 8,560/- a reasonable doubt arises over the testimony of PW4. But from his testimony it is established that he was working there as part time job. Considering the fact that deceased was working part time job with the PW4, salary of deceased for part time job is assessed at ` 5000/- per month for computation of just compensation.
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 25 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(v) In view of the above, total salary of deceased is assessed at ` 13,560/- (8560/- + 5000/-). In other words, his annual income is assessed at ` 1,62,720/- (13560/- X
12).
Addition towards Future Prospects:-
(i) As per driving license, date of birth of the deceased is 21.11.1974. Since the accident had taken place on 24.08.2014, it means that deceased was about 39 years, 09 months and 03 days old at the time of accident.
(iv) Since deceased was below 40 years old at the time of his death, in view of the law laid down in Praney Sethi's case (supra) & Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company's case (supra), petitioners are entitled to 40% addition in the income of deceased towards future prospects. Accordingly, a sum of ` 65,088/- is added in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.
Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:-
(i). Deceased left behind four dependents, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma's case and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, 1/4rd income of the MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 26 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal & living expenses.
Selection of multiplier:
(i) Since deceased was above 39 years old but less than 40 years at the time of his death, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), multiplier of 15 shall be apply in this matter.
Loss of income:-
(i) In view of the above, loss of income is calculated as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT (IN `)
Annual Income of deceased 1,62,720/-
40% addition of towards future prospects 65,088/-
Total 2,27,808/-
Less 1/4th deduction towards personal and liv- 56,952/-
ing expenses
Total 1,70,856/-
Selection of multiplier 15
Total loss of income 25,62,840/-
Less Contributory Negligence 50% 12,81,420
Total loss of income 12,81,420/-
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 27 of 79
Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
12. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-
(i) In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of ` 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate; ` 40,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and ` 15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. In total ` 70,000/- is awarded to the petitioners under the above said three heads.
(ii) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 15.10.2014 till realization of the amount.
(iii) Accordingly, claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT
(IN ` )
Loss of Income 12,81,420/
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Loss of consortium 40,000/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Total 13,51,420/-
Less Interim Compensation 50,000/-
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 28 of 79
Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Net compensation 13,01,420/-
Round off: ` 13,02,000/-
(Rupees Thirteen Lakh & Two Thousands Only)
(iv) The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 15.10.2014 till realization of the amount.
Apportionment of Award:
13. Since petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased, she shall get 50% of award amount whereas petitioner no. 2 being the son shall get 30% of the award amount and peti- tioner no. 3 being the mother of deceased shall get 20% of award amount. Their individual share is tabulated as under :
Name of the Relation with Percenta Amount claimant deceased ge of (In ` ) award amount Smt. Rajni Kochar Wife 50% 6,51,000/-
Pranav Son 30% 3,90,600/- Smt. Shobha Kochar Mother 20% 2,60,400/- 14. DISBURSEMENT: MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 29 of 79
Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors. Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(i) Statement of petitioners were recorded on 15.09.2017, in compliance of clause 27 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & ors. vs. Jaivir Singh & ors.
decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017 wherein petitioner no. 1 testified that her household expenses are between ` 25,000/- to ` 30,000/- per month whereas petitioner no. 3 submitted that she needs between ` 5,000/- to ` 7,000/- per month.
(ii) In view of the statement of petitioner no. 1, on realization of award amount, a sum of ` 51,000/- plus entire interest be released to the petitioner No.1 and the balance amount of ` 6 lac in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 12 fixed deposits in her name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 50,000/- each for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year, two years and so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 30 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioner No. 1 shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 65,100/- from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
(iii) Since petitioner no. 2 is still minor, on realization of the award amount, his entire share with interest upto date shall be kept in FDRs in a nationalized bank till he attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of majority, 20% of the maturity amount shall be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM and the balance 80% of the amount shall be kept in three fixed deposits of equal amount in his name for period of 6 months, 12 months and 18 months. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, being the natural guardian, petitioner No. 1 Smt. Rajani Kochar is permitted to draw interest on monthly or quarterly basis as she desires till he attains the age of majority to meet his educational expenses.
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 31 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(iv) In view of statement of petitioner No. 3, on realization of award amount, a sum of ` 10,400/- plus entire interest be released to the petitioner No. 3 and the balance amount of ` 2,50,000/- in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 05 fixed deposits in her name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 50,000/- each for a period of six months and one year and so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioner shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 26,040/- from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
15. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format- IV A is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 32 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors. Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(i) Date of accident 24.08.2014
(ii) Name of the Vikas Kochar
deceased
(iii) Age of the injured 39+ years
(iv) Occupation of the Service
deceased
(v) Income of the ` 1,62,720/- per annum
deceased
(vi) Name, age and relationship of legal representative of
deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
1. Smt. Rajni Kochar 27 Yr. Wife
2 Pranav 10 Yr. Daughter
3 Smt. Shobha Kochar 65 Yr. Mother
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
(IN `)
7. Income of the deceased (A) 1,62,720/- p.a
8. Less Personal expenses of the 56,952/-
deceased (C) (1/4)
9. Monthly Loss of dependency NA
(A+B)-C= D
10. Annual Loss of dependency 1,70,856/-
11. Multiplier (E) 15
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 33 of 79
Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors. Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
12. Total Loss of dependency 25,62,840/-
(less contributory negligence 50%)
13. Medical Expenses (G) -
14. Add-Future Prospects (B) 65,088/-
15. Compensation for loss of love and -
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) 40,000/-
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) 15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral 15,000/-
expenses (K)
19 TOTAL COMPENSATION (Rounded off)
(F + G + H + I + J + K = L) 13,02,000/-
(minus Interim award 50,000/-)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9%
21. Interest amount upto to the date of 4,59,918/-
award (M)
03 year 11 months & 03 days
22. Total amount including interest (L + M) 17,61,918/-
23. Award amount released As mentioned para No. 14
24. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned para No. 14
25. Mode of disbursement of the award In the form of FDRs amount to the claimant(s). (Clause 29) as mentioned in para No.14
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 22.10.2018 (Clause 31) In MACT Suit no. 356783/16 Income of Deceased (Puran Chand):
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 34 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(i) Counsel appearing for petitioner fairly conceded that since petitioners failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove the income of deceased, income of the deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to skilled workers as deceased was working as TSR driver. This contention was not refuted by the counsel for insurance company. Since deceased was a TSR driver, his income is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to skilled workers prevalent at the relevant time.
Since at that time minimum wages for skilled workers was ` 10,374/- per month, his income is assessed at ` 10,374/- per month. In other words, his annual income is assessed at ` 1,24,488/- (10,374/- X 12).
Addition towards Future Prospects:-
(i) As per driving license, date of birth of deceased is 11.11.1959. Since the accident had taken place on 24.08.2014, it means that deceased was about 54 years, 09 months and 13 days old at the time of accident.
(ii) Since deceased was above 50 years but less than 60 years at the time of his death, in view of the law laid down in Praney Sethi's case (supra) & Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company's case (supra), petitioners are entitled to 10% addition in the income of deceased towards future prospects. Accordingly, a sum of ` 12,449/- is added MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 35 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.
Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:-
(i). PW1 in her cross examination testified that petitioner no.3 Kiran was married prior to the accident and since then she is residing in her matrimonial house. Petitioner no. 2 Tawinkle was aged about 26 years old at the time of accident he must be employed. Petitioner no. 4 was 23 years at the time of accident and he was running Auto. Accordingly, petitioner no. 2, 3 and 4 cannot be considered dependents on the income of deceased. Accordingly, petitioner no. 1 (wife), petitioner no. 5 being the minor daughter and petitioner no. 6 being the old age mother of the deceased are considered dependents upon the deceased. Since three persons were de-
pendents on the upon the deceased, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma's case and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, 1/3rd income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal & living expenses.
Selection of multiplier:
(i) Since deceased was above 54 years old but less than 55 years at the time of his death, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), multiplier of 11 shall be MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 36 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
apply in this matter.
Loss of income:-
(i) In view of the above, loss of income is calculated as under:-
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT (IN `)
Annual Income of deceased 1,24,488/-
10% addition of towards future prospects 12,489/-
Total 1,36,977/-
Less 1/3rd deduction towards personal and 45,659/-
living expenses
Total 91,318/-
Selection of multiplier 11
Total loss of income 10,04,498/-
16. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-
(i) In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of ` 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate; ` 40,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and ` 15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. In total ` 70,000/- is awarded to the petitioners under the above said three heads.
(ii) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 37 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
awarded by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 24.09.2014 till realization of the amount.
(iii) Accordingly, claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT
(IN ` )
Loss of Income 10,04,498/-
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of consortium 40,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Total 10,74,498/-
Less Interim Compensation 50,000/-
Net compensation 10,24,498/-
Round off: ` 10, 25,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakh Twenty and Five Thousands Only)
(iv) The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 24.09.2014 till realization of the amount.
Apportionment of Award:
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 38 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors. Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
17. Since petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased, she shall get 40% of award amount, being the major son, petitioner no. 2 shall get 10 % of the award, petitioner no. 3 being the married daughter shall get 10% of the award, petitioner no. 4 major son of deceased shall get 10% of the award, being the unmarried daughter, petitioner no. 5 shall get 30% of the award amount. The petitioner no. 6 has already been died. Their individual share is tabulated as under :
Name of the Relation with Percenta Amount claimant deceased ge of (In ` ) award amount Smt. Geeta Wife 40% 4,10,000/-
Twinkle Son 10% 1,02,500/- Kiran Son 10% 1,02,500/- Vikaram Son 10% 1,02,500/- Meenu Daughter 30% 3,07,500/- 18. DISBURSEMENT: (i) Statement of petitioners were recorded on
15.09.2018 and 14.03.2018 in compliance of clause 27 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & ors. vs. Jaivir Singh & ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017 wherein petitioner no. 1 testified that her MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 39 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
household expenses is ` 20,000/- per month; personal expenses of petitioner no. 2 is ` 2,000/- whereas personal expenses of petitioner no. 3 to 5 are about ` 3,000/- P.M.
(ii) In view of the above statements, on realiza- tion of award amount, a sum of ` 60,000/- plus entire interest be released to the petitioner No.1 and the balance amount of ` 3,50,000/- in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 07 fixed deposits in her name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 50,000/- each for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year, two years and so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioner No. 1 shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 41,000/- from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tri- bunal itself.
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 40 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(iii) On realization of award amount, a sum of ` 22,500/- each plus entire interest be released to the petitioner No. 2 to 4 respectively and the balance amount of ` 80,000/- each in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 02 fixed deposits in their name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 40,000/- each for a period of six months and one year. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in their saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to them only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioners shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 10,250/- each from the bank located within the jurisdic-
tion of this Tribunal itself. (iv) On realization of award amount, a sum of `
57,500/- plus entire interest be released to the petitioner No. 5 and the balance amount of ` 2,50,000/- in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 41 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
December 15, 2017, shall be put in 05 fixed deposits in his name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 50,000/- each for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year, two years and so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioner No. 5 shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 30,750/- from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
19. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format- IV A is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 24.08.2014 MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 42 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(ii) Name of the Puran Chand
deceased
(iii) Age of the injured 54+ years
(iv) Occupation of the Driver
deceased
(v) Income of the ` 10,374/- per month
deceased
(vi) Name, age and relationship of legal representative of
deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
1. Smt. Geeta 49 Yr. Wife
2 Twinkle 26 Yr. Son
3 Kiran 25 Yr. Daughter
4 Vikaram 23 Yr. Son
5 Meenu 16 Yr. Daughter
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
(IN `)
7. Income of the deceased (A) 1,24,488/- p.a
8. Less Personal expenses of the 45,659/-
deceased (C) (1/3)
9. Monthly Loss of dependency NA
(A+B)-C= D
10. Annual Loss of dependency 91,318/-
11. Multiplier (E) 11
12. Total Loss of dependency 10,04,498/-
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 43 of 79
Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
13. Medical Expenses (G) -
14. Add-Future Prospects (B) 12,489/-
15. Compensation for loss of love and -
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) 40,000/-
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) 15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral 15,000/-
expenses (K) 19 TOTAL COMPENSATION (Rounded off) (F + G + H + I + J + K = L) (less 10,24,498/-- interim award 10,74,498/- - 50,000/-)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9%
21. Interest amount upto to the date of award (M) 3,67,630/-
03 year 11 months & 25 days
22. Total amount including interest (L + M) 13,92,630/-
23. Award amount released As mentioned para No. 18
24. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned para No. 18
25. Mode of disbursement of the award In the form of FDRs amount to the claimant(s). (Clause 29) as mentioned in para No.18
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 22.10.2018 (Clause 31) In MACT Suit no.356817/16 Income of Deceased (Jaitinder Pal Singh):
(i) Counsel appearing for petitioner fairly MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 44 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
conceded that since petitioners failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove the income of deceased, income of the deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to skilled workers as deceased was working as a food vendor and he was 12th passed. No doubt during inquiry petitioners failed to produce any record of educational qualification of the deceased but since he was about above 50 years, it can safely be culled out that he must have attained some skill. Accordingly, his income is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to skilled workers prevalent at the relevant time. Since at that time minimum wages for skilled workers was ` 10,374/- per month, his income is assessed at ` 10,374/- per month. In other words, his annual income is assessed at ` 1,24,488/- (10,374/- X 12).
Addition towards Future Prospects:-
(i) As per ration card he was born 1961, since the accident was taken place in 2014, it means that he was above 50 years old at the time accident.
(iv) Since deceased was above 50 years but less than 60 years at the time of his death, in view of the law laid down in Praney Sethi's case (supra) & Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company's case (supra), petitioners are entitled to 10% addition in the income of deceased towards future prospects. Accordingly, a sum of ` 12,449/- is added MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 45 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.
Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:-
(i). PW1 in her cross examination testified that petitioner no.2 Nancy was married prior to the accident and since then she is residing in her matrimonial house. Petitioner no. 3 Mandeep started doing job after the death of his father. It means that prior to the accident, he was dependent on the income of deceased. Petitioner no. 4 was minor and petitioner no. 5 and 6 are old age parents. Since five persons were dependents upon the deceased, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma's case and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, 1/4th income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal & living expenses.
Selection of multiplier:
(i) Since deceased was above 53 years old but less than 55 years at the time of his death, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), multiplier of 11 shall be apply in this matter.
Loss of income:-
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 46 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors. Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(i) In view of the above, loss of income is calculated as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT (IN `)
Annual Income of deceased 1,24,488/-
10% addition of towards future prospects 12,489/--
Total 1,36,977/-
Less 1/4th deduction towards personal and 34,244/-
living expenses
Total 1,02,733/--
Selection of multiplier 11
Total loss of income 11,30,063/-
20. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-
(i) In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of ` 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate; ` 40,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and ` 15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. In total ` 70,000/- is awarded to the petitioners under the above said three heads.
(ii) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 47 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
petition i.e. 24.09.2014 till realization of the amount.
(iii) Accordingly, claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT
(IN ` )
Loss of Income 11,30,063/-
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Loss of consortium 40,000/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Total 12,00,063/-
Less Interim Compensation 50,000/-
Net compensation 11,50,063/-
Round off: ` 11, 51,000/-
(Rupees Eleven Lakh & Fifty One Thousands Only)
(iv) The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 24.09.2014 till realization of the amount.
Apportionment of Award:
21. Since petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased, she shall get 35% of award amount, being the married daughter, petitioner no. 2 shall get 10 % of the award, peti-
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 48 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
tioner no. 3 being a son shall get 10% of the award, petitioner no. 4 being the minor daughter of deceased shall get 25% of the award, being the old parents, petitioner no. 5 and 6 shall get 10% each of the award amount. Their individual share is tabulated as under :
Name of the Relation with Percenta Amount claimant deceased ge of (In ` ) award amount Smt. Rajinder Kaur Wife 35% 4,02,850/-
Nancy Daughter 10% 1,15,100/- Mandeep Singh Son 10% 1,15,100/- Gagandeep Kaur Daughter 25% 2,87,750/- Madan Singh Vij Father 10% 1,15,100/- Pritam Kaur Vij Mother 10% 1,15,100/- 22. DISBURSEMENT: (i) Statement of petitioners were recorded on
15.09.2018 in compliance of clause 27 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & ors. vs. Jaivir Singh & ors.
decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017 wherein petitioner no. 1 testified that her household expenses is ` 12,000/- per month; personal expenses of petitioner no. 2 is ` 10,000/- whereas personal expenses of petitioner no. 3 to 6 are about ` 3,000/- P.M. MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 49 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(ii) In view of the above statements, on realiza- tion of award amount, a sum of ` 52,850/- plus entire interest be released to the petitioner No. 1 and the balance amount of ` 3,50,000/- in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 07 fixed deposits in her name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 50,000/- each for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year, two years and so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioner no. 1 shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 40,285/- from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
(iii) On realization of the award amount, a sum of ` 15,100/- each plus entire interest be released to the petitioner No. 2, 3, 5 and 6 respectively and the balance amount of ` 1,00,000/- each in terms of the directions MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 50 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 02 fixed deposits in their name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 50,000/- each for a period of six months and one year. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in their saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to them only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioners shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 11,510/- each from the bank located within the juris- diction of this Tribunal itself.
(iv) On realization of award amount, a sum of ` 37,750/- plus entire interest be released to the petitioner No. 4 and the balance amount of ` 2.50 lac in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 05 fixed deposits in her name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 50,000/- each for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year and so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 51 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioner no. 4 shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 28,775/- from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
23. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format- IV A is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 24.08.2014
(ii) Name of the Jaitinder Pal Singh deceased
(iii) Age of the injured 53+ years
(iv) Occupation of the Driver deceased
(v) Income of the ` 10,374/- per month deceased MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 52 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(vi) Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
1. Smt. Rajinder Kaur 53 Yr. Wife
2 Nancy 28 Yr. Daughter
3 Mandeep Singh 27 Yr. Son
4 Gagandeep Kaur 19 Yr. Daughter
5 Madan Singh Vij 81 Yr. Father
6 Pritam Kaur Vij 73 Yr. Mother
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
(IN `)
7. Income of the deceased (A) 1,24,488/- p.a
8. Less Personal expenses of the 34,244/-
deceased (C) (1/4)
9. Monthly Loss of dependency NA
(A+B)-C= D
10. Annual Loss of dependency 1,02,733/-
11. Multiplier (E) 11
12. Total Loss of dependency 11,30,063/-
13. Medical Expenses (G) -
14. Add-Future Prospects (B) (10%) 12,489/-
15. Compensation for loss of love and -
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) 40,000/-
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) 15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral 15,000/-
expenses (K)
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 53 of 79
Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
19 TOTAL COMPENSATION (Rounded off)
(F + G + H + I + J + K = L) 11,51,000/-
minus interim Award (12,00,063/- -
50,000/-)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9%
21. Interest amount upto to the date of award (M) 4,12,822/-
03 years 11 months & 25 days
22. Total amount including interest (L + M) 15,63,822/-
23. Award amount released As mentioned para No. 22
24. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned para No. 22
25. Mode of disbursement of the award In the form of FDRs amount to the claimant(s). (Clause 29) as mentioned in para No.22
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 22.10.2018 (Clause 31) In MACT Suit No. 356641/16 (Injured Raman Kumar):
(i) As per discharge summary Ex. PW1/2 petitioner was diagnosed as fracture of depress communited fracture of frontal bone C, B/L base frontal contusion. He remained admitted in RML hospital from 23.10.2014 to 25.10.2014. From the OPD record, it can safely be culled out that he remained under treatment till 12.12.2014 at RML hospital.
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 54 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(ii) No doubt on 13.12.2014 petitioner attended the Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel hospital with the alleged history of vomiting and pain. He was advised some medicine and he was diagnosed a case of chronic alcoholic. Again on 16.04.2015 he visited the Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel hospital with the alleged history of pain in chest, he was advised for X- ray. On 18.05.2015 he was advised for ultrasound of abdomen. On 04.12.2016 he again visited the hospital with some lever problem. From the above said documents, it can safely be culled out that he is patient of chronic alcoholic and due to that reason he used to have some medical problem. As per discharge summary, he did not sustain any injury either in his abdomen, chest or lever. He got his entire treatment from neuro department of the RML hospital. This further shows that he did not sustain any injury in his abdomen, chest or lever in the alleged accident. Moreover during inquiry petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to show that there was any nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the treatment obtained from Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel hospital. In these circumstances, petitioner is not entitled for the amount spent on his treatment from Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel hospital.
Income of the petitioner:-
(i) Ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 55 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
conceded that since the petitioner failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove his income, his income is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to skilled workers as he was working as a driver. This contention is opposed by the counsel appearing for insurance company on the ground that petitioner was not having a license for commercial vehicle. Admittedly, petitioner in his cross-examination admitted that he has not holding a license for commercial vehicle but deposed that he has license for private vehicle and same is on record. Since he is holding a license for LMV, it can safely be culled out that he can drive a private vehicle. Accordingly, I am of the view that his income is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages to skilled workers. Since the at the relevant time minimum wages for skilled workers was ` 10,374/- per month, income of the petitioner is assessed at ` 10,374/- per month.
Loss of income:-
(i) Ld. Counsel claimed a sum of ` 3,74,464/-
under this head but he failed to give any explanation how he reached at this figure. As already discussed that petitioner remained under treatment till 12.12.2014. since the accident had taken place on 24.08.2014, it can be assumed that he may not be able to join his work maximum for four months. Accordingly, loss of income for four months amounting of ` 41,496/- ( 10,374/- X 04) is awarded to him under this MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 56 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
head.
Medical bills:-
(i) Counsel has claimed a ` 9222/- under this head. The said amount pertains to the treatment obtained from RML hospital. Bills are on record. During inquiry no cogent evidence has been lead which may raise any suspicion over the said bills, accordingly a sum of ` 9222/- is awarded to him under this head.
CONVEYANCE CHARGES:
(i) Counsel has claimed sum of ` 1,00,000/-
under this head but fairly conceded that petitioner has no documentary evidence in this regard. Admittedly, petitioner is a resident of Baljeet Nagar, Patel Nagar and he obtained the treatment from RML Hospital. Considering the distance from his residence to the hospital and duration of treatment, a sum of ` 5,000/- is awarded to him towards conveyance charges.
SPECIAL DIET :
(i) Counsel has claimed a sum of ` 1,00,000/ under this head but fairly conceded that petitioner has no documentry evidence in this regard. Admittedly, no special diet MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 57 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
was prescribed by the doctors at the time of discharge. But considering the fact that petitioner has sustained head injury, it can safely be culled out that petitioner must have taken some special diet for the purpose of fast recovery. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 10,000/- is awarded to him towards special diet.
ATTENDANT CHARGES:
(i) Counsel has claimed a sum of ` 5,00,000/-
under this head. But fairly conceded that petitioner has no documentary evidence in this regard. Since petitioner sustained head injury, it can safely be culled out that petitioner must be attended either by a family member or paid attendant atleast for few months. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 10,000/- is awarded to him towards nursing and attendant charges.
MENTAL AND PHYSICAL SHOCK:
(i) Counsel has claimed a sum of ` 1,00,000/-
under this head. As already stated that petitioner met with an accident all of sudden when he was traveling in the car in question. Due to the accident he not only sustained head injury but he also remained admitted in the hospital for three days and remained under treatment for four months. Besides that he also sustained 61% permanent physical impairment in MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 58 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
relation to his speech. Thus, it can safely be culled out that he must have suffered acute mental and physical shock not only at the time of accident but even thereafter. Though it is difficult to quantify the said loss in monetary terms, yet considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 35,000/- is awarded to him under this head.
PAIN & SUFFERING:
(i) Counsel has claimed ` 1,00,000/- under this head. In view of the above, it can safely be culled out that petitioner must have also suffered acute pain & suffering not only at the time of accident but even thereafter. Though it is difficult to quantify the said loss in monetary terms, yet considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 35,000/- is awarded to him under this head.
LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE:
(i) Counsel has claimed a sum of ` 50,000/-
under this head. Since petitioner remained admitted in the hospital for about 03 days and remained under treatment for four months, it can safely be culled out that he must have suffered loss of amenities of life for few days. Though it is difficult to quantify the said loss in monetary terms, yet considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 5,000/- is awarded to him under this head.
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 59 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Loss of disfigration:-
(i) Counsel has claimed a sum of ` 1,00,000/-
under this head but during inquiry petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to show that due to injuries caused in accident he has suffered any disfiguration. In the absence of any such evidence, I am of the view of that petitioner is not entitled for any amount under this head.
Loss of marriage prospects:-
(i) Counsel has claimed a sum of Rs. 1 lac under this head. Since the petitioner has sustained 61% permanent disability in relation to his speech, it can safely be culled out that petitioner may face some difficulty in getting suitable match. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 20,000/- is awarded to him under this head.
LOSS OF INCONVENIENCE, HARDSHIP, MENTAL STREE ETC.:
(i) Counsel has claimed a sum of ` 50,000/-
under this head. Since petitioner sustained 61% permanent disability in relation to his speech, it can safely be culled out that due to injury caused to him in the accident, petitioner must MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 60 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
have suffered loss of disappointment, inconvenience, hardship and mental stress for a considerable period. Though it is difficult to quantify the said loss in monetary terms, yet considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of ` 30,000/- is awarded to him under this head.
Loss of earning capacity due to disability:
(i) Learned counsel contended that since petitioner has suffered 61% permanent disability in relation to his speech, petitioner is entitled for 100% loss of earning capacity.
(ii) Per contra, counsel appearing for insurance company refuted said contention by arguing that since there is no evidence that due to the above disability petitioner has sustained any loss of earning capacity, petitioner is not entitled for any loss of earning capacity.
(iii) Before dealing with this issue, I deem it appropriate to refer the judgment titled Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another 2011 (1) T.A.C. 785 (S.C). The relevant paras are reproduced as under:-
7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to particular limb. When a disability MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 61 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
certificate states that the injured had suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 62 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in term of money, to arrive at the future loss of earning (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency).We may, however, note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation.
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that Tribunal should consider and decide MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 63 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
with reference to the evidence: (I) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (sic disability) (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his age. The third step is to find out whether (I) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 64 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60 %. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be 100%, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in Government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in Government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequences of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may, therefore, be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 65 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity of 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.
(emphasis supplied)
(iv) Further, in case Meer Khan vs. Mehender Kumar Singh & ors. MAC No. 758/2011 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on 01.11.2017, Hon`ble High Court pleased to add future prospect in the income of the claimant in terms of the law laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. SLP (C ) 25590/14 decided by the Hon`ble Supreme Court on 31.10.2017 before calculating the loss of future earning capacity due to disability. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-
"There is, however need for correction in the calculation of loss of future earning since the element of future prospects was omitted. Following the ruling of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C ) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors., future prospects to the extent of 10% will have to be added, this keeping in view the facts that the claimant was a self employed person, his income having being assessed notionally, his age on the relevant MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 66 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors. Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
date being 54 years."
(v) In the light of aforesaid cases, facts of the case at hand shall be analysed to ascertain whether the petitioner is entitled to loss of earning capacity due to disability or not?
(vi) PW1 in his examination-in-chief testified that he was working as a driver but in his cross-examination he admitted that he was not holding driving license for commercial vehicle. It means that he could drive only private vehicle. Needless to say that impairment of speech is not significant for the job of driver. However, since he suffered a 61% permanent impairment in his speech, it can safely be culled out that it may cause inconvenience to express himself. Though no specific evidence has been led by the petitioner but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, loss of earning capacity due to disability is assessed at 30%.
(vii) As per driving license date of birth of the petitioner is 21.07.1992. Since the accident taken place on 24.08.2014, it means that he was 22 years 01 months and 03 days old at the time of accident. Since he was below 40 years age and self employed, in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), and clarified by the High Court of Delhi in Meer Khan vs. Mehender Kumar Singh & ors. (supra), petitioner shall be entitled for 40% addition in his income MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 67 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
towards future prospects.
(viii) Since petitioner was 22 + years at the time of accident, in view of law laid down in Sarala Verma's case and approved by the apex court in NIC vs. Praney Sethi's case, multiplier of 18 shall apply in the matter.
(ix) In view of the above, loss of earning capacity due to disability caused to the petitioner is calculated as under:-
Monthly income : ` 10,374/--
Future prospects (40%) : ` 4,150/-
Total : ` 14,524/-
Accordingly loss of earning capacity is :-
30 % of ` 14,524/-- X 12 X 18 = ` 9,41,155/-
24. As discussed above, the overall compensation is tabulated as under:
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (In ` ) Loss of Income 41,496/- Medical Expenses 9,222/- MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 68 of 79
Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Conveyance charges 5,000 Special Diet 10,000 Attendant Charges 10,000 Mental & physical shock 35,000 Pain & suffering 35,000 Loss of Amenities of Life 5,000/- Loss of dis-figuration Nil Loss of marriage of prospectus 20,000/- Loss of 30,000/-
inconvenience/hardship/disappointment/ mental stress Loss of earning due to disability 9,41,155/-
Total 11,41,873/-
Round off :- ` 11,42,000/- (Eleven Thousands Forty Two Thousands).
(i) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 11.09.2015 till realization.
25. DISBURSEMENT:-
(i) Petitioner's statement was recorded on 13.11.2017, regarding his financial status, in terms of clause MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 69 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
26 of Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs Jaibir Singh & others, FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014, wherein he deposed that he needs between ` 7,000/- to ` 8,000/- per month for his household expenses.
(ii) In view of statement of petitioner, on realization of award amount, a sum of ` 42,000/- plus entire interest be released to the petitioner and the balance amount of ` 11 lac in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 11 fixed deposits in his name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 1,00,000/- each for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year and so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioner shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 1,14,200/- from the bank located within the MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 70 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
26. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format- IV B is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 24.08.2014
(ii) Name of the injured Raman Kumar
(iii) Age of the injured 22+ years
(iv) Occupation of the Driver injured
(v) Income of the injured 10,374/-
(vi) Nature of injury Grievous
(vii) Medical treatment RML hospital and Sardar
taken by the injured Balbh Bhai Patel Hospital
(viii) Period of 3 days
hospitalization
(ix) Whether any 61% impairment to his
speech
permanent disability? If yes,
give details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal (IN `)
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 71 of 79
Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment 9,222/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance 5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet 10,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant 10,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity 9,41,155/-
(vi) Loss of income 41,496/--
(vii) Any other loss which may require NA
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and 35,000
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering 35,000
(iii) Loss of amenities of life 5,000
(iv) Disfiguration 0
(v) Loss of marriage prospects 20,000/-
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, 30,000/-
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
(vii) Less contributory negligence NA
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Nil and nature of disability as MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 72 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NIL expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 30% capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income-(Income x% 9,41,155/-
Earning Capacity x Multiplier) 14 Total Compensation (Rounded 11,42,000/-
off)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of 3,10,311/-
award 03 years 07 months
17. Total amount including interest 14,52,311/-
18. Award amount release As per para no.
2519. Award amount kept in FDRs As per para no.
2520. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in amount to the claimants (s) (Clause para No. 25
29)
21. Next date for compliance of the 22.10.2018 award. (Clause 31.)
26. The above FDRs in all the cases shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon`ble High Court in MAC Appeal No. 422/2009, titled Sobat Singh vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta & ors and FAO MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 73 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
No. 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi & ors vs. Jaivir Singh & ors decided on December 15, 2017:-
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit account of the victims i.e. saving bank account(s) of the claimants shall be individual saving bank account and shall not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the claimants.
(iii) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System(ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimants near the place of their residence.
(iv) The maturity amount of the FDR be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimants near the place of their residence.
(v) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(vi) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
However, in case the debit card and/cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 74 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimants to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimants shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Tribunal for compliance.
LIABILITY TO PAY:-
27. Counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that since the driving licence of respondent no.1 found fake, insurance company is entitled for recovery right qua driver and owner of the offending truck. Counsel has placed reliance on the verification report exhibit R3W1/6.
(ii) Perusal of the report reveals that the licence was not issued in the name of the respondent No.1 by the authority. This shows that licence possessed by respondent. no.1. was fake. Moreover during inquiry both the respondents did not deem it appropriate to appear and produce the genuine licence. Though the insurance company had sent a notice under order 12 rule 8 CPC to both the respondents but despite that they did not produce any other DL. Since the driving licence was found fake, it means that respondent no.1 MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 75 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
was driving the truck without valid licence. Since he was driving the truck without valid DL, there was a willful breach of the term and condition of the policy on his part. Accordingly, insurance company is entitled for recovery rights qua him.
(iii) In order to seek recovery right qua respondent no.2, onus was upon the insurance company to establish that it was in the knowledge of respondent no.2 that the licence of respondent no.1 was fake. Mere fact that during inquiry it is revealed that licence is fake is not sufficient to hold that it was in the knowledge of respondent no.2 that the licence was fake. The possibility that respondent no.1 misrepresented before respondent no. 2, in order to get job cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, I am of the view that insurance company failed to prove that there was any willful breach of any term and condition of insurance policy on the part of respondent no.2.
(iv) Since the offending truck was being driven by respondent no.1 and it was registered in the name of respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3., all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However after satisfying the award, insurance company shall have a right to recover the award amount from driver Amandeep Singh (respondent no. 1) by execution without filing a separate civil suit.
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 76 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(v) In view of above, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
28. Since, offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, respondent no.3 is directed to deposit:
(a) a sum of ` 13,02,000/- in MACT No. 356382/16;
(b) a sum of ` 10,25,000/- in MACT No. 356783/16;
(c) a sum of ` 11,51,000/- in MACT No.356817/16 ;
(d) a sum of ` 11,42,000/- in MACT No. 356641/16 ;
with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 15.10.2014 in MACT suit no. 356382/16; w.e.f. 24.09.2014 in MACT Suit no. 356783/16; w.e.f. 24.09.2014 in MACT Suit no. 356817/16 and w.e.f. 11.09.2015 in MACT Suit No. 356641/16 till realization with Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners failing which the respondent No. 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
However after satisfying the award, insurance com- pany shall have a right to recover the award amount from MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 77 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
driver Amandeep Singh (respondent no. 1) by execution without filing a separate civil suit.
29. Insurer, insured and driver are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioners/claimants and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days from today.
(i) A copy of this judgment be sent to insurance company for compliance within the time granted.
(ii) Nazir is directed to place a report on record on October 22, 2018 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(iii) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court on December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(iv) The original award be placed in the MACT MACT No. 356382/16 and copy thereof be placed in another two matters.
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 78 of 79 Rajani Kochar & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Geeta Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors.
Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors . Raman Kumar Ors. Vs. Aman Deep Singh & Ors .
(iv) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court
on this 18th September, 2018 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN)
Judge, MACT-1 (Central),
THC, Delhi/v
Digitally signed by
PAWAN PAWAN KUMAR
KUMAR JAIN
Date: 2018.09.19
JAIN 16:16:14 +0530
MACT No. 356382/16, 356783/16, 356817/16 & 356641/16 Page No. 79 of 79