Delhi District Court
Triloki Nath Saini vs Naresh And Ors on 28 November, 2024
MACT/49/2023
Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20
Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20
Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR :
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 49/2023
CNR No. DLST01- 001175-2023
ANJNA VS. NARESH AND ORS.
DLST010011752023
1. Aditya
S/o Late Mr. Kapil Kumar ...son of the deceased
2. Advik
S/o Late Kapil Kumar ...son of the deceased
3. Angoori Devi
W/o Late Hari Kishan ...mother of the deceased
All resident of
H.No. 97, Neb Sarai,
IGNOU Road,
New Delhi. ... petitioners.
Petition No. :149/2020
CNR No. DLST01-006655-2020
SANGEETA SHAMI AND ORS. VS. NARESH AND ORS.
DLST010066552020
1. Smt. Sangeeta Shami
Page No. 1/45
MACT/49/2023
Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20
Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20
Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
W/o Mr. Pramod Kumar Shami
R/o H.No. 52, Flat no. UGF-1,
Khasra no. 137, Gali No. 1,
Harijan Basti, Neb Sarai,
South Delhi - 110068.
2. Riya Shami
D/o Late Pramod Kumar Shami
R/o H.No. 52, Flat no. UGF-1,
Khasra No. 137, Gali No. 1, Harijan Basti,
Neb Sarai, South Delhi - 110068
3. Aarav Shami
S/o Late Pramod Kumar Shami
R/o H.No. 52, Flat no. UGF-1,
Khasra No. 137, Gali No. 1, Harijan Basti,
Neb Sarai, South Delhi - 110068
....petitioners
Petition No. :150/2020
CNR No. DLST01-006654-2020
TRILOKI NATH SAINI AND ORS. VS. NARESH AND
ORS.
DLST010066542020
1.Mr. Triloki Saini
S/o Late Sunder Lal Saini
R/o 34/1116 Madangir DDA Flat
Ambedkar Nagar, South Delhi - 110062.
Versus
1. Mr. Naresh
Page No. 2/45
MACT/49/2023
Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20
Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20
Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
S/o Mr. Jagdish Prasad,
r/o H.No. 1108, Gali No. 34
DDA Flats, Madangir,
New Delhi - 110062. ...driver
2. Ms. Anjali @ Seema
W/o Late Mr. Dharmender Kumar
R/o H.No. 197, Neb Sarai Village,
South New Delhi - 110068. ... wife of owner
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance company Ltd.
Through its Manager
C/o Iffco House, 34, 2nd Floor,
Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019
.......Insurance company
... Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.12.2020 (MACT no. 149/20
and 150/20)
06.02.2023 (MACT no.
49/2023)
Date of reserving of judgment/
order : 28.11.2024
Date of pronouncement : 28.11.2024
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off the above stated three petitions filed under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended upto date (herein after referred to as Act), as all the three claims emerge out of the road accident which occurred on 08.11.2020 near Culvert of Gandhi Vidhya Niketan Inter School from Ramala Chowk to Baraut City, Delhi Saharanpur Road, UP whereby the petitioners have claimed compensation for untimely death of Page No. 3/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
Naresh Kumar Saini, Kapil Kumar and Pramod Kumar Shami, being their LRs.
2. The brief facts as per the claim petitions are that on 08.11.2020 at about 8.00 PM the deceased Naresh Kumar Saini, Kapil Kumar and Pramod Kumar Shami alongwith other occupants were coming back in a car (Hyundai I-20) bearing no. DL-3CCM-5061 to home after attending their relative's marriage function at Padhali, Muzaffarnagar, UP. When they reached near Culvert (pulliya) of Gandhi Vidhya Niketan Inter School from Ramala Chowk to Baraut city at Delhi Saharanpur Road, UP, the respondent no. 1 who was driving the abovesaid car in a rash and negligent manner hit the car into the road divider and due to the hard impact, the deceased Naresh Kumar Saini, Kapil Kumar and Pramod Kumar Shami received fatal injuries.
3. WS was filed by the respondent no. 1 stating that petition is not maintainable because the petitioners are trying to extort money from the respondents and the petitioners have not approached with the court clean hands. He further contended that the respondent no. 1 is himself a victim and he was never the driver of the alleged offending vehicle and he himself was a passenger but the petitioners have shown him as driver in the present case just to extort money. It is contended that the vehicle was fully insured and covered under the insurance with the respondent no. 3/ Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Page No. 4/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
Ltd.
4. The insurance company contested the claim by filing its reply inter-alia submitting that the the accident, if any was a result of the recklessness and negligence of the deceased who were travelling in the car bearing no. DL-3CCM-5061 under the influence of alcohol at the time of alleged accident violating the traffic rules. The deceased ought to have taken due care, however they blatantly ignored the traffic rules and this shows that the deceased were extremely negligent, reckless and having no regard towards the law and were solely responsible for the alleged accident. The FIR was filed only on 09.11.2020 whereas the alleged accident occurred on 08.11.2020 showing that the same was only an after thought and the alleged accident was completely fabricated and concocted to fetch unlawful claim from the respondent. However, it is admitted that the car bearing no. DL-3CCM-5061 was insured w.e.f. 18.06.2020 to 17.06.2021 vide policy no. ME419752.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that during the trial the respondent no. 2 Dharmender Kumar has died and his LR i.e. his wife was impleaded as respondent no. 2 vide order dated 21.02.2024.
6. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 17.11.2021, issues in MACT/149/20 and MACT/150/20 were framed by my Ld. Predecessor which are as follows :-
Page No. 5/45MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
1. Whether deceased Pramod Kumar Shami and Naresh Kumar Saini succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road accident on 08.11.2020 at around 8.00 PM near Culvert of Gandhi Vidhya Niketan Inter School at Saharanpur Road, UP when the car bearing no. DL-3CCM-5061 in which they were travelling hit the road divider due to rash and negligent driving of the above car being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 (iffco Tokio Genearl Insurance Company Ltd.)?... OPP)
2. to what amount of compensation the LRs of the deceased are entitled and from whom?OPP
3. Relief.
7. Thereafter again on 28.11.2024, issues were framed in the MACT/49/23 also as it was filed subsequently, as under :-
1. Whether deceased Kapil Kumar succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road accident on 08.11.2020 at around 8.00 PM near Culvert of Gandhi Vidhya Niketan Inter School at Saharanpur Road, UP when the car bearing no.
DL-3CCM-5061 in which they were travelling hit the road divider due to rash and negligent driving of the above car being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 (iffco Tokio Genearl Insurance Company Ltd.)?... OPP)
2. to what amount of compensation the LRs of the deceased are entitled and from whom?OPP
3. Relief.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the court record.
My findings on the issues are as under:-
Page No. 6/45MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.ISSUE NO. 1
9. In these claim petitions, onus is on the claimant(s)/ petitioner(s) to prove that the deceased Naresh Kumar Saini, Kapil Kumar and Pramod Kumar Shami have suffered fatal injuries in the vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. To prove their contentions, in MACT/49/23, the petitioners have examined Smt. Angoori Devi, mother of the deceased Kapil Kumar as PW1.
In MACT/149/20, petitioners have examined Smt. Sangeeta Shami, wife of the deceased Pramod Kumar Shami as PW1, Ms. Sheetal Mukherjee, Head Customer Service, Hapag- Lloyd, 501, Satellite Gazebo as PW2 (employer of the deceased), Mr. Jaspal, eye witness as PW3. Mr. Ravinder Singh, Sr. Coordinator Operation at Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd. was examined as PW4 (employer of the deceased).
In MACT/150/20, the petitioner Triloki Nath Saini, father of the deceased Naresh Kumar has been examined as PW1. Mr. Kush Srivastava, Manager (Legal), Blue Dart Express Ltd. (employer of the deceased) was examined as PW2.
All three claims were consolidated for the purposes of evidence.
11. In MACT bearing no. 49/23, the petitioners have examined Smt. Angoori Devi, mother of the deceased as PW1.
Page No. 7/45MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
She filed her affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A. She deposed on the lines of her claim. She stated that her son was 45 years of age at the time of accident and was a practicing lawyer at Saket Courts and was earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. She further stated that she, Advik (minor son of the deceased), Aditya (minor son of the deceased) were totally dependent on the income of the deceased. There is no other legal heir of the deceased. She has relied upon the following documents in support of her contentions:-
1. Certified copy of MLC, postmortem and death certificate as Ex.PW1/1.
2. Copy of aadhar card, ID, educational certificate (LLB Degree) and enrollment certificate of bar council of Delhi and ITR of the deceased Kapil Kumar as Ex.PW1/2 (colly).
3. Photocopies of three aadhar cards of the LRs of the deceased as Ex.PW1/3.
4. Death certificates of Anjana (wife of the deceased), Harikish (father of the deceased) as Ex.Pw1/4 (colly)
5. Certified copies of criminal records as Ex.PW1/7.
In her cross-examination by Mr. Varun Sarin, Ld. counsel for the insurance company, she admitted that she was not present at the time when the accident occurred. She had received a call from police regarding the accident on the date of accident itself. She admitted that she cannot comment on the manner of the accident since she was not an eye witness. The FIR was lodged by the brother in law of her deceased son Kapil Kumar. The FIR was lodged on 09.11.2020 which is one day after the accident. She stated that she is a housewife and besides her there are two minor children of the deceased. Her husband has predeceased her son Kapil Kumar. The wife of the Page No. 8/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
deceased also expired on 19.05.2023. Their relatives i.e. mother- in-law of deceased and sister-in-law of the deceased are taking care of their livelihood. She has not received any claim from any source regarding the death of her son Kapil Kumar.
Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 adopted the above cross-examination.
12. In MACT bearing no. 149/20, the petitioners have examined Smt. Sangeeta Shami, wife of the deceased Pramod Kumar Shami as PW1. She filed her affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A. She deposed on the lines of her claim. She stated that deceased Mr. Pramod Kumar Shami was her husband who died on 08.11.2020 in the road accident. She stated that her husband was 42 years of age at the time of accident and was working as a Coordinator Customer Service Counter in HAPAG-LLOYD India Pvt. Ltd. At Satellite Gazebo, Mumbai and was getting around Rs.39,838/- per month. She being the wife, Riya Shami, minor daughter, Aarav Shami, minor son were totally dependent on the income of the deceased Pramod Kumar Shami. She has relied upon the following documents in support of her contentions:-
1. Postmortem report as Ex.PW1/1.
2. Copy of aadhar card, pan card, educational marksheets of the deceased as Ex.PW1/2.
3. Appointment letter, salary proof, final settlement and employee ID card as Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of her aadhar card and PAN card as Ex.PW1/4.
5. Copy of aadhar card of her son as Ex.PW1/5.
6. Copy of aadhar card of the daughter of the deceased and Page No. 9/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
death certificate of the father of the deceased as Ex.PW1/6.
7. Chargesheet as Ex.PW1/7.
In her cross-examination by Mr. Varun Sarin, Ld. counsel for the insurance company, she stated that she was not present at the time when the accident occurred. She had received a call from someone in the public about the accident. The FIR was lodged on 09.11.2020 which is one day after the accident. She stated that besides her, there are two minor children. Her father-in-law has expired on 08 th May 2021. She stated that she is doing private job and drawing an income of approximately Rs.80,000/- per month. She has received a claim under Life Insurance form LIC towards the death of her husband in the accident which is approximately Rs.10 Lakhs. She has also received a claim from the employer of her deceased husband which is approximately Rs.5 Lakhs. The claim under provident fund is under process. She has received a claim under gratuity of Rs.66000/-.
13. Ms. Sheetal Mukherjee, Head Customer Service, Hapag-Lloyd, 501, Satellite Gazebo was examined as PW2. She was summoned as a witness. She produced the documents i.e. authority letter, salary slip of the deceased Pramod Kumar Shami from May 2020 to October 2020, confirmation letter of deceased Pramod Kumar Shami and Board of Resolution as Ex.PW2/1 (colly).
This witness was also cross-examined by Mr. Varun Sarin, Ld. counsel for the insurance company. He stated that Page No. 10/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
the family of the deceased has been paid Group accidental insurance of Rs.3 Lakhs and Group Terms Life insurance of Rs.8 Lakhs. The family of the deceased has been paid towards Gratuity. The claim under provident fund is under process. The investments under Section 80 (c) shown in the salary slips are the declarations made by the deceased. The company was making a contribution towards the provident fund only. He has not brought any document to show the transfer of salary from the company to the deceased's bank account.
14. Mr. Jaspal, an eye witness has been examined as PW3. He stated that on 08.11.2020 he was returning to his home after visiting his relative when he saw vehicle no. DL-3CCM-5061 being driven rashly and negligently after over taking him and hit the divider of the road and overturned and toppled many times, due to which occupants who were five in number got seriously injured. Public gathered at the place of accident. One person called the authorities. Police came in his presence and enquired from him also. After giving his statement, he left for his home. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing no. DL-3CCM-5061.
This witness was cross-examined by Mr. Digvijay Singh, Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1. He admitted that he can not tell the identity of the driver in the present case.
This witness was cross-examined by Mr. Varun Sarin, Ld. counsel for the insurance company. He stated that he Page No. 11/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
is not the informant of the FIR. His statement has never been recorded by the police till date. He stated that he was on the motorcycle at the time of accident and was at a speed of around 40 KMPH. The offending vehicle had come from behind at a very high speed. No other vehicle was involved in the accident.
15. PW4 Mr. Ravinder Singh, Sr. Coordinator Operation at Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd. was examined as PW4. He was a summoned witness. He produced the documents i.e. authority letter, board resolution of company, Salary slips of deceased Pramod Kumar Shami w.e.f. May 2020 to October 2020, final statement, Form 16 (Part A and B) of the year 2019 to 2020, April 2020 to November 2020 confirming active employment status at the time of demise of Pramod Kumar Shami, Annual bonus letter of the deceased dated May 2020, salary review dated May 21,2020, Annual bonus letter of deceased dated 18.04.2019, salary review dated 28.03.2019, Bonus letter of deceased Parmod Kumar Shami dated 19.04.2018, salary review dated 27.03.2018, performance bonus dated 13.04.2017, salary review dated 20.03.2017 and confirmation letter of appointment dated 06.05.2016 and appointment letter dated 05.02.2016 as E.PW4/1 (colly).
This witness was cross-examined by Mr. Varun Sarin, Ld. counsel for the insurance company. He stated that the family of the deceased has been paid gratuity as well as provident fund. The statement towards the payment under the aforesaid heads can be supplied.
Page No. 12/45MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
16. In MACT/150/20, the petitioner Triloki Nath Saini, father of the deceased Naresh Kumar was examined as PW1. He filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A. He deposed on the lines of his claim. He stated that his son Naresh Kumar died in the road accident. His son was 44 years of age and working as Operations Executive in Blue Dart. He stated that he was totally dependent on the income of the deceased Naresh Kumar. Besides him, there is no other legal heir of the deceased. The deceased was having a sound health and was not suffering from any ailments. He has relied upon the following documents in support of his contentions:-
1. Copy of postmortem report of the deceased as Ex.PW1/1
2. Copy of aadhar card and PAN Card, educational mark-sheets and death certificate of the deceased as Ex.Pw1/2.
3. Copy of appointment letter, salary proof and employee ID of the deceased as Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of his aadhar card as Ex.PW1/4.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Varun Sarin, Ld. counsel for the insurance company, he stated that he received a call from someone in the public about the accident. He is not an eye witness. He admitted that FIR was lodged only on 09.11.2020 which is one day after the accident. He stated that he does not know how as to why in the PMR of his deceased son is mentioned that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. He stated that he is the only legal heir of his deceased son. His deceased son was divorced in the year 2014 and he had already paid Rs.5 Lakhs in settlement at the Page No. 13/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
time of divorce. His son was BA Pass.
Mr. Digvijay Singh, Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 adopted the above cross-examination.
17. Mr. Kush Srivastava, Manager (Legal), Blue Dart Express Ltd. was examined as PW2. He produced the documents i.e. salary slips for the month of May 2020 to October 2020, attendance register May to November 2020, Appraisal letters dated 18.04.2011 and 23.04.2012, 25.11.2013, 25.04.2015, promotion letter dated 25.09.2015, power of attorney dated 05.12.2019 in favour of Kush Srivastava, Manager (Legal) and appointment letter of deceased Naresh Kumar Saini as Ex.PW2/A (colly) This witness was also cross-examined by Mr. Varun Sarin, Ld. counsel for the insurance company. He stated that there is a provision for mediclaim of the employees of the company. The family of the deceased is entitled to payment of gratuity and provident fund. For the processing of the payments under gratuity and provident fund the documents such as death certificate, declaration from the legal heirs is required, which has not been provided by the family of the deceased till date.
He admitted that as per the appointment letter dated 15.03.2001, the deceased was entitled to medical and LTA reimbursements i.e. the payments under these heads were reimbursed against submission of bills and invoices. He further admitted that he has not brought the salary record of the deceased before the month of May 2020 although the deceased Page No. 14/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
was employed with them since March 2001. He voluntarily stated that he has brought the salary slip of the deceased for the last six months as asked by the petitioners.
Mr. Digvijay Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 has adopted the cross-examination made by counsel for the insurance company.
18. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued forcefully that from the evidence of PWs coupled with the criminal record placed, the petitioners have proved the fact that it was the respondent no. 1 who had caused fatal injuries to the deceased Naresh Kumar Saini, Kapil Kumar and Pramod Kumar Shami by his rash and negligent act/driving.
19. Ld. counsel for the insurance company contended that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the deceased themselves, and the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
20. It is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver Page No. 15/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 & 140 of the M V Act.
21. Certified copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 until proved to be contrary.
22. In cases National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del.) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held that "......where the petitioners filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
23. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) Page No. 16/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
2021 wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
25. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
26. In the present case, petitioners have filed certified copies of the entire chargesheet. Charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1 driver of the offending vehicle. The eye witness Jaspal has categorically deposed about the manner Page No. 17/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
and occurrence of the accident which was due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. He deposed that the respondent no. 1 overtook him and hit the divider of the road and overturned and toppled many times. The testimony of the eye witness in the claim petitions has remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. Nothing material has come up in his cross- examination by the respondents. His testimony is consistent and duly corroborated by the investigation conducted by the IO. Investigation conducted by the IO in the present case is also fully supporting the testimony of the PWs. From the evidence placed on record and the investigation done by the IO, no other version of the accident is coming up on record except for the one raised by the petitioners. The documents produced on record clearly established identity of the vehicle involved in the accident, identity of the driver of the said vehicle.
27. Nothing material could be elicited from the cross- examination of the PWs to disbelieve or discard their testimony. Moreover, it has not been disputed that respondent no. 1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
28. Ld. counsel for the insurance company has vehemently contended that all the three deceased were inebriated at the time of accident. However, it has been proved on record that all the three deceased were travelling as Page No. 18/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
passengers in the vehicle coming back from marriage of a relative. The driver was respondent no. 1/Naresh who has survived in the accident. The plea of negligence on the part of the passengers hence, can not be sustained.
29. Furthermore, Ld. counsel for the insurance company also contended that the PW2 Sheetal Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the employer of the deceased Pramod Kumar Shami submitted that the family of the deceased was already paid group accidental insurance of Rs.3 Lakhs alongwith group terms life insurance of Rs.8 Lakhs which was liable to be deducted from the award, if any passed in favour of the petitioners. However, it is well settled that in case some group accidental insurance are maintained and paid by the employer, the premium for which is deducted from the salary of the employee such amount has to be paid in addition to the compensation amount paid by the MACT. In this regard, reference can be made to observations made by the Hon'ble High court of Bombay in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Aman Sanjay Tak and Ors., First Appeal 1051 of 2022 :-
8. In my view, The father of claimant had taken insurance policy by paying separate premium for whole family. The contractual liability between father and other insurance company is different, than the contractual liability between driver and owner of offending vehicle and Appellant/ Insurance Company. The owner of offending Shantanu Dhudum vehicle had paid premium of Insurance Policy. Both contractual liability cannot be put on equal footing. The Appellant/ Insurance Page No. 19/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
Company can not claim deduction of the amount for which separate premium was paid by different person under different contractual liability. The Appellant /Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the contractual liability between them and owner of offending vehicle. So, the amount received under contractual liability is different amount of medical reimbursement, it cannot be deducted from the amount which the appellants are liable to pay as compensation.
30. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sebastiani Lakra & Ors. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2019) 17 SCC 465 as follows :-
9. In Shashi Sharma case (supra) this Court was dealing with the payments made to the legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Rule 5 (1) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short 'the said Rules'). Under Rule 5 of the said Rules on the death of a Government employee, the family would continue to receive as financial assistance a sum equal to the pay and other allowances that was last drawn by the deceased employee for periods set out in the Rules and after the said period the family was entitled to receive family pension. The family was also entitled to retain the Government accommodation for a period of one year in addition to payment of Rs.25,000/− as ex gratia.
10. In this case, the three−Judge Bench adverted to the principles laid down in Helen C. Rebello case, followed in Patricia Jean Mahajan case, and came to the conclusion that the decision in Vimal Page No. 20/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
Kanwar case did not take a view contrary to Helen C. Rebello or Patricia Jean Mahajan case (supra). The following observations are relevant: (Shashi Sharma case, SCC p.641, para no. 15) "15. The principle expounded in this decision in Helen C. Rebello case that the application of general principles under the common law to estimate damages cannot be invoked for computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the "pecuniary advantage " from whatever source must correlate to the injury or death caused on account of motor accident. The view so taken is the correct analysis and interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, and must apply proprio vigore to the corresponding provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This principle has been restated in the subsequent decision of the two−Judge Bench in Patricia Jean Mahajan case, to reject the argument of the Insurance Company to deduct the amount receivable by the dependants of the deceased by way of "social security compensation" and "life insurance policy."
11. ...................................................
12................................................ ...
13. As far as any amount paid under any insurance policy is concerned whatever is added to the estate of the deceased or his dependents is not because of the death of the deceased but because of the contract entered into between the deceased and the insurance company from where he took out the policy. The deceased paid premium on such life insurance and this amount would have accrued to the estate of the deceased Page No. 21/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
either on maturity of the policy or on his death, whatever be the manner of his death. These amounts are paid because the deceased has wisely invested his savings. Similar would be the position in case of other investments like bank deposits, share, debentures etc.. The tort−feasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wise financial investments made by the deceased
31. That apart, a Division Bench of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court speaking in New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Anr., 2018 SCC OnLine Cal. 10368, decided on 19.03.2019 has observed the following:-
"...........However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to go on and make it clear that an amount earned out of one's own contribution cannot be said to be "pecuniary gain" only on account of the accident. After all, it is not the case that the employer paid the Mediclaim of the victim in this or any other case of third party risk. The victim took out a medical insurance as and by way of a general insurance contract by paying premium. It was his contribution. If he gets something out of his own contribution, for an accident, under an insurance policy he has taken out himself, can a statutory liability on a different insurer who has taken on the risk towards third parties due to an accident caused by the offending vehicle which he has insured, then claim deduction of the amount the victim got from a different insurer based on his own contributions? I most respectfully think not, going by the Page No. 22/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
spirit of the opinion delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
...........However, in the instant case, I cannot lose sight of the principles which control the entire ratio - first, that the liability of an insurer of the offending vehicle to pay a third party compensation for injury or death caused in an accident by the offending vehicle, is statutory whereas the liability to pay a sum to the insured victim for such accidental death or injury, or for any other kind of death, is contractual, and second that the sum paid by the insurer of the victim (rather than the offending vehicle) in both cases is due to the premium paid by the victim from his own earnings. Once these important differences and similarities as I have extracted above are appreciated, it will appear, with the greatest of respect to the learned coordinate benches of the other Hon'ble Courts or the learned Single Benches of those Hon'ble Courts, that none of the judgments referred to in paragraph 7 and sub-paragraphs a, b, c, d, or e, lay down the law, in the teeth of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rebello (supra) as noticed by me above.
32. Also in Vimal Kanwar & Ors. V. Kishore Dan & Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"The first issue is "whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for deduction.Page No. 23/45
MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in : (1999) 1 SCC 90. In the said case, this Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction.
The following was the observation and finding of this Court:
35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for Page No. 24/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage"
liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be between them and not to which there is no semblance of any correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount Page No. 25/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual."
33. In view of the above observations made in Sebastiani Lakra (supra), Vimal Kanwar & Ors. (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd (supra), the petitioners are held entitled to the amount of compensation in addition to the amount received by them from the employer as abovesaid and the claim from the LIC.
34. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no.1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310. Even the insurance company has not taken any steps to examine the IO or the respondent no. 1 to seek their version of the accident which could support the contentions raised on behalf of the insurance company. It goes without saying that the proceedings under the MV Act are "summary in nature" and the evidence is not to be recorded and appreciated with all the technicalities of law of evidence. Indeed, the registered owner and the driver did not contest the matter despite appearing initially but then nothing precluded the appellant/ insurance company also from summoning the Page No. 26/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
driver and/or the registered owner so as to substantiate that no accident had taken place due to the negligence of respondent no. 1.
35. On the basis of above observation and discussion it is proved that the abovesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the R1 Naresh due to which deceased Kapil Kumar, Naresh Kumar and Pramod Kumar Shami suffered fatal injuries. Issue no. 1 is accordingly, decided in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2.
36. As this Tribunal has already held that it was the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle who was responsible for the fatal injuries suffered by all the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased Kapil Kumar, Naresh Kumar and Pramod Kumar Shami in the said accident. Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the claimants and by whom? First of all the court has to decide as to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened.
37. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, and owned by respondent no.2, so respondent Page No. 27/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
no.1 is primarily liable and respondent no.2 is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners/claimants for the amount.
38. Let me assess the compensation which the claimants are entitled for under different heads.
COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH CASE OF DECEASED KAPIL KUMAR
39. As observed above, deceased Kapil Kumar died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation towards the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Kapil Kumar. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses and loss of Estate.
Page No. 28/45MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
Funeral expenses and loss of estate has been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
40. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that the claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10 th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. In the present case, the deceased has left his legal heirs i.e. two sons and mother. Therefore, all the petitioners are entitled to consortium. Therefore, under these heads, compensation is to be awarded as follows in the present claim:-
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium 1,20,000/-
[40,000 x 3]
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 15,000/
Page No. 29/45
MACT/49/2023
Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20
Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
41. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Kapil Kumar was married. However, his wife also died on 19.05.2023. Only the mother of the deceased and two sons of the deceased were left behind as his legal heirs. In the aadhar card, date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 11.09.1978. Therefore, the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '14'.
42. PW-1 Smt. Angoori Devi (mother of the deceased Kapil Kumar) has stated that at the time of accident, her son was a practising lawyer at Saket court and was earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. She has placed on record his educational certificates including LLB Degree and enrollment certificate of Bar Council of Delhi and ITR of the deceased for the year 2017-2018. She has not filed any record/ passbook to show that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, considering the ITR for the year 2017-2018, his Page No. 30/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
gross income would come as Rs.2,98,900/- per annum. Therefore, Rs.24,908/- per month is taken as his approximate earning.
43. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of income. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.31,135/- (24,908 + 24,908 x 25/100). As the deceased was married leaving behind three legal heirs, therefore, one third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.20,756/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.34,87,008/- (Rs.20,756 x 12 x 14). I therefore, award Rs.34,87,008/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
44. In view of the decision on above mentioned issues, the total compensation in favour of the petitioners is calculated as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY =Rs.34,87,008/-
FUNERAL EXPENSES =Rs. 15000/-
LOSS OF ESTATE =Rs. 15000/-
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM =Rs.1,20,000/-
============
Grand Total = Rs.36,37,008/-
============
Page No. 31/45
MACT/49/2023
Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20
Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH CASE OF DECEASED PRAMOD KUMAR SHAMI
45. As observed above, deceased Pramod Kumar Shami died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1.
Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation towards the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Pramod Kumar Shami. As discussed above, the petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses and loss of Estate. Funeral expenses and loss of estate has been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
46. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that the claimants are entitled for Loss of Page No. 32/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10 th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. In the present case, the deceased has left his legal heirs i.e. wife and two minor children. Therefore, all the petitioners are entitled to consortium. Therefore, under these heads, compensation is to be awarded as follows:-
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium 1,20,000/-
[40,000 x 3]
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 15,000/
47. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned as observed above, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided Page No. 33/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Pramod Kumar Shami was married leaving behind his legal heirs. In the aadhar card, date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 14.06.1978. Therefore, the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '14'.
48. PW-1 Smt. Sangeeta Shami (wife of the deceased Pramod Kumar Shami) has stated that at the time of accident, her husband was working as Coordinator Customer Service Counter in HAPAG0LLOYD India Pvt. Ltd. and was getting around Rs.39,838/- per month. She has examined PW2 Ms. Sheetal Mukherjee, Head Customer Service and PW4 Mr. Ravinder Singh, Sr. Coordinator Operation. PW1 has filed the salary slips of the deceased. The documents produced are undisputed. As per the salary slip for the month of October 2020, the net income of the deceased was Rs.37,054/-, however after deducting special allowance of Rs.5038, Rs.32,016/- is taken as approximate earning of the deceased.
49. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of income. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.40,020/- (Rs.32,016 + 32,016 x 25/100). As the deceased was married leaving behind three legal heirs, therefore, one third is to be deducted towards personal and Page No. 34/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
living expenses. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.26,680/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.44,82,240/- (Rs.26,680 x 12 x 14). I therefore, award Rs.44,82,240/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
50. In view of the decision on above mentioned issues, the total compensation in favour of the petitioners is calculated as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY =Rs.44,82,008/-
FUNERAL EXPENSES =Rs. 15000/-
LOSS OF ESTATE =Rs. 15000/-
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM =Rs.1,20,000/-
============
Grand Total = Rs.46,32,240/-
============
COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH CASE OF
DECEASED NARESH KUMAR SAINI
51. As observed above, deceased Naresh Kumar Saini died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1.
Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation towards the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Naresh Kumar Saini. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Page No. 35/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses and loss of Estate. Funeral expenses and loss of estate has been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
52. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that the claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10 th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. In the present case, the deceased has left only his father as his legal heirs. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to consortium. Therefore, under these heads, compensation is to be awarded as follows:-
Page No. 36/45MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium 40,000/-
[40,000 ]
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 15,000/
53. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
(Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Pramod Kumar Shami was married leaving behind his legal heirs. In the PAN card, the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 03.10.1976. Therefore, the deceased was 44 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '14'.
54. PW-1 Smt. Triloki Nath Saini (father of the deceased Naresh Kumar Saini) has stated that at the time of accident, his son was working as Operations Executive in Blue Dart at Building no. 09 Tower - B Gr. FLR. Cyber City Phase-3 Gurugram, Haryana and was getting around Rs.35000/- per month. To prove his contention, he has examined PW2 Mr. Page No. 37/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
Kush Srivastava, Manager Legal, Blue Dart who filed the salary slips for the month of May 2020 to October 2020 qua the deceased. The documents were not disputed. As per the salary slip for the month of October 2020, net income of the deceased is shown as Rs.32,101/-, however after deducting conveyance allowance, performance pay, personal pay, medical allowance, performance ince, Rs.23,213/- per month is taken as approximate earning of the deceased.
55. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of income. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.29,016/- (Rs.23,213 + 23,213 x 25/100). As the deceased was divorced in the year 2014, deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be half( ½). After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.14,508/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,37,344/- (Rs.14,508 x 12 x 14). I therefore, award Rs.24,37,344/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
56. In view of the decision on above mentioned issues, the total compensation in favour of the petitioners is calculated as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY =Rs.24,37,344/-
FUNERAL EXPENSES =Rs. 15000/-
LOSS OF ESTATE =Rs. 15000/-
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM =Rs. 40,000/-
============
Page No. 38/45
MACT/49/2023
Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20
Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
Grand Total = Rs.25,07,344/-
============
RELIEF
57. In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs.36,37,008/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand and Eight only) to the LRs of the deceased Kapil Kumar, Rs.46,32,240/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred Forty) is awarded to the LRs of the deceased Pramod Shami and Rs.25,07,344/- is awarded to the LRs of the deceased along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization.
Realization of Awarded amount in the death case of Anjna and ors. vs. Naresh Kumar (MACT no. 49/2023)
-:RELEASE OF AWARD AMOUNT:-
(In the share of Petitioner no(s). 1 and 2 Aditya and Advik, minor sons of the deceased Kapil Kumar)
58. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) along-with interest @ 9% per annum is awarded to the petitioner no(s).1 and 2 being children of the deceased. The said amount are directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit till they attain the age of majority.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 3 namely smt. Angoori Devi (mother of the deceased Kapil Kumar) Page No. 39/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
59. A sum of Rs.16,37,008/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Eight only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.3 being mother of the deceased Kapil Kumar. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) is directed to be kept in the form of monthly FDR of Rs.40,000/- each. Remaining amount shall be released to her in her saving bank account near her place of residence.
Realization of Awarded amount in the death case of Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh Kumar and ors. (MACT no. 149/2020)
-:RELEASE OF AWARD AMOUNT:-
(In the share of Petitioner no. 1 namely smt. Sangeeta Shami (wife of the deceased Pramod Kumar Shami)
60. A sum of Rs.36,32,240/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred Forty only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased Pramod Kumar Shami. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs) is directed to be kept in the form of monthly FDR of Rs.40,000/- each. Remaining amount shall be released to her in her saving bank account near her place of residence.
(In the share of Petitioner no(s). 2 and 3 i.e. Riya Shami and Aarav Shami, minor children of the deceased Pramod Kumar Shami) Page No. 40/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
61. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) along-with interest @ 9% per annum is awarded to the petitioner no(s).2 and 3 being children of the deceased. The said amount are directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit till they attain the age of majority.
Realization of Awarded amount in Triloki Saini vs. Naresh Kumar and ors. (MACT no. 150/2020) (In the share of Petitioner namely Triloki Saini(father of the deceased Naresh Kumar Saini)
62. A sum of Rs.25,07,344/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Seven Thousand Three Hundred Forty Four only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner being father of the deceased Naresh Kumar Saini. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs) is directed to be kept in the form of monthly FDR of Rs.30,000/- each. Remaining amount shall be released to him in his saving bank account near his place of residence.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
63. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no. 3/insurance company is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Page No. 41/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 45 days from today, failing which respondent no.3/insurance company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
64. The respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3.
65. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SOUTH SAKET COURT A/c 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
66. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
67. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :-
Page No. 42/45MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
1) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
2) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
3) No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
4) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
5) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
7) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
8) On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
9) Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
10) The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
11) The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period.
12) The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125- Page No. 43/45
MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.
3/INSURANCE COMPANY
1. The Respondent no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 45 days from today.
2. The Respondent no. 3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
3. The Respondent no. 3 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
4. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary Page No. 44/45 MACT/49/2023 Anjna vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/149/20 Sangeeta Shami and ors. vs. Naresh and ors.
MACT/150/20 Triloki Nath Saini vs. Naresh and ors.
compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no. 3.
5. The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.3/insurance company for 20.01.2025.
Pronounced in the open court
on 28th NOVEMBER 2024 Digitally signed
sudesh by sudesh
kumar
kumar Date:
2024.11.28
17:01:53 +0530
(SUDESH KUMAR)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Page No. 45/45