Delhi District Court
Sh. Rajiv Kumar S/O Sh. Yashbir Singh vs Sh. Nitin Gautam S/O Sh. Satish Chand on 10 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KR. SINGH
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:02
(CENTRAL) DELHI.
Case No. : 110/14
Unique ID No. 02401C0142572014
1. Sh. Rajiv Kumar S/o Sh. Yashbir Singh
2. Smt. Anita W/o Sh. Rajiv Kumar
3. Kumari Parisha D/o Sh. Rajiv Kumar
4. Smt. Murti Devi
(The Petitioner No. 3 is a minor and through her father and
Natural Guardian Sh. Rajiv Kumar)
Permanent Address:-
H. No. 260/1, Puthi Ibrahimpur,
Teh. Jansath, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
Also at :-
28/1/2, Gali No. 1 East Azad Nagar,
Delhi-110051. .........Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Nitin Gautam S/o Sh. Satish Chand
R/o R-228, Gali No. 10, Phase-II,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi. (Driver)
2. Madan Gopal S/o Radhe Shyam,
R/o 2625, Ground Floor,
Gali No. 7, Bihari Colony, Shahdara,
Delhi-110009. (Owner)
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Divisional Office (320300),
Dilshad Garden,
JKG Plaza, Second Floor,
DDA Commercial Complex,
B-Block, Near ICICI Bank, Dilshad Garden,
New Delhi-110095. (Insurer) ......... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 01/11/2013 (DAR)
Date of reserving order/judgment : 23/09/2014
Date of pronouncement: : 10/11/2014
Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 1/16
AWARD
1. Vide this judgment cum award, I shall decide the petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by petitioners for grant of compensation for the death of Late Sh. Abhishek Singh in the road vehicular accident.
2. The case of the petitioners is that on 07.09.2013 at about 03.15 a.m., while the deceased was traveling in the Scorpio Car bearing Registration No. DL-3C-AA-0567 and was sitting on the left side of the driver which was being driven by its driver/ respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and when they reached in front of Hanuman Mandir at Outer Ring Road, Delhi, the same was collided with divider and went on the other side of road after crossing the divider and dashed against the Eicher Canter No. UK-06A-1472. Resultantly, the deceased sustained fatal injuries. The petitioners have claimed a total sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- towards compensation.
3. The written statement was filed by Respondent No. 1/Driver wherein he categorically denied the rash and negligent aspect and also described the contents of the petition to be as false one.
4. The Respondent No. 2/Owner did not file the written statement.
5. The written statement was filed by respondent no.3/insurance company wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it as on the date and time of accident.
6. On the pleadings of the parties following issues arose for consideration on 09/12/2013 :-
1.Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road traffic accident dated 07/09/2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-3C-AA-0567 driven by respondent no. 1 as alleged?
2.What amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?
3. Relief.Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 2/16
After perusal of the records, the Issue No. 1 is reframed as under:-
1.Whether the petitioner suffered fatal injuries in a road traffic accident dated 07/09/2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-3C-AA-0567 driven by respondent no. 1 as alleged?
7. In order to establish its claim, petitioner No.1, the father of the deceased examined himself as PW-1 and PW-2 Sh. B.K.Paul has deposed about the previous placements of the students of his institute.
8. The Respondents have not led any evidence in their defence.
9. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witness and perused the record. I have also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties.
My findings on aforesaid issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 110. Since the present petition is under Section 166 of M V Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
11. The petitioner No.1 (father of deceased) had explained the mode and manner of the accident in his affidavit, Ex. PW1/A to the effect that on the date of accident while the deceased was traveling in the Scorpio Car bearing Registration No. DL-3C-AA-0567 and was sitting on the left side of the driver which was being driven by its driver/ respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and when they reached in front of Hanuman Mandir at Outer Ring Road, Delhi, the same was collided with divider and went on the other side of road after crossing the divider and dashed against the Eicher Canter No. UK-06A-1472. Resultantly, the deceased sustained fatal injuries. The cross-examination carried on by the respondents is not suggestive of anything which may discard the claim of the petitioners that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent at the Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 3/16 time of accident.
12. The police have filed the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) on record pertaining to case FIR etc. bearing No. 222/13, P.S. Civil Lines under Section 279/337/304A IPC.
13. While determining the negligence, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo on the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act.
14. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
15. Further recently the Hon'ble High of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors held as under:-
Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 4/16"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
16. Therefore, after considering all the documents filed by the petitioners as a whole it is clear that respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
17. The issue No: 1 therefore, goes in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
COMPENSATION: ISSUE NO. 218. REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL BILLS INCURRED BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED/INJURED PETITIONER Ld. Counsel for petitioners stated that Sh. Abhishek Singh died on account of injuries received by him in the present accident. The LRs of the deceased/petitioners have filed the medical bills to the tune of Rs. 2,39,686 which they had incurred on his medical treatment before the death of the deceased. I hereby award a sum of Rs. 2,39,686/- towards medical bills keeping in view the nature of injuries and medical bills placed on record.
19. The date of birth of the deceased as per matriculation certificate of deceased Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 5/16 Ex. PW1/4 is 13/11/1993. The date of accident was 07/09/2013. Accordingly, the deceased was around 20 years (Approximately) of age as on the date of accident.
20. The father of the deceased deposed that his son might have joined police services after completing his BBA.
21. In oder to determine the compensation for a child of around 20 years who had ambitions of joining police services, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Vs. Kanwar Lal & Ors in MAC. APP. 385/2007 and CM No.8666-67/2007 decided on 27/04/12, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while deciding the compensation for the around 18 years held as under:-
"8. In MCD v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (supra), the Supreme Court has awarded Rs. 10 lakhs to the victims aged more than 20 yers and Rs. 7.5 lakhs to the victims aged less than 20 years. In that case, the multiplier of 15 was applied and 1/3rd was deducted towards the personal expenses which means that the Court has assumed the income of the victims aged more than 20 years to be Rs. 8,333/- per month and that of victims aged less than 20 years to be Rs. 6,249/- per month. The calculation of the compensation would be as under:-
For victims aged more than 20 years:-
(Rs. 8,333/- less 1/3rd ) x 12 x 15 = Rs. 10 lakhs. For victims aged less than 20 years:-
(Rs. 6249/- less 1/3rd ) x 15 = Rs. 7.5 lakhs.
9. It is relevant to note that the Uphaar Tragedy took place on 13th June, 1997 and the minimum wages at the relevant time ranged from Rs. 1677/- for unskilled workers to Rs.2437/- for graduates. It is thus clear that although there was no proof of the income of the victims, the Supreme Court did not find it proper to apply the minimum wages.
10. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (supra), this Court assumes the income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,800/- per month considering that the deceased was a student of 12 th standard in a reputed school of Delhi and was ambitions to become MBA/CA., his brother is doing engineering course and his father is working as a Superintendent in Central Excise office. The deceased was unmarried and aged 18 years at the time of the accident. The parents of the deceased were aged about 37 and 44 years respectively at the time of the accident.Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 6/16
As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier according to the age of the mother is 15 and the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses is ½. Deduction ½ towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency is computed to be Rs. 9,72,000/-. Rs.
10,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 8,000/-
towards funeral expenses. The total compensation is computed to be Rs. 10,00,000/-".
22. Further, it was held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Singh @ Bharat Kumar MAC APP.137/2012 decided on 08.08.2012 in para no. 7, 8 & 12 as under :-
7. It is well settled that potential income of a victim can be taken into consideration to award loss of dependency.
8. In the case of Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by Lrs. v.
Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 (5) SCC 677, death of a young bog, aged 20 years took place in an accident which happened in the year 1972. The deceased was a student of B.Sc last year (Biology), a compensation of 1,46,900/- was increased and rounded off to 1,50,000/-.
12. Considering that the deceased Abhilasha was a meritorious student. After completing her Graduation, she would have got some job as an Assistant Accountant or Accounts Clerk in any Govt. or public sector company. She would have easily got a salary of 15,000/- per month. Since she was not doing any professional course from any prestigious Institution, it would not be possible to make any addition towards the future prospects.
(In this case, the deceased Abhilasha was pursuing B.Com from Aurobindo College, Delhi University)
23. In Ramesh Chand Joshi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in MAC. APP. No. 212/2006, decided on 20th January, 2010, the deceased aged 19 years, was a first year student of Bachelor of Engineering (Biotechnology) in Delhi College of Engineering. The Claim Tribunal awarded '3,25,000 as compensation. The parents of the deceased sought enhancement of the award amount on the ground that income of the deceased for computation of compensation should be taken according to the earning capacity after completion of the professional course. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Deal of Delhi College of Engineering to place on record the average salary of a fresh Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 7/16 engineering graduate of Delhi College of Engineering in pursuance to which the Joint Registrar, Delhi College of Engineering filed an affidavit along with a char giving the average salary of '38,333 per month drawn by the graduates in Biotechnology from Delhi College of Engineering during 2009. The Delhi High Court held the earning capacity of the deceased to be '26,833 after deduction of Income Tax and enhanced the compensation from '3,25,000 to '22,78,980.
24. In Meenu Tognatta v. National Insurance Co. Ltd, in MAC. APP. Nos. 238/2012 & 249/2012, decided on 20th April, 2012 a motor accident resulted in the death of two bright engineering students from Modi College of Engineering and Technology, Sikar. The Delhi High Court presumed the income of the deceased to be '18,000/- per month taking intos consideration the entry level salary fixed by the government for such jobs.
25. PW-2, Sh. B.K.Paul, Manager cum Placement Officer, Govindam Business School from where the deceased was pursuing his BBA has filed the previous references regarding the placement & Package offered to the BBA Students of his institute vide Ex. PW2/2 for 10 students. As per Ex PW2/2, the average annual salary of a student comes out to be 2,24,100/. (Rs. 22,41,000 divided by 10). Accordingly, in terms of aforesaid annual salary package, I consider that the deceased would have easily got a minimum annual average salary package of Rs. 18,675/-per month at his entry level. (Rs. 2,24,100 divided by 12). Therefore, I take the potential income of the deceased to be as Rs. 18,675/- per month. No tax is being deducted as the potential income of the deceased does not fall under the taxable income slab.
26. Ld. Counsel for petitioner requested for balancing the income of the victim on the basis of inflation trends and requested that 50% increase be made in the income of the victim.
27. I have taken care of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for petitioner and have perused the record.
Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 8/1628. Initially, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Santosh Devi Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors' in Civil Appeal No. 3723 of 2012 decided on 23/04/2012 case had held as under:-
"14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstance. In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self- employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of this fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling on the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserved to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation".
29. However, in a recent case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors 2013(6) Scale 563" wherein three Hon'ble Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 9/16 Judges bench held that:
11. Since, the court in Santosh Devi's case (Supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (Supra) and to make it applicable also to self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not
30 % always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50 % to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30 % in case the deceased was in age group of 40 to 50 years.
12. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on the fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15 % in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.
20. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi (Supra). We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 25,00/- to Rs. 10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least Rupees One Lakh for loss of consortium.
Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 10/1630. Since the deceased was around 20 years of age as on the date of accident, 50% of income towards the future prospects is required to be added in terms of aforesaid judgment in Rajesh's case(supra). Hence, after averaging out, the monthly income of deceased comes out to be Rs.28,012.5p/ (Rs.18,675/- + 50% of Rs. 18,675) per month.
31. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 2013 ACJ 2334, 2013(4), T.A.C. 567 (Mad.), 2014 (3) T.A.C. 23 (Del.), 2012 ACJ 2002, 2014 (3) T.A.C.627 (Del.) and 2014(3) T.A.C. 189 (Del.).
32. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras 2014 ACJ 2186 titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs D.Vasantha and others for considering the sister of the deceased to be dependent upon the deceased, but same facts of aforementioned judgment are not applicable in the present case as in the aforementioned judgment the deceased was sole breadwinner in the family and was stated to be drawing salary of Rs. 2,82,935 p.a., but in the present case the deceased was still studying. Therefore, the prayer of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner for considering the sister of the deceased to be as dependent upon the deceased is hereby rejected.
33. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma (supra), 50% of the income of the deceased is directed to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as the deceased was bachelor and has left behind his parents. After deducting one- half towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to be Rs. 28,012.50/- less Rs.14,006.25/.= Rs. 14,006.25p.
34. For the purpose of determining the multiplier in case of death of bachelor, the petitioners cited the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Amrit Bhanu Shali & ors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2012 VI AD(S.C.) 399 wherein it was held as under:-
Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 11/16"13. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents- Insurance Company submitted that the deceased-Ritesh Bhanu Shali was unmarried boy aged about 26 years and the High Court rightly applied the multiplier of 13 as per the age of the claimants, i.e. Parents. According to the respondents, the multiplier is to be applied as per the age of the deceased or as per the age of the claimant, whichever is higher but aforesaid submission cannot be accepted in view of the finding of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma(supra).
14. We have considered the respective arguments and perused the record. The questions which arise for consideration are:
(i) What should be the deduction for the 'personal and living expenses of the deceased-Ritesh Bhanu shali to decide the question of the contribution of the dependent members of the family; and
(ii) What is the proper selection of multiplier for deciding the claim.
17. The Selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent.
There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation. 18. In the case of Sarla Verma(supra) this court held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column(4) of the table of the said judgment which starts with an operative multiplier of
18. As the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 26 years, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied the multiplier of 17 but the High Court committed a serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier of 17 and bringing it down to the multiplier of 13.
35. However, in the latest directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC.APP. 196/2013 received vide circular number 719/11585-598-I/Genl./HCS/2014 Dated, Delhi the 11 Apl 2014, it has been opined that Tribunal should take the multiplier as per the age of the deceased while calculating the compensation.
36. As per the Ex PW1/4 i.e the secondary school examination certificate the date of birth of the deceased is 17.11.1993. The date of accident is 07.09.2013. As on the date of accident, the age of deceased comes out to be around 20 years as on Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 12/16 the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 18 as mentioned in Sarla Verma's judgment (Supra). Hence, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs. 30,25,350/- (Rs. 14,006.25p/-X 12 X 18).
37. In terms of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, I award Rs. 25,000/- towards love and affection; Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses ( in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors 2013(6) Scale 563" decided on 12.04.2013 by three Hon'ble Judges) & Rs. 10,000/ -towards loss of estate, Rs. 2,39,686/- towards medical bills incurred before the death of the deceased/Injured Petitioner.
38. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before the death of the deceased, the deceased was firstly removed from the accident spot to Trauma Centre in ambulance and thereafter he was removed from Trauma Centre to Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh and thereafter he was removed from Shalimar Bagh to Mortuary Subzi Mandi and finally he was removed from Mortuary Subzi Mandi to his native place at Village Puthi Ibrahimpur, (Meeran Pur) Muzaffarnagar, UP, but no bills have been filed. Here, I am ignoring the non-furnishing of bills regarding conveyance, keeping in view that the petitioners were not in such a mental condition at that relevant point of time to procure bills regarding conveyance. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances, I hereby grant a lump sump amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards conveyance.
RELIEF:
39. I award Rs.33,40,036 /-(Rupees Thirty Three Lac Forty Thousand Thirty Six only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum including interim award, if any, from the date of filing the petition i.e. 01/11/2013 till the notice under Order 21 Rule 1 is given by the insurance company, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several. The Petitioner No. 1 & 2 shall have 50% each share in the award amount The Petitioners No. 3 & 4 shall have no share in the award amount.
Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 13/1640. Acting on the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India G.M Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v/s S. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 in order to avoid the money being frittered away, fifty percent( 50%) of the amount awarded to each Petitioners No. 1 & 2 shall be kept in 5 FDRs of almost equal amount for a period of 1,2,3,4 & 5 years. No loan or advance shall be allowed against the said fixed deposit. The Petitioner can withdraw the interest quarterly from her FDRs.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
41. The Respondent No: 3 being the insurer, its liability is joint and several with other respondents. Accordingly, respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of 30 days. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
42. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment in Union of India and Another Vs. Nanisari and Others MACA 682/2005 decided on 13.1.2010 have given certain guidelines and directions to the Motor Accident Tribunals to the effect that henceforth the Tribunals shall direct the insurance companies to deposit the award amount in the bank within 30 days with further direction as to the disbursement of the same in terms of the award and case be kept pending till the compliance is placed on record. The directions given by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as mentioned and endorsed in the said order has already been re affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in order dated 17.12.2009 in SLP (C) No. 11801-11804/2005 which contains certain schemes initiated for the benefit of the victims of the road accidents after the award amount is passed. The para no.18 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi runs as under:-
"19. To protect and preserve the compensation amount awarded to the families of the deceased victim special schemes may be considered by the insurance companies in consultation with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, State Bank of India or any other Nationalized Banks under which the compensation is kept in fixed deposit for an appropriate period and interest is paid by the Bank monthly to the claimants without any need for claimants having to approach either the Court or their counsel or the Bank for that purpose. The scheme should ensure that the amount of Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 14/16 compensation is utilized only for the benefit of the injured claimants or in case of death, for the benefit of the dependent family. We extract below the particulars of a special Scheme offered by a nationalized Bank at the instance of the Delhi High Court:
(i) The fixed deposit shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the Court.
(ii) The interest on the fixed deposit shall be paid monthly.
(iii) The monthly interest shall be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant.
(iv) Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant.
(vii) No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the Court.
(viii) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the Court.
(ix) The claimant can operated the saving bank account from the nearest branch of UCO Bank on the request of the claimant, the bank shall provide the said facility."
43. It was further held in the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nanisiri case (Supra) that "The State Bank of India and UCO Bank have formulated special schemes for the victims of the road accident on the above terms and, therefore, the order for the deposit should be made presently to State Bank of India through its nodal officer Mr. Chandra Mohan Ojha, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari (Mb: 09412341376) or to UCO Bank through Mr. M M Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No.09310356400) as per the convenience of the victim /legal representatives of the victim. However, if any other bank agrees to provide the special scheme for victims of the road accident on the above Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 15/16 terms, the deposit be permitted to be made in that Bank subject to the convenience of the victim/legal representative of the victim of the road accident".
44. In terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the insurance company shall deposit the award amount in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner/ petitioners in terms of the award and shall file the compliance report. It is made clear that at the time of the deposit of the award amount with the bank, the insurance company shall specifically mention the suit no. of the case, title of the case as well as date of decision with the name of court on the back side of the cheque. The insurance company shall also file the attested copy of the award attested by its own officer to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank.
45. The copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost. The petitioner shall approach the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch, Delhi for opening the account.
46. The Manager of the Bank is directed to comply the award. The Bank Manager is directed to release the award amount to the petitioners. However, in case the amount is ordered to be kept in the FDR, the said amount should not be released unless the FDR is matured.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 06/01/2015, to be fixed by insurance company.
Announced in the open court
on 10th November day of 2014 (SANJEEV KR. SINGH)
PO: MACT-02 (CENTRAL): DELHI
Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 16/16
Suit No. 110/14
10/11/2014
Present: None.
Judgment announced vide separate sheets of even date.
This File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 06/01/2015.
(SANJEEV KR. SINGH) PO, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/10/11/2014 Suit No. 110/14 Page No. 17/16