Delhi District Court
Ram Gopal Yadav Ors vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd on 22 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAYURI SINGH
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________
In the matters of:
MACP No.521/22
Ram Goal Yadav & Ors. Vs. Reliance General Company Ltd. & Ors.
1. Ram Gopal Yadav
S/o Naubat Singh Yadav
2. Sarvesh ( Expired on 21.11.2022 and stated to have been survived
by other petitioners as sole legal heirs/dependants)
W/o Sh. Ram Gopal Yadav
3. Lucky Yadav
S/o Sh. Ram Gopal Yadav
4. Deepanshi Yadav
D/o Ram Gopal Yadav
All R/o 1/290, near Singhal Sadan
Surender Nagar Coil, Aligarh, U.P. ............Petitioners
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Flat No. F-17, U.G. Floor Unit ½, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110092
2. Mohit Yadav (driver-cum-owner)
S/o Kartar Singh
R/o Village & Post Khetawas,
Tehsil Farukh Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana. ....Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.08.2022
Date for reserve for order : Not reserved
Date of pronouncement : 22.05.2024
AWAR D
1. By this award, the claim petition bearing MACP no. 521/22,
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 1 of 15
filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking compensation under Sections
166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising out of the accident,
would be decided.
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the petitioners are that
on 05.08.2022, at about 02:00 a.m. (midnight), deceased Chitransh
Yadav was travelling by motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-16DD-
5165 from Nithari to Noida City Centre. It is further stated that when he
was going from elevated road to Noida city centre side, a Mercedes Car
bearing registration No. HR-26-DC-6447 (offending vehicle) came from
behind (Spice Mall side), which was being driven at a fast speed and in
a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of Chitransh Yadav.
It is further stated that on account of forceful impact, Chitransh Yadav
suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is further submitted
that in this connection,FIR bearing No. 285/22 PS Sector-24, Noida,
Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. was registered. With these submissions, the
petitioners have claimed compensation by way of the present claim
petition.
3. In response to the notice of petition, both respondents
appeared and filed their replies/ written statements.
3.1 In the written statements filed by the respondent no.
1/National Insurance Company, it is stated that petition is not
maintainable as this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to try the
same as neither the accident took place within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal nor the petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of this
Tribunal. Other general defenses have been taken by R2.
3.2 Respondent No. 2 has filed his separate written statement and
stated that petition is not maintainable. It is further averred that
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 2 of 15
respondent No.2 has not caused the alleged accident and that
'petitioners' were coming from wrong direction and due to it, the
accident occurred and respondent No.2 has been falsely been implicated
in the present case. It is further stated that respondent No.2 has valid
driving documents to run a vehicle on road and he was having valid
driving licence. Rest of the averments of the petition have been denied
by respondent No.2.
4. Upon completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed vide order dated 25.10.2023:
i). Whether Mr. Chitransh Yadav died in a motor vehicular
accident happened on 05.08.2022 at about 02:00 A.M. near
sector 31, 25 crossing, within jurisdiction of PS sector 24,
Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle i.e. mercidese car bearing
Registration No.HR-26DC-6447 driven by Respondent No.2/
Mohit Yadav? OPP
ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on
account of said death and if yes, to what extent and from
whom? (OPP)
iii). Relief.
5. In order to prove their cases, the petitioners examined two
witnesses as under:
(i) PW1 Ram Gopal Verma/Petitioner No. 1 examined himself
and deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A regarding the
manner of accident ; fatal injury suffered by his son i.e. deceased
Chitransh Yadav; and income of deceased. He relied upon the following
documents:-
• Certified copy of charge-sheet is Ex. PW1/1
• Photocopy of aadhar Card / PAN card of petitioners are
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 3 of 15
Ex.PW1/2 (colly) (OSR)
• Photocopy of physical disability certificate of the petitioner
No.3 / brother of deceased is Ex. PW1/3 (OSR)
• Photocopy of aadhar card and DL of deceased are Ex. PW1/4
(OSR)
• Photocopy of Salary / appointment certificate of deceased is
Mark A.
• Photocopy of education documents of deceased are Ex. PW1/6
(OSR)
(ii) PW2 Sh. Piyush Chaudhary is an eye-witness and deposed on
the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW2/A and deposed regarding the
manner of accident and involvement of offending vehicle in the same.
Both the aforesaid witnesses were duly cross-examined by the
learned counsel for respondents.
6. Thereafter, Petitioner evidence was closed.
7. Respondents side did not examine any witness in their
defence.
8. I have heard the final arguments advanced by Sh. C.P.Singh,
Learned counsel for the petitioner and Kuldeep Sangwan, Learned
counsel for respondent No. 1/Insurer. I have perused the evidence and
other material placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
9. It is pertinent to mention here that as per settled proposition
of law, an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non.
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 4 of 15
However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal
cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim
Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not
applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference
may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on
02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v.
Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. In order to prove their cases, petitioner No.1 being father of
deceased examined herself as PW1. Further, eye-witness Sh. Piyush
Chaudhary has been examined as PW2 and he clearly deposed that on
05.08.2022 at about 2 am, deceased Chitransh Yadav was travelling by
motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-16DD-5165 from Nithari to
Noida City Centre and when he reached at sector 31, 25 Chauraha, a
mercedes car bearing registration No. HR-26DC-6447 came from
behind (spice mall side), which was being driven rashly and negligently
and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. It is further deposed that due to
this impact, Chitransh Yadav sustained serious injuries and was rushed
to the hospital where he was declared dead. It is further deposed by
PW2 that he told the accident story to the IO but he refused to be
witness in the case. Pw2 was cross-examined by counsel for
respondents. During his cross-examination, PW2 averred that the place
of accident was at a distance of 1.5-2 km away from his residence and
on the day of accident, he was going to take a meal in night. PW2
denied the suggestion that he was not an eye witness to the accident.
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 5 of 15
During his cross-examination, PW2 stated that deceased vehicle was hit
by the side of the offending vehicle. Perusal of mechanical inspection
report of offending vehicle as well as victim vehicle shows the damages
which corroborates the version of PW1. R2 (driver cum owner)
appeared before the Court and filed written statement. It is stated
therein that 'petitioners' themselves were coming from wrong direction
due to which acidetn occurred. There is just one injured in this case and
thus, no question arises for 'petitioners' coming form wrong direction as
it is not the case of petitioners that all of them were travelling on victim
vehicle or were present at the spot. Clearly, the written statement of R2
is in a cyclostyled format. The occurrence of accident is not disputed by
R2. There is nothing brought on record to suggest contributory
negligence.
11. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against
respondent no. 2/Mohit Yadav, the driver-cum-owner of the offending
truck. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver of offending vehicle
prima-facie points to his culpability. (New India Assurance Company
Ltd vs Smt. Washeema Bano (2022) SCC OnLine All 403 and Mangla
Ram vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (2018) 5SCC 656).
12. In New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Pazhaniammal (2011)
(2) KLT 648, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held that as a
general rule, it can be accepted that production of charge-sheet is prima-
facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under
section 166 MV Act. If any party do not accept such charge-sheet, the
burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels
that charge-sheet is collusive, it can record that charge-sheet cannot be
accepted and call upon the parties at any stage to adduce oral evidence
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 6 of 15
of accident and alleged negligence. In such cases, issue of negligence
must be decided on other evidence ignoring the charge-sheet.
13. Respondent no.2 is the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle
and he did not lead any evidence to prove anything contrary to the claim
of the petitioner. In the case of Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Kamlesh and Others2009 (3) AD
Delhi 310 it was held that an adverse inference can be drawn when the
driver of the offending vehicle does not enter into the witness box. It is
relevant here to mention that in the charge-sheet, PW2 is not cited as an
eye witness but he clarified in this regard in his testimony itself that he
refused to be a witness in the criminal case proceedings. No suggestion
to the contrary was given to him in his cross-examination by the
respondent side. He denied the suggestion of Ld. Counsel for
respondents that he was not an eye witness to the accident. It is seen
that in the charge-sheet two witnesses have been cited as eye witnesses
and there is nothing brought on record by the respondents to suggest that
PW2 was not an eye witnesses, apart from the witnesses cited by the
prosecution in the State case. Further, R-2 has himself not disputed the
occurrence of accident and nothing could be brought through the cross-
examination of PW2 to shatter of his testimony on the point of rash and
negligent driving by R-1. There is nothing in the site plan to suggest that
the deceased was coming from wrong direction, as claimed by R-2 in its
written statement. PW2 denied the suggestion in his cross-examination
by Ld. Counsels for respondent No.1 that deceased Chitransh Yadav was
travelling in wrong direction.
14. Post-mortem of the deceased which is part of charge-sheet Ex.
PW1/1 suggests that the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage as a
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 7 of 15
result of ante mortem injuries.
15. Thus, in view of the above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that
petitioners have been able to prove that there is sufficient material on
record to establish that the accident had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and that
resulted into fatal injuries to the deceased Chitransh Yadav. Therefore,
issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners.
16. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to
get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to
be adjudicated.
ISSUE NO.2
17. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an
inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. The
compensation should not be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be
pittance.
ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:
18. PW1 / petitioner No.1 has testified in his evidence that deceased
Chitransh Yadav was employed with Team lease Services Pvt. Ltd,
BMTC Com. Posted at Noida and was drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/-
per month. In support of his assertion, PW1 has relied upon the
document Mark A, which is the photocopy of appointment letter issued
by Team lease Services Ltd to deceased Chitransh Yadav. Though,
document mark A is only the photocopy, still for the sake of evidence, if
this document may be considered as genuine, this is only an
appointment letter and it contain only terms and conditions. It does not
contain any acceptance or joining of the company by the deceased
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 8 of 15
Chitransh Yadav. In support of their claim, petitioners have not filed any
salary slip or any other document which could suggest that the deceased
was working in the aforesaid company and was drawing salary regularly
on the date of accident or in the preceding months. No witness has been
called from the aforementioned company to prove that deceased was
working there and getting salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. Even no
attendance record of deceased from the said company was called to
suggest the version of the petitioners. Hence, the document mark A
cannot be considered as salary proof of the deceased. In his testimony,
PW1 has averred that deceased was graduate with BCA, however, no
certificate of BCA is filed on record. PW1 in his testimony proved one
document i.e. Ex. PW1/6 which is the marks-sheet of December 2015 of
Chitransh Yadav. This document only suggests that he was pursuing
BCA. The back of the said Ex. PW1/6 shows the intermediate certificate
of the deceased which suggest that the deceased had passed intermediate
examination in the year 2013. Hence, from the documents proved by the
PW1, it can be assumed that the deceased was a matriculate. As per the
aadhar card of the deceased Ex. PW1/4, he was the resident of U.P.
Therefore, for the purpose of compensation, the monthly income of the
deceased is to be considered as per the minimum wages as prevalent in
U.P. for matriculate on the relevant period. The minimum wages under
skilled category (petitioner was a matriculate and hence being
considered as equivalent to a skilled worker) in U.P. on the date accident
is Rs.11,743/-.
APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:
Age of deceased :
19. As per the aadhar card of the deceased Ex. PW1/4, date of
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 9 of 15
deceased is 02.04.1995. The date of accident is 05.08.2022. Thus, the
age of the deceased was about 27 years at the time of accident.
Therefore, the multiplier of 17 which is applicable to age group between
26-30 years shall be applicable in this case.
Number of dependents :
20. In the claim petition, there are 3 petitioners / legal heirs of the
deceased, All of them are stated to be dependents on the deceased. It is
stated that deceased was survived by his father and unmarried sister and
brother and all three of them were dependent on the deceased. The
judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant
to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for
the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:-
MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF
DECEASED
M-18 Age group between 15 to 20 &
21 to 25 years)
M-17 Age group between 26 to 30
yrs
M-16 Age group between 31 to 35
yrs
M-15 Age group between 36 to 40
yrs
M-14 Age group between 41 to 45
yrs
M-13 Age group between 46 to 50
yrs
M-11 Age group between 51 to 55
yrs
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 10 of 15
M-9 Age group between 56 to 60
yrs
M-7 Age group between 61 to 65
yrs
M-5 Age group between 66 and
above
21. In view of the above, multiplier of 17 shall be applicable in
the present case.
Future Prospects:
22. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the
judgment are reproduced here as under:
"(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 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
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 11 of 15
component."
23. The deceased can be considered as self-employed. In view of
the above said judgment, the deceased, who was 26 years of age, an
addition of income of deceased to the extent of 40% has to be
considered in view of decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in the case, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
and Ors. (Supra) for the benefit of future prospects.
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
24. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased,
necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased
towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as
Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65,
in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living
and expenses of deceased as under :
Deductions out of earning of the Number of
deceased dependents
Where dependent is 1 Half
Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd
members is 2 to 3
Where the number of dependent family 1/4th
members is 4 to 6
Where the number of dependent family 1/5th
members exceeds 6 (six)
25. During final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, on
court query, submitted that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 12 of 15
accident. There is nothing in the claim petition to suggest otherwise.
Since the deceased was a bachelor, one half of the income of the
deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.
26. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs 16,76,900/-
(11743/-x 1/2 x 140/100 x 12x 17).
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
27. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of
Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on
account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and
further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years.
Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/-
respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal
no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be
fixed for each of the LRs. In this case, there are four legal heirs of the
deceased. Thus, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-
(48,000x4+18,000+18,000) under this head.
28. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total
compensation is calculated as under:
S. Head Amount
No. Awarded
1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs.11,743/-
2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% of 11,743 =
4697.2
____________________________________________________________________
MACP No.522/22
Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 13 of 15
3. Less 1/2 towards personal and living Rs 8220.1 = 1/2
expenses of the deceased (C) of 16,440.2
( 11743+4697.2)
.
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs.8220.1/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.98,641.2 6. Multiplier (E) 17
7. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE=F) Rs.16,76,900.4/-
8. Medical expenses (G) --
9. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,92,000/-
(I) (48,000x4)
10. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,000/-
11. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(K)
12. Total compensation Rs.19,04,900.4 rounded off to Rs.19,05,000/-
29. Thus, petitioners i.e. father and siblings of deceased in the instant case, shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,05,000/- only.
ISSUE No. 3:
30. The petitioner/s have conducted the proceedings in these cases diligently. Therefore, they are entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid respective award amount from the date of filing of the petitions till realization.
LIABILITY:
31. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents are liable to pay the compensation amount. As insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured and, in this case, insurance company has not been able to prove that any term or ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No.522/22 Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 14 of 15 condition of insurance policy was breached/ violated by insured, therefore, respondent no.1/ insurance company becomes liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount.
RELIEF:
32. In view of the findings on above points, I as presiding officer of this Tribunal award a total compensation of Rs.19,05,000/- (rupees Nineteen Lakhs five Thousand only) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization in favour of petitioners and respondent No.1 and against the respondent no.1, / insurer. This award is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days.
33. The apportionment of the award amount shall be decided only after deposit of award amount.
34. With these observations, the claim petition is disposed of.
35. Files be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by MAYURI MAYURI SINGH Date: SINGH 2024.05.22 17:05:21 +0530 Announced in the open (Mayuri Singh) Court on 22.05.2024 Presiding Officer-MACT (East) (Total 15 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
____________________________________________________________________ MACP No.522/22 Ram Gopal Yadav & ors. Vs. Reliance GIC Ltd & Anr. Page 15 of 15