Delhi District Court
Additional Sessions Judge/Special ... vs Rattan Singh on 17 February, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE:NDPS
TIS HAZARI COURTS: (WEST) DELHI
Suit no.11/09/08/06
Date of filing of the Petition : 03.7.2004
Judgment reserved on : 12.1.2010
Date of Final Award : 17.2.2010
1 Kamlesh W/o Amar Singh @ Anar singh
(aged 40 years mother of Late Sonu Pal)
2 Manju D/o Amar Singh @ Anar Singh
(aged 21 years, sister of Late Sonu Pal)
3 Sanju D/o Amar Singh @ Anar Singh
(aged 20 years, sister of Late Sonu Pal)
4 Babli @ Babita D/o Amar Singh @ Anar Singh
(aged 11 years, sister of Late Sonu Pal)
Petitioner no. 4 through his mother and natural
guardian petitioner no. 1 , all petitioners resident
of P4 /1039 Sultanpuri, Delhi ........ Petitioners
Versus
1 Rattan Singh , Driver DTC, DTC Badge no. 7259
through Depot Manager, Delhi Transport Corp. Shadipur
Depot, Delhi (second address) Rattan Singh , Driver DTC
Badge no. 7259, through Chairman , DTC , DTC Head quarter
IP Estate , Delhi
2 Delhi Transport Corporation, through Chairman Delhi Transport
Corporation, DTC Head quarter, IP Estate, Delhi
3 Amar Singh @ Anar Singh S/o Shri Ram
R/o Vill. Sorek Post , Farukhabad,
Distt. Farukhabad , U.P
4 National Insurance company Ltd.
Jeewan Bharti Building,
2
134, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi ..........Respondents
Suit no.12/09/06 Date of filing of the Petition : 09.5.2005 Judgment reserved on : 12.1.2010 Date of Final Award : 17.2.2010 1 Shri Anar Singh S/o Sri Ram 2 Smt. Veena Pal W/o Anar Singh 3 Baby Priya Pal D/o Anar Singh (aged about 12 years through his father and mother petitioner no. 1 and 2) All R/o Village Ejalpur, P.O , Pareer, P. S Shorkh, District Kanauj , U.P ......... Petitioners Versus 1 Rattan Singh , Driver DTC Badge no. 7259 through DMSP Depot 2 Delhi Transport Corporation through Chairman Delhi Transport Corporation, DTC Head quarters, I. P Estate , Delhi 3 National Insurance company Ltd.
Jeewan Bharti Building 124, Connaught Circus , New Delhi .......... Respondents 3 JUDGMENT /AWARD Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of two claim petitions bearing (1) New suit no. 11/09/08/06 (old Suit no. 158/08/06) and (2) New Suit No. 12/09/06 (Old suit No. 159/08/06) . Both these petitions have been instituted claiming compensation for the death of deceased Sonu Pal @ Hemant who has allegedly died in an accident on 11.6.04 at about 5.00 p.m when he was going as pillon rider on the bicycle pedaled by one Sandeep . The offending vehicle DTC bus bearing no. DL 1P B 5218 was being driven in high speed, dangerously in rash and negligent manner and had hit the deceased with massive force. On being hit by the said offending bus, the deceased suffered serious injuries and was rushed to Sidharth Hospital where he was declared brought dead. It is further alleged that deceased was of about 18 years old , hale and hearty and was doing private service and was earning Rs. 3000/ per month ; the petitioners were totally economically dependent upon the deceased who was the sole bread earner of the family; the husband of the petitioner no. 1 namely Amar Singh @ Anar Singh has been arraigned as respondent no. 3; he had already deserted petitioner Kamlesh and was not maintaining her because he was living with another lady namely Beena @ Guddi in Farukhabad (U.P) . The petitioners no. 1 to 4 (in petition no. 11/09/08/06) who are stated to 4 be mother , unmarried sisters of the deceased has claimed Rs. 8 Lacs as compensation.
2 The second petition bearing suit no. 12/09/06 (old suit no. 159/08/06) has been instituted by Anar Singh who is respondent no. 3 in the main petition alongwith Beena Pal and baby Priya Pal as petitioners no. 2 and 3. In the said petition, they have claimed that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased and has claimed compensation of Rs. 20 Lacs from the respondents. 3 All the respondents were served and had filed written statement. Respondent no. 1 had alleged that no incident took place with DTC bus because the cyclist was himself negligent in plying the cycle at high speed and could not control his bicycle and fell down on the road and sustained injuries and as such respondents were not liable to pay any compensation. It is further stated that since the parents of the deceased are alive and as such sisters, petitioners no. 2 to 4 in the main petition (Suit No. 11/09/08/06) are not legal heirs of the deceased for the purpose of compensation under Motor Vehicle Act. On merits , it is stated that no accident took place with the bus of respondent no. 1 and the deceased fell down from the back seat of the bicycle as his friend Sandeep was plying bicycle in rash and negligent manner and lost his control over the bicycle. 4 The respondent no. 2 in its written statement stated that the vehicle of the respondent was insured with M/s National Insurance 5 Company Ltd. Vide policy no. 3103/6704417 which was vaild for the period 2.1.2004 to 1.1.2005. The contents of the para no. 1 to 16 of the petition has been admitted. The factum of accident because of rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. has been controverted and denied . It is reiterated that accident was due to self negligent of the deceased .
5 Respondent no. 3 Anar Singh has taken the preliminary objections that the petitioners were not mother and sisters of deceased Hemant Kumar and were not entitled to any compensation. He further stated that he was the real father of the deceased and real mother of the deceased was Smt. Veena Pal residing in village Ezalpur, District Kannoj , U.P. He has further stated that he is not known by the name of Amar Singh but known as Anar Singh . It is further alleged that petitioner no. 1 has deserted the respondent no. 3 and was living with Amar Singh at Sultan Puri, Delhi with her earlier two daughters and one of the daughter was born from Amar Singh . It is therefore, stated that their petition is liable to be dismissed.
6 Respondent no. 4 has denied the factum of accident for want of knowledge . It is however admitted by Insurance Company that the vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 5218 was insured with respondent no. 4 vide policy number 351000/31 03/6704417 w.e.f. 02.1.2004 to 6 01.1.05 . All other averments have been controverted and denied. 7 On 21.3.2006 on the pleading of the parties , following issues were framed in both the petitions as under : 1 Whether the deceased Sonu Pal died due to fatal injuries on 11.6.04 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle no. DL 1P B 5218 by respondent no. 1?
2 Whether the petitioners are legal heirs of deceased ? OPP 3 Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation , if so, to what amount and from whom ?
4 Relief 8 On 21.3.2006 on the pleading of the parties , following issues were framed in petition no. 12/09/06 as under : 1 Whether the deceased Sonu Pal died due to fatal injuries on 11.6.04 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle no. DL 1P B 5218 by respondent no. 1?
2 Whether the petitioners are legal heirs of deceased ? OPP 3 Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation , if so, to what amount and from whom ?
4 Relief 9 Vide order dated 01.3.2007 in petition bearing suit no. 12/09/06 (old suit no. 164/06) by my Ld. Predecessor , the petition titled as Kamlesh Vs Rattan Singh was treated as main petition. 10 The petitioners in both the petitions have led their respective 7 evidence wherein the petitioner Kamlesh has examined 8 witnesses . The petitioner Anar Singh has examined himself along with petitioner no. 2 Beena Pal and one Madhav Singh as PW1 and Shri Beti as PW2.
11 Respondent no. 1 has examined himself as R1W1. Other respondents have not examined any witness.
12 The respondent's evidence was led in the main petition wherein Anar Singh has been examined himself as R3 W1 along with R3 W2 Shri Om Parkash, R3W3Shri Ram , R3W4 Smt. Sidh Shree , R3W5 Smt. Veenapal, R3W6 Shri Onkar Sharma .
13 I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and gone through evidence on record . My issue wise findings are as under : ISSUE NO. 1
Whether the deceased Sonu Pal died due to fatal injuries on 11.6.04 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle no. DL 1P B 5218 by respondent no. 1.
14 The issue no. 1 in both the petition is same which is to the effect as to whether the deceased Sonu died in accident caused by offending DTC bus. PW4A Sandeep is an eye witness to the alleged accident and has deposed that on 11.6.04 he along with deceased Sonu was going on duty as they were working at Swami Photo Studio , Tata Indicom and were going on bicycle; he was riding the bicycle and the deceased Sonu was sitting on the back seat of the bicycle ; 8 Sonu called him for drinking water and when he was on the road side in the meantime DTC bus bearing no. DL 1PB 5218 struck from the back side as a result Sonu fell down on the one side of the road and he fell down on the other side ; Sonu became unconscious and he took Sonu to Siddharth Hospital where he was declared brought dead. In his cross examination by respondent no. 1, he has stated that he started from his house at 10.00 a.m and the journey was about one hour journey; they have not seen the bus at all and the road where the accident took place was very busy road having lot of buses , trucks , cart etc plying on the same road and a lot of vehicles were plying on the same place at the time of accident . He further stated that he had seen the bus when it crossed them. 15 In cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 , he has stated that he knew the deceased one year before the accident and he was got appointed by him ; the job was settled at Rs. 3000/ per month excluding Rs. 75/ per connection and deceased was appointed on 22.5.2004. He further stated that he cannot tell the exact speed of the offending vehicle but offending vehicle was at high speed at the time of accident.
16 In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3, he has stated that the deceased was known to him for last one year and he had told that his father was living at village Aita Manipuri U.P and had married with some other lady. He further stated that 9 deceased told him that his father's name was Amar Singh and he never told him anything about his family members residing at his native village.
17 PW4 Smt. Kamlesh (petitioner no. 1) in her affidavit has tendered the criminal case record pertaining to FIR no. 389/04 U/s 279 /337/304 IPC comprising of 7 pages .
18 The respondent no.1 driver of the offending vehicle has. examined himself as R1W1 while filing affidavit R1W1/A wherein he has stated that no accident was caused by him and the deceased fell down from the back seat of bicycle as his friend was plying bicycle in rash and negligent manner and could not control over his bicycle and as a result the deceased fell down on the road and sustained injuries. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for petitioner , he has admitted that a criminal case vide Fir no. 389/04 was registered against him and the same was still pending.
19 On perusal of the criminal case record Ex. PW4/1 , the police investigation has concluded that the deceased had died in an accident cased by bus bearing no. DL 1P B 5218 driven by its driver Rattan Singh in rash and negligent manner . The postmortem report submitted alongwith criminal case record has shown 'The cause of death is coma as a result of head injury consequent to Road side accident'. All the injuries are antemortem in nature. 20 PW4 A Sandeep has clearly stated that deceased Sonu was 10 riding with him on his bicycle on the rear seat. In the meanwhile DTC bus bearing no. DL 1P B 5218 struck from the back side as a result Sonu fell down on one side of the road and he fell down on the other side of the road. He has further deposed that Sonu became unconscious and was rushed to Siddharth hospital where he was declared brought dead. The factum of riding of the bicycle as a pillion rider by deceased and Sandeep as its rider is also admitted by the respondents. The falling down of the deceased from the bicycle is also admitted by them. The respondent no. 1 has also stated in his evidence that the deceased fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The deposition of PW4A (Sandeep) to the effect that they were struck from behind by DTC bus and thereafter they fell down has not been assailed in the cross examination in any manner. Moreover, the criminal case record Ex. PW4/1 and the postmortem report has indicated and established that the deceased had sustained injury in road side accident and because of those injuries he had died. The pendency of criminal case for the offence U/s 279/304 IPC is not denied by the respondent. The said criminal case was stated to be still pending against him. The deposition of PW4A Sandeep has supported and corroborated by the criminal case record Ex. PW4/1 alongwith postmortem report has established that the deceased Sonu Pal has sustained injuries because their bicycle was struck from behind by the offending vehicle i.e DTC bus 11 bearing no. DL 1P B 5218 while being driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner. The issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. ISSUE NO. 2 (in both petitions) Whether the petitioners are legal heirs of deceased ? 21 In petition bearing no. 12/09/06 titled as Anar Singh Vs Rattan Singh , the petitioner Anar Singh alongwith Veena Pal and his daughter Priya Pal has claimed to be only legal heirs of the deceased claiming that the deceased Sonu Pal was born out of the wedlock between Petitioner Anar Singh and Veena Pal. In the main petition titled as Kamlesh Vs Rattan Singh (suit no. 11/09/08/06) , petitioner Kamlesh has claimed that she along with her three daughters Manju, Sanju and Babli and respondent no. 3 Amar Singh were the only legal heirs of the deceased Sonu Pal @ Hemant . The whole controversy thus hinges upon the fact as to whether deceased Sonu Pal was born from the wedlock of Amar @ Anar Singh with petitioner Kamlesh or with petitioner no. 2 Veena Pal in petition no. 12/09/06 . 22 In order to ascertain who are legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased , it is to be ascertained from the evidence of the parties as to who was the natural mother of the deceased Sonu Pal @ Hemant because there is no dispute about his father.
1223 Witnesses of Petitioner Anar Singh In this regard the petitioner in Anar Singh Vs Rattan Singh (suit no. 12/09/06) has examined Veena Pal as PW1 who has deposed that deceased Sonu @ Hemant Pal was born on 22.8.1987 in village EzalPur, District Farukhabad, U.P ; he was living with Smt. Kamlesh alleged to be Step mother before his death; she did not know the name of the school he was studying ; she was married to Anar Singh in 1986 at Village Barnley , Distt. Farukhabad, U.P ; she did not remember the date of her marriage . In cross examination, she has stated that she had studied upto High school . An observation was made by the court as under.
Court Observation : The conduct of the petitioner shows that she does not want to answer the questions put by Ld. counsel for DTC. In her cross examination , she further stated that she did not know her son (deceased) studied in village or in Delhi; she further stated that she cannot tell who is elder between her and alleged step mother Kamlesh and that she cannot tell as to who married first. It was further observed that the petitioner does not want to answer the questions put by Ld. Counsel for DTC and stated that whatever questions he wanted to ask , he may ask to the other party.
24 Petitioner Anar Singh in his deposition stated that Sonu Pal was his son and he had initially married to a woman namely Bairashya daughter of Nathu Singh in the month of May 1973 and he had two daughters from first wife; his first wife deserted him leaving 13 two daughters. He had married to Veena Pal in 1986 in Delhi and at that time both the daughters Manju and Sanju were with him till 1995. He further deposed that in 1995 , he came to know that name of Bairashya was Kamlesh and she has taken away both the daughters from him . He further stated that they had two children Hemant and Priya Pal . In his cross examination , he has stated that he had not taken divorce from his first wife ; he did not know in which school and class , the deceased was studying but he had been living in Delhi for about one year before his death. He categorically stated that the deceased was living with Kamlesh who is his first wife ; he had sent Hemant to Kamlesh . In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for petitioner Kamlesh he had stated that Hemant Kumar was born at Barelly on 22.8.1987 at his Nani's House i.e mother of Veena Pal and his birth was duly registered at Kannoj and the name of mother is mentioned in the birth certificate which he can produce. He has admitted that Hemant Kumar (deceased) used to come to Kamlesh off and on for pursuation of marriage of his daughter Manju.
25 Two more witnesses were also examined by petitioner Anar Singh in support of his petition namely PW1, Shri Madhav Singh and PW2 Shri Beti.
26 PW1 Shri Madhav Singh has deposed that Anar Singh was married with Veena Pal for last about 20 years and two children were 14 born out of that wedlock i.e one male child and one female child . But he did not know the name of the children and was not aware of the death of the deceased Sonu . On repeated asking by Ld. Counsel for petitioner , he had stated that he was aware about the death of Sonu Pal after one year as he seldom used to visit the house of Anar Singh. He further stated that he was maternal uncle of Anar Singh . In his cross examination , he has stated that he was aware of the fact that Anar Singh had married twice but he cannot say whether it was Veena or Kamlesh with whom Anar Singh had married first; he had attended the second marriage of Anar for which barat had gone to village Mandheri. He further stated that he did not know whether Anar Singh was know as Amar Singh in Delhi.
27 PW2 Smt. Beti has deposed that Anar Singh was her brother being son of her maternal uncle ; Anar Singh had married twice but she did not remember the name of first wife whereas the name of second wife was Veena. She further deposed that two children were born from the wed lock of Anar Singh and Veena. One was son Hemant and other is daughter Priya. In cross examination , she has admitted, that Anar Singh had resided at Delhi with his first wife and also with Veena and from first wife Anar Singh had two daughters . She further stated that Anar Singh had told her that deceased Sonu was residing at Delhi with his first mother, she however stated that Hemant was born after two years of marriage of 15 Veena at the village of Beena and she had visited that village Mandheri on the occasion of birth of Hemant.
28 Further in petition no. 11/09/08/06 titled as Kamlesh Vs Rattan Singh where Anar Singh was impleaded as respondent no. 3 , he has also examined six witnesses as respondent therein. He examined himself as R3W1 by filing affidavit Ex. R3W1/A wherein he has reiterated the contents of the petition claiming that deceased Sonu was born out of the wed lock between him and and Veena Pal. He has further stated that Veena was the natural mother of the deceased Hemant @ Sonu Pal, he was his natural father and deceased Hemant was born at Kannoj, Uttar Pardesh on 22.8.1987 ; he has proved the birth certificate of his son as Ex. RW3/6. He has proved the Kuttumb register as Ex. RW3/7 to show that the death of deceased was registered at district Kannoj , U.P. He further deposed that Kumari Priya Pal, sister of the deceased was studying in class VI and at that time Guardian's Identity Certificate was issued by Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ministry of Human Resource Development , Government of India which clearly shows that name of the mother of the deceased Hemant was Smt. Veena Pal. The said certificate was proved as Ex. RW3/9. He has further deposed that the deceased Hemant had gone to Vaishno Devi alongwith his father, mother Veena Pal and sister Kumari Priya Pal and photographs showing the visit of the deceased are collectively exhibited as Ex. RW3/10. In 16 his cross examination , he has admitted that the Kutumb Register is maintained on Tehsil level and birth certificate if required can be issued on the basis of that register. He further admitted that he was married to Kamlesh and came to Delhi but Kamlesh never returned to the village ; because of that reason name of Kamlesh could not be entered in Kuttumb register; he had never met Kamlesh after 1985 as she had deserted him and could not trace her , his daughters Sanju and Manju were residing with Kamlesh; Hemant (deceased) used to come to Kamlesh because of Sanju and Manju. However, he had no relation with Kamlesh but he used to visit her because of familiarity with Sanju and Manju ; he had gone with them to the house of Kamlesh for studies . He further stated in the cross examination that some of the relatives had informed about the death of Sonu Pal @ Hemant Kumar ; deceased was cremated in Budh Vihar Shamshan Ghat on 12.6.2004 and one Rajiv, son of his brother Dalbir Singh had performed last rites of his son because as per custom father was not allowed to take part in cremation procedure and last rites of the son.
29 R3W2 Shri Om Parkash Kashyap is Gram Vikas Adhikari of Teshil Sibramau , District Kannoj, U.P and deposed that he has brought the record regarding the Parivar Register (Kutumb Register) of the Anar Singh family and Mukhiya was his father Sri Ram and record was maintained in Ezalpur ; he has deposed that addition in 17 the family is made on the application of the Mukhiya ; name of Veena Pal was entered in Parivar Register at the time of issuing the copy of Parivar record on 28.10.05. He has proved the copy of register Ex. R3 W2/A and Ex. R3W2/B . In a court question , he replied that name of Kamlesh as wife of Anar Singh was not recorded in the said record ; similarly the names of Sanju and Manju as daughters of Anar Singh are also not mentioned in Parivar register; the name of the family member is entered / deleted on the application of the Mukhiya of the Parivar after verification from the village ; he categorically stated that he did not have any record in the form of application/verification regarding entry of name of Veena Pal in the register. He further stated that he could not say if birth certificate Ex. RW3/6 was issued by their department. 30 R3W3 Sri Ram has deposed that the School leaving certificate Ex. PW6/A was not issued by their office regarding Hemant Kumar S/o Anar Singh and he has never studied in their school w.e.f 10.7.1993 till 03.7.2002 and the said certificate Ex PW6/A was forged as per certificate issued by head master of their school vide Ex. R3W3/A. As per school record Hemant has never studied in their school.
31 R3W4 Sidh Shree is cousin sister of Veena Pal and deposed that Hemant was son of Anar Singh and was born in village Ezalpur , District Kannoj, U.P on 22.8.1987 and she was present at the time of 18 his birth in village Ezalpur ; she remained in village Ezalpur for a period of about 12 says and had come one day before the birth of Hemant and was married to Rakesh Kumar resident of Tarapur at distance of about 15 Km from Ezalpur. In her cross examination she has stated that she was not able to tell about the sisters of Anar Singh and their number and birth of baby boy was celebrated but no family member of Anar Singh came because Anar Singh was having strained relations with the family members; she cannot tell why he was having strained relations with the family members. She further stated that she did not know if the mother of Anar Singh was alive ; she was not concerned with the family members of Anar singh. She further stated that she was not aware if grandmother of Hemant Kumar was alive when he was born.
32 R3W5 Smt. Veena Pal was examined by filing her affidavit Ex. R5 . In her affidavit , she has stated that she was natural mother of the deceased who was born to her at Kanooj , U.P on 22.8.1987. She has proved the Birth Certificate RW3/6. She has further relied on Kutumb register showing her name as mother of the deceased as Ex. RW3/7. She further stated in her affidavit that till 2002 , the deceased was studying in district Kannauj, U.P and certificates showing his study are collectively Ex. RW3/8 . In her cross examination she has stated that she did not know the petitioner lady present in the court and did not remember whether in her earlier deposition she has 19 stated that petitioner present in the court is the another wife of Anar Singh . She has further stated that grandparents, maternal uncle and aunts of Hemant (deceased) were alive at the time of his birth and she did not know whether those relatives were aware of his birth till he died. She has further stated that before his death , he was studying in class X in village Ezalpur and came to Delhi because he had failed in the examination; she had not mentioned about his failure in X class in her affidavit; in Delhi he was living with daughters of Anar Singh and the name of those daughters were Sanju and Manju. She has further stated that Sanju and Manju were elder in age and they were not born to her as they are the daughters of Kamlesh and Anar Singh . She has further stated that she has not mentioned the name of the school where Hemant was studying at District Kannoj, U.P. 33 R3W6 Omkar Sharma , has produced the relevant record regarding studies of Hemant Kumar @ Sonu and his appearance in Matric Examination in which he has failed . The said certificate is Ex. RW3/8 along with admission certificate when he appeared in the year 2002 . Certified copy of the said certificate is proved as Ex. R3W6/A. In his cross examination , he has stated that he has not brought the examination form as the same was destroyed after one year.
Witnesses of the petitioner Kamlesh 20 34 Petitioner Kamlesh has examined in total 8 witnesses in support of her claim to be mother of the deceased. 35 PW1 Smt. Sumitra has deposed that deceased was her real grandson whose father is Anar Singh and the name of his mother is Kamlesh. She has further deposed that Anar Singh was married by her with Kamlesh and Anar Singh was never married second time. In her cross examination on behalf of Anar Singh Respondent no. 3 , she has stated that after marriage Anar Singh stayed in the village for about 56 months and thereafter went to Delhi and resided for about 1015 years at Rampura and she used to visit his residence ; Anar Singh had 3 daughters and one son from the wedlock with Kamlesh; son of Anar Singh was born at Rampura ; she has stated that her relations with Anar Singh were strained since 1020. years . She has further stated that the deceased son was living with his mother Kamlesh at the time of accident.
36 PW2 Premwati is aunt (Bhua) of the deceased and sister of Anar Singh and stated that Anar Singh was married with Kamlesh and had never married second time but was keeping a Rakhail. In her cross examination, on behalf of respondent no. 3 , she has stated that deceased Sonu Pal was born in Rampura , Delhi and she was told about this fact by his brother Anar Singh . She has further told that Sonu Pal was born on 21st June and year and month , she did not remember and her brother Anar Singh had told about his birth 21 after about one year of his birth. She has further stated that another name of her brother is Amar Singh as known in the factory and Anar Singh had shifted to village Sourig U.P due to his job as teacher in 1993 and along with him Veena Pal, Sonu, Sanju and Manju had also gone to the village . She has further stated that the deceased Sonu was studying in village and residing with his father Anar Singh and three years before his accident , he had come back to reside with his mother.
37 PW3 Smt. Bharpai has deposed that Anar Singh was working with her in a factory while living in Basai Darapur and Anar Singh had no child at that time ; Kamlesh was legally wedded wife of Anar Singh who had delivered four children in her presence and one was son and his son died in roadside accident and Kamlesh was the real mother of the deceased; Anar Singh was having a Rakhel and has never been married second time .In her cross examination on behalf of Anar Singh she has stated that she knew Anar singh for the last 25 years ; she worked with him in same company for about two years ; she used to do cleaning work and Anar Singh used to prepare Dana ; she still visits his house occasionally ; at the time when Anar Singh left the company , he was having two daughters and one son from the wedlock with Kamlesh ; when Anar Singh had gone to village , he had accompanied with all his children and left his wife Kamlesh in Delhi ; at the time when Anar Singh had gone to his village , his elder 22 daughter Manju was about 67 years and the son Sonu was about 3 and half 4 years old. ; Veena Pal was residing with Anar Singh for the last 1011 years ; earlier Anar singh and Kamlesh were residing at Uttam Nagar and at that time Veena Pal was also residing with them in Uttam Nagar ; Anar Singh had one daughter from Veena Pal. 38 PW4 A is Sandeep Kumar who has deposed that on 11.6.04 , he along with Sonu were going to Swami Photo Studio , TATA Indicom where they were working as Marketing and were going on bicycle which was driven by him and deceased Sonu was sitting on the back of the bicycle. In his cross examination on behalf of respondent no. 3 , he has stated that deceased was known to him for last one year and told him that his father was living at village Aita Mainpuri, U.P and he had married with some other lady; deceased told him that his father's name was Anar Singh; he had never told him anything about his family members residing at his native village. 39 PW4 Kamlesh has tendered her evidence by filing an affidavit Ex. PW4/A . She has stated that deceased Hemant @ Sonu was her son but died in a road accident on 11.6.2004 at about 5.00 p.m . She further stated that she was having only one son and 3 daughters, two daughters were elder to deceased . She has further stated that her son studied in Ist and IInd class in Rampura ,Delhi and third class in Farukhabad , U.P and 4th , 5th , 6th class in native place in U.P and 7th ,8th, 9th,10th class in Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, H 23 Block, Sultanpuri , Delhi. In her further examination in chief recorded on 15.5.2008 , she has stated that admission card for regular candidates issued by CBSE in the name of Hemant Kumar was Ex. PW4/3 ; mark sheet issued by CBSE dated 28.5.2004 vide roll no. 6353503 in his name is Ex. PW4/4 ; registration card IX issued by CBSE in the name of Hemant Kumar was Ex. PW4/5 , marksheet issued by Rajkiya Varisht Madhyamik Bal vidyalaya , Sultanpuri in the name of Hemant Kumar for the year 20022003 were Ex. PW4/6 ; she has also exhibited the special drug form along with registration card issued by G.B Pant Hospital in her name Ex. PW4/7 (two pages) two photographs Ex. PW4/8 & Ex PW4/9 and receipt issued by cremation ground Ex. PW4/10.
40 In her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1and 2 , she has stated that deceased was her son who was staying with her for last 4 years prior to the time of accident and he was studying in Rajkiya Varishat Madhyamik Vidyalaya at the time of his death ; she was married to Amar Singh in a village and deceased was born to her after her marriage with Amar Singh. In her cross examination on behalf of respondent no. 3 Anar Singh , she has stated that she had four children when she started living separately from Anar Singh ; all the four children have been born after her wedlock with Anar Singh . She has further stated that Veena Pal was not legally wedded wife of Anar Singh and Anar Singh started living 24 with her when Hemant was two year old.
41 PW5 Sanjay Kumar has proved the cremation register record of deceased Sonu, son of Amar Singh, resident of P4 /1039 , Sultanpuri, Delhi as Ex. PW5/A against entry no. 2423 . The said entry was reported by another witness PW6 Shri P.R Balai admission incharge of Govt. Boys senior Seconday School , H Block Sultanpuri and has placed on record relevant record of deceased having been admitted in their school in class IX on the basis of School leaving certificate Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed that as per admission register vide entry no. 4039 dated 26.7.2002 , the name of the mother of Hemant Kumar is Kamlesh and father is Amar Singh and said entry is Ex. PW6/B ; the admission form was proved as Ex. PW6/C which was signed by Amar Singh.
42 PW7 Karmvir has deposed that he was present at the time of cremation of Sonu Pal being close relative . He has deposed that he has paid the expenses of cremation on behalf of father of the deceased who told him to return the same and Kamlesh , mother of the deceased had paid those expenses to me after some days; father of the deceased came on the next day .In his cross examination , he has admitted that Anar Singh had reached at the time of cremation as well as hospital and at residence of Kamlesh on 12.6.2004 when Sonu died and Anar Singh had received the dead body after post mortem. . He further deposed that he knew Veena Pal , second wife 25 of Anar Singh ; Anar Singh was living separately before death of Sonu Pal and in the beginning Kamlesh and second wife of Anar Singh were living together at Uttam Nagar . He denied the suggestion that Sonu pal was born from Veena Pal and voluntarily stated that he had gone to their residence at Rampura , Delhi at the time of birth of Sonu Pal.
43 PW8 Rohtash , Assistant from CBSE, has proved the record of class X th examination of deceased as Ex. PW8/A. In his cross examination, he has stated that CBSE maintains the record on the basis of material and record submitted by the school concerned and he does not inquire about the previous history of the parentage and student.
ARGUMENTS 44 Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 Anar Singh has argued that Hemant @ Sonu Pal was got admitted in Government Boys Senior Secondary School , H. Block Sultanpuri on the basis of forged school leaving certificate of Class IX Ex. PW6/A. He has further argued that admission form was not signed by Anar Singh . It is further argued that the deceased was born out of the wedlock between Anar singh and Veena Pal and birth certificate is already placed on record Ex. RW3/6 which is issued by Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat, Ezalpur, District Kannoj, U.P. 45 Ld. Counsel for petitioner Kamlesh on the other hand argued 26 that the birth certificate Ex. RW3/6 is forged and fabricated document and the witness examined by respondent no. 3 in that regard has not proved the same stating that he was not having the record of that certificate and no other witness was produced by Anar Singh to prove the said birth certificates as per Indian Evidence Act. 46 After going through the relevant evidence in the form of certificates regarding birth of deceased and various certificates issued by different schools regarding his study , it is found that no reliance can be placed on birth certificate Ex. RW3/6 because the same is not proved in evidence as per provisions of law. The respondent no. 3 has examined one witness R3W2 Om Parkash , Gram Vikas Adhikari who has stated that he cannot say if birth certificate Ex. RW3/6 was issued by their department and he was not able to identify the signature of the person issuing it. He has further stated that he had not brought the relevant record regarding issuing of birth certificate and can trace the record and produce it if found. The said witness was directed to produce the relevant record on next day. On next date, adjournment was sought to examine the witness to prove the birth certificate Ex. RW3/6. Adjournment was granted . However on next date of hearing i.e 12.12.2009 , no further witness was produced on behalf of respondent no. 3 and on the statement of counsel for respondent no. 3 , the respondent evidence was closed. Thus, the birth certificate Ex. RW3/6 has not been proved and 27 respondent no. 3 cannot derive any benefit from the same to show that the deceased was born in village Ezalpur and his mother was Veena Pal.
47 Amar Singh , respondent no.3 has also relied upon certificate of Matriculation Examination conducted by U.P Education Council in the year 2002 wherein the name of mother is Veenapal and Roll no. of the examination is Ex. RW3/8 , marksheet is Ex. RW3/9. Amar Singh respondent no. 3 has also examined one witness Onkar Sharma as R3W6 who has proved the two documents including copy of their record as Ex. R3W6/A. In his cross examination, however, he has stated that he had not brought examination form as the same was destroyed after one year.
48 Contrary to this , petitioner Kamlesh has proved on record admission card for regular candidates issued by CBSE Ex. PW4/3 marks statement issued by CBSE Ex. PW4/4 , registration card for the said examination Ex. PW4/5. In all these documents name of mother of the deceased is Kamlesh and father's name was Amar Singh . The documents placed on record by petitioner Kamlesh in support of her claim to be mother of deceased are issued by CBSE , Delhi with regard to passing of the secondary examination by deceased. The record of particulars regarding parentage/age etc. at the secondary examination is to be given importance because particulars recorded therein are consistently accepted to be true in 28 comparison to any other record maintained by any other authority regarding those particulars of a student. Moreover, the other evidence in the form of deposition of grandmother and aunt (Bua) of the deceased have shown that deceased was born out of the wedlock between Anar Singh and Kamlesh and not from the wedlock of Anar Singh and Veena Pal.
49 PW3 Smt. Bharpai a colleague of Anar Singh and working in the same factory has clearly states that deceased was son of Kamlesh and Anar Singh and Kamlesh was legally wedded wife of Anar Singh and was real mother of the deceased. There is nothing in her cross examination to assail the said deposition.
50 PW1 Smt. Sumitra is the mother of Anar Singh and grandmother of the deceased . In her cross examination, she has stated that Anar Singh was married by her with her own hands with Kamlesh and deceased was her real grandson and name of his father is Anar Singh and name of his mother is Kamlesh. In her cross examination, she has stated that deceased was born at Rampura , Delhi . He had been living with his mother Kamlesh at the time of accident. Similarly , PW2 (Bua) of the deceased has stated that her brother Anar Singh was married to Kamlesh and deceased was born at Rampura, Delhi and this fact was told to her by Anar Singh. Even in the cross examination of PW4A , Sandeep the eye witness of the accident by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 Anar Singh shows that 29 deceased was son of Kamlesh and not second wife of Anar Singh . In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3, he has stated that deceased was known to him since one year and deceased had told him that his father was living at village Aita , Mainpuri , U.P and he had married with some lady . It is pertinent to mention that Anar Singh was living at Aita, U.P with Veena Pal. The cross examination by Ld. counsel for respondent no. 3 of PW4 A Sandeep shows that said witness was told by deceased about the marriage of Anar Singh with Veena Pal.
51 Even deposition of Kamlesh in her petition is consistent and reliable in comparison to deposition of Veena Pal wherein she was examined as petitioner no. 2 in petition no. 12/09/06 filed by Anar Singh . Her conduct during examination was recorded by the Court and it was found that she did not want to answer the questions put by Ld. counsel and lastly it was observed that she did not want to answer the questions put by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 stating that whatever questions he wanted to ask same may be asked to opposite party (Kamlesh). Amar Singh in his petition has examined PW2 Shri Beti , his sister in support of his case. In cross examination by Ld. Counsel for DTC, she has stated that ' I was told by Anar Singh that deceased Hemant was residing at Delhi with his first mother'. Her this deposition throws light on truth that mother of the deceased was Kamlesh with whom he was residing at the time of 30 his death.
52 It is very surprising to note that Veena Pal was examined as R3W5 in the main petition (suit no. 11/09/08/06) by Anar Singh wherein her cross examination she has stated that she did not knew the lady present in the court and has feigned ignorance but in her earlier deposition she has identified the said lady as another wife of Anar Singh .
53 It is admitted case of Anar Singh that his relations with other family members were strained and he was residing in U.P and doing government service there and he was deserted by Kamlesh whose whereabouts were not known. It is very surprising to note that son of a lady as claimed by Veena Pal and Anar Singh would reside and study with a lady who has allegedly deserted her husband and she was not even identified by the said mother Veena Pal. By no stretch of imagination it can be believed if Veena Pal was real mother of the deceased, she would have allowed her son to reside with Kamlesh and to study with her for years.
54 The discussion of the evidence led by the parties and the facts and circumstances shows that it is Kamlesh who is real mother of the deceased and not Veena Pal as claimed by Anar Singh, respondent no.3. Since, petitioner, Priya Pal petition no. 3 in the petition no. 12/09/06 instituted by Anar Singh is daughter of Veena Pal , second wife of Anar Singh , she alongwith her mother Veena Pal 31 is not legal heir of the deceased Hemant. For the purpose of this petition, the petitioner no. 1 Kamlesh alongwith her 3 daughters and respondent no. 3 Anar Singh (Petitioner no. 1 in his petition) being natural father of the deceased are therefore held to be legal heirs of the deceased . The issue no. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioner Kamlesh ISSUE NO.3 Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation , if so, to what amount and from whom ? 55 The appropriate method of calculating the compensation in fatal case is multiplier method. The Hon'ble Apex Court recently in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Cited as 2009, ACJ 1298 has approved the multiplier method wherein payment of compensation is made in lump sum to legal representative of the deceased.
56 Starting point for calculating amount of compensation to be paid to dependents of deceased in a motor accident claim is the amount of monthly income which the deceased was earning ; then there is an estimate of what was required for his personal and living expenses. The balance will generally be turned into lump sum by taking certain number of years of purchase . The choice of 32 multiplier is ascertained by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant whichever is higher.
57 The petitioner Kamlesh has placed on record copy of ration card Mark' A ' wherein name of petitioner , her daughters and deceased and her husband Anar Singh @ Amar Singh is mentioned. She has examined herself as PW4 and stated that she alongwith her unmarried daughters was dependent upon the deceased. Father of the deceased and husband of Kamlesh , Petitioner was living separately in U.P and she has already instituted proceedings U/s 125 Cr. PC against her husband for seeking maintenance from him. The identity of the petitioners and their relations with deceased has been established from the copy of ration Card mark 'A'. In her unrebutted testimony , PW4 Kamlesh has stated that the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident and she alongwith her three daughters including minor daughter petitioner no. 4 were the only legal heirs of the deceased. It is also established in the evidence that Anar Singh was known in Delhi as Amar Singh and the dead body was received by respondent no. 3 Anar Singh @ Amar Singh as father of the deceased wherein the name of father was mentioned as Amar Singh . In all the documents including ration card mark 'A' and certificate of deceased regarding studying in Delhi issued by CBSE as Ex. PW4/3 to Ex. PW4/5 , the name of his father is mentioned as Amar Singh . The petitioners Kamlesh and her 3 daughters in 33 petition no. 11/09/08/06 and respondent no. 3 in this petition i.e Amar Singh @ Anar Singh who is petitioner no. 1 in petition no.12/09/06 are legal heirs of the deceased .
The petitioners are thus entitled to compensation under following heads :
Loss of Dependency
58 Petitioner Kamlesh as PW4 in her affidavit Ex. PW4/A has stated that her son (deceased) was earning Rs. 3000/ per month at the time of his death. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 , she has stated that deceased was studying in Rajkiya Varisht Madhyamik Bal Vidyalaya at the time of accident and was also working and and earning Rs. 3000/ per month. Nothing was suggested on behalf of Insurance company to this witness that the deceased was not earning at the time of his death and was not earning Rs. 3000/ per month.
59 PW4A Sandeep has deposed that deceased Sonu Pal was going to duty on 11.6.04 as they were working at Swami Photo Studio, Tata Indicom . In his cross examination by counsel for respondent no. 2 , this witness has stated that deceased was appointed through him . He further deposed that deceased had told him that his mother was ill and his three sisters had no source of income, therefore, 34 requested him to adjust him in job and his job was settled at Rs. 3000/ excluding Rs. 75 / per connection. Deceased was appointed on 22.5.2004 and nothing was suggested to this witness by Insurance company to the fact that deceased was not working at the time of his death and was not earning Rs. 3000/ per month. However, no documentary proof of payment of salary has been placed on record. The documents on record regarding education of the deceased is shown to be non matriculate because he had not passed secondary examination of the CBSE and was shown to be a compartment case . His educational qualification shows him to be non matriculate . 60 In Rajesh Tyagi and ors Vs Jaibir Singh and ors. FAO no. 842/2003 , judgment dated 16.12.2009 wherein para no. 8 Hon'ble High court was pleased to hold as under :
8 Where the legal representatives of the deceased victim do not have documentary evidence of the income of the deceased, the claims Tribunal shall take the minimum wages into consideration and shall take judicial note of the increase in minimum wages due to inflation and rise in price index and compute the income of the deceased by taking the average of the minimum wages and its double following the judgments of this court in the cases of Kanwar Devi Vs Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182; Lekhraj Vs Suram Singh , 2007 ACJ 2165;
and National Insurance company Limited Vs Renu Devi III (2008) ACC 134 35 61 Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence having brought on record the income of the deceased has to be determined on the basis of Minimum Wages Act. The accident has occurred on 11.6.04 and minimum wages on 11.6.04 according to Delhi Government Notification for non matriculate workman was Rs. 3055.90 per month which is rounded off to Rs. 3100/.
62 It is now well settled that while establishing future loss of income , the court has to take into account the future prospects of injured/deceased. Reliance in that regard can be placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Vijay Kumar Mittal reported in III (2007) ACC 676. Thus, the Tribunal has to consider future increase in income while awarding compensation for loss of earning capacity . The benefit of future increase in income is to be given to the deceased. In Sarla Dixit Vs Balwant Yadav & Ors. 1996 ACJ 581. The Hon'ble Apex court has observed as under :
"The average gross future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of death to the maximum which he would have otherwise had got had he not died a premature death."
63 For determining the quantum of compensation and calculating the future prospects in this case , the following observation of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'National Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Pinki Devi in MAC appeal no. 719/2006, 36 judgment dated 13.5.2008 can be relied where it was held in para no. 23 and 24 as under :
Para no. 23 :
It is well settled proposition that while determining the quantum of compensation, the future prospects are also required to be taken into consideration. Though , the claimants have failed to produce any cogent evidence on record, but once the resort has been made to Minimum Wages Act, therefore, the increase in the future wages under the Minimum Wages Act can certainly be taken into consideration. Perusal of the Minimum Wages Act shows that in the past, within a period of 10 years, the minimum wages almost get more than double; for instance, minimum wages of unskilled workman in the year 2000 were Rs. 2524/ under the Minimum Wages Act. The said minimum wages in the year 2007 for the same class of unskilled workman came to be Rs. 3470/ under the Act. This increase is not due to any promotion of unskilled workman or any kind of advancement in his career but the same are due to increase in the price index and cost of living which are the determining facts taken into consideration for increasing the wages under the Minimum Wages Act. The nature of the job of unskilled workman will not change as the same shall remain unchanged.
Para no. 24 The minimum wage , in the very context of economy has a correlation with the growth and development of the nation's economy, postulating increase in the price index, reduction of purchasing power with the denunciation of currency value and consequent fixation of minimum wages giving some physical some periodical increase so as to ensures sustenance and survival of the workman class. Keeping this in view, under no circumstances the revision of minimum wages can be treated on the same footing with the factor of future prospects.
64 In this case i.e National Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Pinki Devi & ors. (SUPRA) , the deceased was 17 years old at the time of 37 accident and the future income was determined on the basis of Minimum Wages prevailing at the time of death. For the purpose of determining the average gross future monthly income , the maximum income was considered to be double of the minimum wages prevailing at the time of his death. The same analogy can be applied in the present case because the deceased herein was 18 years old . Thus, average gross future income of the deceased would be (Rs. 3100/ + Rs. 6200/ = Rs. 9300/ divided by 2) = Rs. 4650/.
65 Regarding deduction of the deceased for his personal and living expenses , the case of 'Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another (SUPRA) can be referred wherein para 15, it is held as under :
'Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents , the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents / and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they will either be independent and earning , or married or be dependent on the father . Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the 38 bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to onethird and contribution to the family will be taken as two third. '
66 The evidence on record has proved that family of the deceased left behind by him was comprised of his destitute mother not being maintained by her husband having no source of income and three non earning sisters including one non earning minor sister . Considering the facts that petitioner Kamlesh was not having any source of income and her husband was not maintaining her and her three minor daughters were also dependent upon her and deceased , the family comprising of destitute mother and her three non earning siblings shall have to be considered to be large family of a deceased bachelor. Therefore, the deduction for his personal and living expenses has to be restricted to1/ 3rd and his contribution to the family will be taken as 2/3rd . Applying the said principle , the income of the deceased would be (Rs. 4650 X 2/3 = Rs. 3100/ per month) Thus, the financial dependency of the claimant has been assessed at Rs. 3100/ per month ) THE MULTIPLIER 39 67 In her petition ( Kamlesh Vs Rattan Singh bearing suit no. 11/09/08/06) petitioner Kamlesh has mentioned her age to be 40 years . The petitioner Anar Singh is a Government employee and father of the deceased is not financially dependent upon him, therefore, in those given circumstances , the age of the petitioner Kamlesh is to be considered for arriving at the multiplier. In her petition Kamlesh Vs Rattan Singh , she has claimed to be 40 years at the time of accident . Her age in Ration card mark 'A' is shown to be 38 years . There is no contrary evidence on record to the claim of the petitioner Kamlesh to be 40 years at the time of accident. Therefore, on the basis of evidence on record and Ration Card mark 'A' at the time of death of deceased , the petitioner Kamlesh, mother of the deceased is held to be not exceeding 40 years in age. 68 In case of 'New India Assurance Company Vs Shanti Pathak, reported in III (2007) ACC 505 (Supreme Court ) , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme court that :
"the multiplier to be adopted is to be determined on the basis of the age of the claimant or the age of the deceased whichever is higher".
69 In accordance thereof, as per law laid down in case of Smt. Sarla Verma (SUPRA) in terms of the age of the petitioner / claimant , multiplier of 15 is accordingly to be adopted in this case. 40 Accordingly, the annual loss of dependency of petitioner would be Rs. 5,58,000/ (Rs. 3100 X 12X 15) Compensation for Loss of Estate 70 In terms of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. (SUPRA), the petitioner is entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/ under the head of loss of estate.
Compensation Towards Funeral Expenses 71 In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. (SUPRA) , the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 5,000/ under this head.
Compensation for Love and Affection 72 No amount would suffice to compensate the loss of love and affection to petitioner . Yet relying upon the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R Midha in case of 'Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. VS . Jaibir Singh & ors. As FAO No. 842/2003 orders dated 08.05.09 , the claimants are entitled to sum of Rs. 50,000/ as loss of love and affection.
73 In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioner is entitled to comes as under :
1 Compensation for loss of dependency Rs. 5,58,000/ 41 (Rs. 3100 X 12 X 15) 2 Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 10,000/ 3 Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/ 4 Compensation for love and affection Rs. 50,000/ _________ Total Rs. 6,23,000/ ___________
74 In view of the above discussion, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. The petitioners are , therefore, entitled to compensation of Rs. 6,23,000/ alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 03.7.2004 till its realization from the respondents , payable by the Insurer i.e respondent no. 4.
RELIEF (In suit no. 11/09/08/06) 75 In view of my findings on the issue no. 1 , 2 and 3 the petitioners i.e petitioners no. 1 to 4 in petition no. 11/09/08/06 and respondent no. 3 Anar Singh (Petitioner no. 1 in petition no. 12/09/06) are awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,23,000/ alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e 3.7.04 till its realization from the respondents payable by insurer/respondent no. 4, National Insurance company Ltd. APPROTIONMENT (In suit no. 11/09/08/06) 42 76 Petitioner Anar Singh father of the deceased was held to be one of the legal heirs alongwith petitioner nos. 1 to 4 in petition no. 11/09/08/06. He being father of the deceased and gainfully employed in government service is not financially dependent upon earnings of the deceased . Petitioner no. 1 Kamlesh, mother of the deceased, petitioners no. 2 to 4 being unmarried sisters of the deceased are dependent upon earnings of the deceased and therefore, entitled to the compensation. In this backdrop , the following is apportionment of the compensation amongst the claimants.
1 Kamlesh (Mother) Rs.4, 61,000/ 2 Manju (Sister) Rs. 50,000/ 3 Sanju (Sister) Rs. 50,000/ 4 Babli @ Babita ( MinorSister) Rs. 50,000/ 5 Amar Singh @ Anar Singh (Father) Rs. 12,000/ (compensation for loss of love and affection and loss of estate) Total Rs.6,23,000/ 77 Since the amount awarded should not be frittered away by beneficiaries owing to the ignorance, illiteracy etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled 'G. M. Kerala State Road 43 Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas' reported in 1994(2) SCC 176, has laid guidelines pronouncing that in a case of compensation for death, it is appropriate that Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this court in 'Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India', 1991(4) SCC 584, in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. Guidelines inter alia included of investment of share of the claimants in FDRs in nationalized banks with conditions that bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposits and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly / periodically directly to the claimant and such investment may be made in more than one fixed deposit. In case of any exigency, claimants are at liberty to apply to Tribunal for withdrawal of such investment.
78 In terms thereof, 50% of the award amount of petitioners No.1 to 3 be invested in shape of two FDRs in the name of the said claimants / petitioners for 5 years in State Bank of India. Entire award sum of minor petitioner No.4 be deposited in FDR in SBI, Tis Hazari till she attains the age of majority. The FDRs shall have no facility of loan or advance. However, petitioners/claimants are at liberty to take steps for premature encashment in case of exigency, 44 as per law laid before this Tribunal. Interest can be withdrawn monthly by petitioners, the minor through guardian. 79 State Bank of India,Tis Hazari, has agreed to open Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents. 80 Aforesaid fixed deposits are to be made by State Bank of India, Tis Hazari in the following manner: (1) The State Bank of India,Tis Hazari, shall open separate Savings Accounts in the name of claimants and the entire interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits be credited in the said accounts. The fixed deposits shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the court. (2) The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving Accounts.
(3) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the claimants after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card /Pass Book with attested photographs to claim to facilitate their identity. Minor petitioner can so withdraw through guardian (4) No cheque book be issued to the claimants without the permission of this Court.
45(5) Half yearly statement of accounts be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(6) The original FDRs shall be retained by the Bank in the Safe custody. However, the original Pass Books shall be given to the claimants alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs.
(7) The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be handed over to the claimants at the end of the fixed deposit period. (8) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without the permission of this Court. (9) On the request of the claimants, the Bank shall transfer the Saving Account to any other branch of State Bank of India according to the convenience of the claimants. 81 Respondents No.4 i.e National Insurance co. Ltd. is directed to directly deposit the award sum with SBI, Tis Hazari within 30 days through its nodal officer Mr. H.S. Rawat, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch (Mb: 09717044322) and the Manager concerned of SBI, Tis Hazari Couert to keep the specified amount aforeaid in fixed deposit in terms of the award and release the balance amount by transferring the same to the Saving Bank Account of the victim(s)/ claimant(s). Insurance Company to also 46 file proof of deposit of award sum, also within said period. Manager SBI, Tis Hazari to also furnish compliance report within 15 days of deposit of award sum.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/02/2010 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ASJ/SPECIALJUDGE:NDPS (WEST)DELHI