Delhi District Court
Ritu Gupta And Ors vs Om Prakash And Ors on 22 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL &
DISTRICT JUDGE -01, NORTH WEST : ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. SHIVAJI ANAND
====================================================
UID No. / CNR No. DLNW01-002418-2021 MACT CASE No. 119/21 FIR No. 250/20, PS Begum Pur In the matter of :
1. Late Sh. Rakesh Mohan (deceased) Through his LRs:
1.1 Smt. Ritu Gupta (wife) 1.2 Janvi Gupta (daughter) 1.3 Sudesh (mother) 1.4 Satish Chander (father) All R/o H.No.36, Pocket-18, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi.
.....Petitioners vs.
1. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh R/o H.no.415/10, Mata Gate Ward no.10, Jhajjar, Haryana.
....Driver/R1
2. Pradeep Kumar (R2 had died) S/o Sh. Sahab Singh R/o H.No.336, Shahbad Daulatpur, Samaipur, Delhi through his LRs:
a. Shashi (wife)
b. Kshitij Rana (son)
c. Divyanshi Rana (daughter)
....Owner/R2
MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20)
Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 22
SHIVAJI Digitally signed by
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND 16:52:40 +0530
Date: 2024.10.22
3. Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd., O/o H-78, 7th Floor, 23 Himalaya House, K. G. Marg, New Delhi.
....Insurer/R3
Date of institution of the DAR : 15.03.2021
Date of final Arguments : 01.06.2024
Date of Decision : 22.10.2024
Appearance (s) : Sh. Palvinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
J U D G M E N T /AWAR D
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off Detailed Accident Report (in short, the DAR) filed by IO ASI Sunil Kumar with regard to death of Sh. Rakesh Mohan ( in short, the deceased), who died in a road vehicular accident on 19.08.2020.
2. It is stated that the deceased on 19.08.2020 at about 21:48 Hrs. at Sector-23L, Turn Point, near Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi was going on his scooty. Suddenly one vehicle bearing registration no.DL- 8CAR-4024 (in short, "the offending vehicle") which was coming at a very high speed and was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent no.1/driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased as a result of such impact, fell down and sustained serious injuries.
3. It is stated that after the said accident, the deceased was taken to Shree Aggarsain International Hospital, Delhi where his MLC bearing no.0476/2020 was preapred. Thereafter, he was referred to BSA Hospital, Delhi where his postmortem report bearing no.705/2020 dated 24.08.2020 was prepared.
MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 22
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.10.22
16:52:47
+0530
4. It is stated that the said accident has been occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 and the death of the deceased was caused due to the said accident. An FIR bearing no. 250/20 u/s 279/304A IPC at PS Begumpur was also registered in this regard.
5. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2, and it is, inter-alia submitted that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the alleged accident by the police. It is further stated that the answering respondent tried to save the life of deceased at the time of accident as the deceased was driving his scooty in a zig zag manner on the road while the respondent was passing by from the said road when the deceased was hit by some unknown vehicle and fled away from the spot. It is further stated that the answering respondent brought the injured to the nearby hospital in his car with the help of respondent no.2. It is further stated that the DAR is false and is liable to be rejected by this Hon'ble Court and the injured was hit by some unknown vehicle and fled away. It is further stated that the alleged offending vehicle was fully insured at the time of accident with the Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy no.HKG/00034674 period of insurance from 10.04.2020 to April 2021. It is further stated that no such accident has been caused by the answering respondnet no.1 even if there is any liability on this account that will be of the insurance company being the insurer of the vehicle.
6. Written statement has also been filed on behalf of MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.10.22 16:52:52 +0530 respondent no.3 and, it is, interalia, submitted that there were discrepancy as to facts of the driver at the time of accident. It is further stated that there is misrepresentation of facts as narrated and duly supported by documents as mentioned in the foregoing paras. In such circumstances, the insurance company submitted that based on principles of natural justice, this matter needs to be examined through trial and examination of witnesses since the driver of the offending vehicle was heavily drunk and there was swapping of person alleged to the driving of the offending vehicle. It is further stated that the deceased was driving the scooty at high speed without observing traffic rules and suffered injury due to driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
7. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 06.04.2022: -
1. Whether deceased Rakesh Mohan, S/o Sh. Satish Chander expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 19.08.2020 at about 21:48 hrs. at Sector-23L-Turn Point, Near Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Car bearing no. DL-8C-AR 4024 which was being driven by driver Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 22 Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND 16:52:58 Date: 2024.10.22 +0530
3. Relief.
8. Thereafter, matter was listed for recording of petitioner's evidence. In order to prove its case, Smt. Ritu Gupta has been examined as PW1, who has deposed in terms of affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A which bears her signatures at Point A & B. She relied upon the documents i.e. copy of Aadhar Card Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR), Copy of Aadhar Card of Janvi Gupta Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR), copy of Aadhar Card of Sudesh Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR), copy of Aadhar Card of Satish Chander Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR), copy of Aadhar Card of Rakesh Mohan @ Rakesh Agarwal Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR), copy of driving licence of Rakesh Mohan @ Rakesh Agarwal Ex. PW-1/6, copy of DAR Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly), copy of certificate of class 10th of Rakesh Mohan @ Rakesh Agarwal Ex. PW-1/8, copy of Income Tax Return of Year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-2021 & 2019-20 is Mark 'A' (Colly).
9. In her cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for R3, PW1 has deposed that she is not an eyewitness of the present case. She deposed that there are four legal heirs in the family, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, daughter and herself. Her father-in-law is not getting any pension. Her husband was running a business of LED lights by himself. Her husband was 10th class pass. Her husband was running his business from the last 23 years. No one is carrying out his business any more. There was no staff. She deposed that she has no knowledge about the business of her husband. She deposed that her husband had a bank account in Bank of Maharashtra in Sector-24, MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 22 Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.10.22 16:53:04 +0530 Rohini. She did not know whether the coy of passbook is placed on record or not. She was not aware whether any document to show income of her deceased husband is placed on record. She denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated. She further denied the suggestion that the documents filed are false and fabricated. She further denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely. Thereafter, cross examination was deferred on the request of R1 and R2.
10. Vide order dated 28.01.2023, PW-1 was recalled for cross examination by ld. Counsel for R1 and R2, he adopted the cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company.
11. Sh. Amit Kumar has been examined as PW-2 and deposed that he is summoned witness. He has brought the summoned record on behalf of the Income Tax Officer which is exhibited as Ex. PW-2/1 (OSR) i.e. his Icard and the income record of the deceased Rakesh Mohan which is Ex PW-2/2 (Colly) (running into 58 pages). As per their record the deceased was paying the tax for the assessment year 2011-2012 till 2020-2021.
12. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for R3, he deposed that he was not aware any profit and loss statement was given with this ITR. No other ITR has been filed after last assessment year 2020-2021. He had no personal knowledge regarding the income filed. He denied the suggestion that the documents filed are false and fabricated. He further denied the suggestion that he was MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 22
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.22
16:53:10 +0530
deposing falsely. Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2 has adopted the cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for R3.
13. Sh. Dinesh Kumar has been examined as PW-3, who has deposed in terms of affidavit of evidence Ex. PW3/A which bears his signatures at Point A & B. He relied upon the following document i.e. copy of his aadhar card is Ex.PW-3/1.
14. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for R3, he deposed that he sits/works with his brother at his factory in Bawana. The name of the Co. Singla Cable Industries. He has a Swift Car which is registered in his name bearing registration no. DL-11CB- 8092 which he used to drive to his work place. He has not brought the copy of the D/L and RC. He deposed that he was staying in the residential address shown in the affidavit for the past 9 years. This house is owned by him. He did not know Mr. Rakesh Mohan. He did not know Mr. Rakesh Mohan where he lives, but after accident, he came to know that he lives in Sector-24 Rohini. His route to Bawana is through Mahadev Chowk, Sector-30-31 and then to Bawana. He left for duty around 9.30 A.M. Sometimes he did come back early in case of any emergency otherwise he come back by around 6.00/6.30 PM. It usually takes around 30 minutes to reach back but in case there is any traffic then it takes around 40 minutes. He denied to state that the accident did not happen in front of him. The date of accident is 19.08.2020 at around 9.30 to 10.00 PM. He reached back at about 6.30 to 7.00 PM. He lived with his wife, mother and children at Sector-22. He denied the suggestion that after having reached back MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 22
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.22
16:53:15 +0530
home at 7.00 PM there was no way he could have witness the accident between 9.30 to 10.00 PM. He had taken out the vehicle on the date of the accident at around 9.20 PM. He denied the suggestion that he had taken out the vehicle again on the date of the accident. There is no attendance register at the office. There is no guard in their locality. He had taken the red light left side road opposite Begum Pur Thana Road. He further denied the suggestion that there were no street lights on the road. He deposed that there was heavy traffic on the road. Occasionally the traffic police is also present near the red light. His vehicle was at the speed of 40 to 50 kmph. There was not much traffic on the road around that time. It is a two way road with a divider in between. His vehicle was in the Center of the road. There was no vehicle on the right side of the road. There was no vehicle in front of his vehicle. He saw another vehicle come front the right side of his car at very high speed. It was at a speed of 70 to 80 kmph. The car came from right side of his vehicle and hit scooty on the left side from behind. He denied the suggestion that the scooty was hit by his vehicle. He further denied the suggestion that his car was immediately behind the scooty. He deposed that no statement was given by him to the police. He voluntarily deposed that orally police inquired from him. He denied the suggestion that he was not the eye witness of the accident. He had stopped the vehicle at the place of accident. The injured was taken by the people who were in the offending car to the hospital. He had accompanied them to the Agarsen Hospital. He deposed that no statement was taken from him by the police. His vehicle was at the distance of 30 to 40 mtr. from the place of accident. He denied the suggestion that he could not have seen the alleged MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 22
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.10.22
16:53:20
accident from such a distance in the dark. The scooty was at the speed of 20 to 25 kmph. The person was wearing helmet. He did not know who called the police. He also did not call anyone and informed anyone about the accident. He had met Mr. Amit Ji brother-in-law of the deceased at the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the accident and that he was deposing falsely.
15. In his cross examination done by ld. Counsel for R1 and R2, he denied relation whatsoever with the claimants therein. There is no record in the hospital records that he took the injured or accompanied him to the hospital. He had no contact with the family of injured on the date of incident. Again said in the hospital he met Amit Ji brother in law of the injured on the date of incident. He was not told by anybody about the pendency of the present case. The police had seized the helmet of the deceased in his presence perhaps. The police had not taken his signature on the seizure memo of the helmet. Thereaafter, petitioners evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording of respondents evidence.
16. Sh. Om Prakash has been examined as R1W1 who has deposed in terms of affidavit of evidence Ex. R1W1/A bears his signatures at Point A & B and relied upon the following documents which are as follows:
a. Driving license Ex.R1W1/1 (OSR). b. RC of the vehicle bearing no.DL-8CAR-4024 and insurance policy is already Ex.PW1/7 (colly). Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.10.22 16:53:31 +0530 MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 22
17. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for R3, he deposed that he was not aware of contents of his affidavit. He was graduate. He and his brother in law were sitting on the offending vehicle on the date of accident. The name of his brother in law was Pradeep Kumar. He denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle was driven by late Pradeep Kumar. He voluntarily deposed that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that he was in drunken condition at the time of accident. He voluntarily deposed that he does not drink. He deposed that at the time of accident, deceased was going on scooty which was ahead of another car which is driven ahead of him. He did not know whether the deceased was wearing the helmet or not. He removed the injured in his own car to the hospital. He deposed that at the time of accident, he was coming from Shahbad to Rohini to meet their friend. He did not know any person namely Satinder Rana. He did not know whether Pradeep Kumar had mentioned the name of Satinder Rana or not in claim form. He denied the suggestion that at the time of accident, the driver was changed. He voluntarily deposed that at the time of accident, he was driving the vehicle. He was driving the vehicle at the speed of 30-40 km/ph. He denied the suggestion that the documents filed are false and fabricated. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely and the driver was different at the time of accident.
18. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, he deposed that he was arrested in the said case by the police officials and FIR was also registereed against him. He further deposed that he MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 22
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.10.22
16:53:38
+0530
was on bail in the said case. He further deposed that was facing a criminal trial in the same case. He had no enmity with the police officials. He had not given a written complaint regarding his false implication in the present case to the higher authorities like DCP, ACP and CP. He voluntarily deposed that he had informed that SHO regarding the false implicating. He told them that he can take steps after the case decided. He did not know the name of SHO to whom he had informed orally. He met SHO after 3 days of the accident when he was called by IO. He deposed that the distance between his vehicle and scooty was around 20-25 feet. He deposed that IO had called him after 2-3 days of accident. He denied the suggestion that there were more persons gathered at the spot of accident. He further denied the suggestion that there was another car ahead of him. He further denied the suggestion that accident happened due to his negligence. He deposed that he had informed to the Doctor in the hospital that the accident had caused by some other vehicle.
19. Sh. Rajiv Mudgal has been examined as R3W1 who has deposed in terms of affidavit of evidence Ex. R3W1/A bears his signatures at Point A & B and relied upon the following documents which are as follows:
a. Investigation report dated 05.07.2021 Ex.R3W1/1 (colly 5 pages). b. Annexure to the investigation report is Mark A (colly 77 pages).
20. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, he deposed that he had done B. Tech Mechanical. He had complete knowledge of the present case. He was not the summoned witness. He MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 22
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.10.22
16:53:47
+0530
further deposed that he deposing in the present case before this court on the version of insurance company just to escape the liability. He had not filed any authority letter wherein the insurance company had authorised him to depose before this court for today. He deposed that after going through the investigation report filed by him nowhere the insurance company had stamped or signed. He further denied the suggestion that the insurance company had never authorised/appointed him to investigate the matter on their behalf that is why he had not brought any authorization letter. He deposed that he had not verified the signature of Nitesh from any other signature of the Nitesh on any other paper.
21. Sh. Nitesh Jain has been examined as R3W2 and deposed that he was summoned witness. It was about 10 pm. He was going from Jain Nagar to toward his residence at Sector-11 Rohini. He saw that some people were gathered at the spot around the victim. He stopped his car there and he came to know from the public persons that the car had hit the victim. He also came to know from the public persons that the accident had been caused by Creta Car. He with the help of public person took the injured in the Creta Car and help him to sit on the back seat. The person siting on the co-driver seat was in the influence of the liquor and he cannot say who was driving the offending vehicle since he had not seen. He hospitalized the victim and completed the formalities for the same. Statement of witness given investigator appointed by the insurance company is Mark A. At this stage, counsel for insurance company shows that statement of witness to the witness for confirmation. Same was confirmed by the witness that the MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 22
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.22
16:53:54 +0530
statement belongs to him only.
22. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, he deposed that he cannot say how many persons were siting in the car at the time of accident as he had not seen the accident. He cannot say the exact time of the accident as public persons were already gathered at the spot of accident. He deposed that the he took the victim to the hospital in the same Creta Car. He had not enquired from any person regarding the offending vehicle. He did not remember the registration number of offending vehicle. The witness again confronted with Mark A wherein number of offending vehicle has been mentioned at point C. He visited the police official twice or thrice time. He deposed that the police has recorded his statement. The witness again confronted the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC which was recorded by the IO of the case and already on record on page no.45 in the DAR where only vehicle number is correct as he had not seen the accident. He deposed that some part of his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was correct and some was not correct. He did not remember whether he had signed any statement recorded by IO in the police statement. When he reached at the spot the creta vehicle was stationed ahead of scooty. He deposed that he could not identify persons who were there at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accident. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. Thereafter, respondents evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
23. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 22
Digitally
signed by
SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.22
16:53:59
+0530
through the testimony of witnesses including the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether deceased Rakesh Mohan, S/o Sh. Satish Chander expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 19.08.2020 at about 21:48 hrs. at Sector-23L-Turn Point, Near Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Car bearing no. DL-8C-AR 4024 which was being driven by driver Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
24. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 22 Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.10.22 16:54:11 +0530 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
25. Petitioners have examined PW-1 and PW-3 to prove the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. PW-1, in her cross- examination has admitted that she is not eye-witness of the accident. PW-3 is his cross examination has admitted that he is eye witness of the accident. The statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of witness PW-3 is not on police file. R3W2 Nitesh Jain has been examined and has admitted that he is summoned witness in the present case. Statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of witness R3W2 Nitesh Jain was recorded on 20.08.2020 and he reveals in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC that the deceased was hit by vehicle bearing no.DL-8CAR-4024. The testimony of R3W2 reveals that he took the victim to the hospital in the same Creta Car. The testimony against the respondent no.1 is corroborated by the documentary evidence that respondent no.1 was present at the spot and driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the case does not warrant any other best evidence. Keeping in view the facts & evidence produced by the petitioner, it has proved on record that the said accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.1, as a result of which, the deceased lost his life.
26. The FIR has been lodged against the respondent no.1 and he has faced criminal charges of causing death and injuries by rash and negligent driving in the said accident.
MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.10.22 16:54:18 +0530
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
28. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
29. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 22
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.22
16:54:23 +0530
determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
30. As already stated above, the claimant/petitioner no.1 namely Ritu Gupta is the wife of deceased, the claimant/petitioner no.2 is the daugther of deceased, the claimant/petitioner no.3 is the mother of decased and claimant/petitioner no.4 is the father of deceased. As per the aadhar card, the year of birth of the deceased was 1974 and the deceased was aged about 46 years as on the date of the accident. PW-1 in her evidence affidavit stated that the deceased was running business and filed ITR. To prove this fact, he had summoned witness namely Sh. Amit Kumar. But ITR does not reflects the business which was being run, details of employees kept. Thus, Ex.PW-1/8 shows the certificate of 10 th of deceased, therefore, the income of the deceased, as on the date of the accident, has been treated as that of "Matriculate person". Therefore, on the date of accident i.e 19.08.2020, the minimum wages of matriculate person in Delhi is Rs. 18,563/- per month.
31. The ld. Counsel for petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and all the petitioners/claimants were dependent upon him for their livelihood. The ld. Counsel for the MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 22
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.10.22
16:54:27
petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
32. Accordingly, on the basis of aforementioned documents, age of the deceased is taken as 46 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of "13" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
33. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of accident and was not having a permanent job at that time of the said accident, future prospects @ 25% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, in MAC APP No. 798/2011.
34. The deceased was married and there are 4 claimants/ dependants upon him (i.e. petitioner no.1/wife, petitioner no.2/daguther, petitioner no. 3/mother and petitioner no.4/father). Thus, there are 4 dependants and there has to be deduction of "one fourth (1/4)", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
S Head Amount Remarks
No (Rs.)
1. Monthly Income of deceased 18,563
(A)
MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20)
Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 22
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.10.22
16:54:31
+0530
2. Add: Future prospects @ 25% 4,640.75 25% of (A)
(B)
3. Less: Personal expenses of 5,800.94 [(A)+ (B)] / 4=
deceased @ one fourth (1/4)
(C)
(C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency(D) 17,402.81
[(A)+(B)]-(C)=
(D)
5. Annual Loss of dependency (E) 2,08,833.72 (D) x 12 = (E)
6. Multiplier @ 13
7. Total Loss of dependency (F) 27,14,838.3 (E) x 13(multiplier) = 6 (F) Total 27,14,839 LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
35. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
36. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors.", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024, I am of the considered opinion that all LRs of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs.1,93,600/- towards loss of MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 19 of 22
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.22
16:54:39 +0530
consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- (Rs.48,400/- x 4) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
37. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors. ", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024 mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and and a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioners towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. Head Amount (Rs.)
No.
1 Loss of dependency 27,14,839
2 Loss of Consortium 1,93,600
(Rs.48,400/- x 4)
3 Loss of Estate &Funeral 36,300
Expenses (Rs.18,150/-
each)
T O TAL 29,44,739
38. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 has submitted that, though the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case, however, the offending vehicle has been duly insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no.3/Insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation.
SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.10.22 16:54:46 +0530 MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 20 of 22
39. I have gone through the rival contention of ld. Counsel for the parties. From the pleadings on record, it cannot be stated that any defence has been raised by ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 which creates a shadow of cloud over the claim of the petitioners Therefore, in view of the same, respondent No.3 /Insurance company is held liable to pay compensation/Award amount to the claimants/ petitioners. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3: RELIEF
40. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs.29,44,739/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the DAR, i.e. 15.03.2021 till the date of its realization in favour of petitioners.
APPORTIONMENT
41. The statement of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was not recorded. Therefore, the apportionment is withheld.
42. Respondent no.3/Insurance Co. ltd. is hereby directed to deposit the Award amount in SBI, Rohini Courts Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. The parties are directed to download the digitally signed copy of judgment online.
43. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 21 of 22
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.22
16:54:51 +0530
44. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 22.11.2024.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2024. Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.10.22 16:54:56 +0530 (SH. SHIVAJI ANAND) DJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI MACT Case No. 119/21 (FIR no. 250/20) Ritu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Page no. 22 of 22