Delhi District Court
Mahender Jha vs Sh. Vinod Kumar on 6 June, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA :
JUDGE : MACT : CENTRAL DISTRICT : DELHI.
Suit No. 597/10
Unique ID No.02401C0554712010
1. Mahender Jha, .........(Son)
S/o Late Sh. Ramdev Jha,
R/o. H.No. 7, Vill. Devnath Patti,
P.O. Radhaur, Distt. Sitamarhi, Bihar.
2. Gauri Shankar Jha, .........(Son)
S/o Late Sh. Ramdev Jha,
R/o. H.No. 7, Vill. Devnath Patti,
P.O. Radhaur, Distt. Sitamarhi, Bihar.
.......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o.Sh. Gurudayal,
R/o.Village & Post Iknor,
Itawa, UP. .......(Driver)
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 1/__
2. Sh. Nain Singh,
S/o Sh. Kishori Lal,
R/o. 6081, Gali Ravidas Nagar,
Nabi Karim, New Delhi. .........(Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
A.R. Plot No. 60, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase III, Opp. SBI Bank, New Delhi. ......(Insurer)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 30.11.2010
Date on which order was reserved : __.5.2011
Date of Decision : __.5.2011
Suit No. 593/10
Unique ID No.02401C0554802010
1. Smt. Manju Devi, (40 years)
S/o. Sh. Gauri Shankar Jha,
R/o. Vill. Devnath Patti, H.No.7,
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 2/__
P.O. Radhaur, Distt. Sitamarhi, Bihar. .......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o.Sh. Gurudayal,
R/o.Village & Post Iknor,
Itawa, UP. .......(Driver)
2. Sh. Nain Singh,
S/o Sh. Kishori Lal,
R/o. 6081, Gali Ravidas Nagar,
Nabi Karim, New Delhi. .........(Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
A.R. Plot No. 60, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase III, Opp. SBI Bank, New Delhi. ......(Insurer)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 30.11.2010
Date on which order was reserved : __.5.2011
Date of Decision : __.5.2011
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 3/__
Suit No. 594/10
Unique ID No.02401C0554752010
Gauri Shankar Jha, (42 years)
S/o Late Sh. Ramdev Jha,
R/o. H.No. 7, Vill. Devnath Patti,
P.O. Radhaur, Distt. Sitamarhi, Bihar.
.......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o.Sh. Gurudayal,
R/o.Village & Post Iknor,
Itawa, UP. .......(Driver)
2. Sh. Nain Singh,
S/o Sh. Kishori Lal,
R/o. 6081, Gali Ravidas Nagar,
Nabi Karim, New Delhi. .........(Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
A.R. Plot No. 60, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase III, Opp. SBI Bank, New Delhi. ......(Insurer)
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 4/__
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 30.11.2010
Date on which order was reserved : __.5.2011
Date of Decision : __.5.2011
Suit No. 595/10
Unique ID No.02401C0554742010
1. Smt. Pawan Devi, (45 years)
W/o Late Sh. Ram Iqbal Thakur,
R/o. Village and Post Kalaiya,
Ward No. 11, Distt. Wara, Nepal. .......(Wife)
2. Sh. Nilesh Kumar Thakur, (30 years)
S/o Late Sh. Ram Iqbal Thakur,
R/o. Village and Post Kalaiya,
Ward No. 11, Distt. Wara, Nepal. .......(Son)
3. Sh. Shailesh Kumar Thakur, (26 years)
S/o Late Sh. Ram Iqbal Thakur,
R/o. Village and Post Kalaiya,
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 5/__
Ward No. 11, Distt. Wara, Nepal. .......(Son)
.......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o.Sh. Gurudayal,
R/o.Village & Post Iknor,
Itawa, UP. .......(Driver)
2. Sh. Nain Singh,
S/o Sh. Kishori Lal,
R/o. 6081, Gali Ravidas Nagar,
Nabi Karim, New Delhi. .........(Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
A.R. Plot No. 60, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase III, Opp. SBI Bank, New Delhi. ......(Insurer)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 30.11.2010
Date on which order was reserved : __.5.2011
Date of Decision : __.5.2011
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 6/__
Suit No. 596/10
Unique ID No.02401C0554722010
Shailesh Kumar, (25 years)
S/o Ram Iqbal Thakur,
R/o. Village and Post Kalaiya,
Ward No. 11, Distt. Wara, Nepal. .......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o.Sh. Gurudayal,
R/o.Village & Post Iknor,
Itawa, UP. .......(Driver)
2. Sh. Nain Singh,
S/o Sh. Kishori Lal,
R/o. 6081, Gali Ravidas Nagar,
Nabi Karim, New Delhi. .........(Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
A.R. Plot No. 60, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase III, Opp. SBI Bank, New Delhi. ......(Insurer)
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 7/__
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 30.11.2010
Date on which order was reserved : __.5.2011
Date of Decision : __.5.2011
Suit No. 598/10
Unique ID No.02401C0554692010
Smt. Pawan Devi, (45 years)
W/o Sh. Ram Iqbal Thakur,
R/o. Village and Post Kalaiya,
Ward No. 11, Distt. Wara, Nepal. .......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o.Sh. Gurudayal,
R/o.Village & Post Iknor,
Itawa, UP. .......(Driver)
2. Sh. Nain Singh,
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 8/__
S/o Sh. Kishori Lal,
R/o. 6081, Gali Ravidas Nagar,
Nabi Karim, New Delhi. .........(Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
A.R. Plot No. 60, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase III, Opp. SBI Bank, New Delhi. ......(Insurer)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 30.11.2010
Date on which order was reserved : __.5.2011
Date of Decision : __.5.2011
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of six claim petitions bearing no. 597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 and 598/10 as they have arisen out of the same accident bearing FIR NO.233/10, P.S. Inchauli, Distt. Meerut, U.P., u/s.279/337/338/427/304A IPC.
2. The present six claim petitions have been filed by the petitioners u/s.166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act.
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 9/__
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present claim petitions are that on 04.8.2010 at about 9:30 pm the deceased Sh. Ramdev Jha in Suit no. 597/10, injured Ms. Manju Devi in Suit no.593/10, injured Sh. Gauri Shankar Jha in Suit No. 594/10, deceased Sh. Ram Iqbal Thakur in Suit No.595/10, injured Sh. Shailesh Kumar in Suit no. 596/10 and injured Ms. Pawan Devi in Suit No. 598/10 were coming from Haridwar to Delhi by Innova Car bearing no. DL1YB7356. In the meanwhile, a truck bearing no. HR38G2778 driven by respondent no. 1 at very high speed, in rash and negligent manner had hit their Innova Car. As a result thereof, the deceased Sh. Ramdev Jha and the petitioners in Suit no.593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 and 598/10 had fallen down on the road. Sh. Ramdev Jha had died on the spot and all the petitioners had received grievous injuries on all parts of their body. They were taken to Divyajyoti Specialities at C1/4, Plot No. D, Ganga Nagar, Mawana Road, Meerut, U.P. with the help of some locals and the police.
Thereafter, an FIR was registered at P.S. Inchauli, Meerut, u/s. 279/304A IPC against the respondent no. 1.
The injured Sh. Ram Iqbal Thakur in Suit no. 595/10 was thereafter admitted in Vimhans Hospital. Thereafter, he was discharged from Vimhans Hospital and was under supervision and continuous medical treatment of local doctors. But after a long treatment, the injured Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 10/__ could not recover and had died on 15.2.2011 due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
4. Written Statement was filed by Ld.Counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2 wherein it is stated that the petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands. It is denied that accident had taken place due to negligence of respondent no.1.
5. Written statement was also filed by respondent no.3, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, wherein it is stated that petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands and that the petition does not disclose any cause of action. However, it is admitted that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR38G2778 was insured with respondent no.3, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited in the name of Sh. Nain Singh i.e. respondent no.2 vide policy no.1305792334003214 valid from 10.12.2009 to 09.12.2010.
6. All the six claim petitions bearing Suit no.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 and 598/10 were ordered to be consolidated vide an order dated 19.5.2011 and Suit no. 597/10 was ordered to be treated as lead case.
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 11/__
7. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were settled as under in all the six claim petitions:
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Ramdev Jha in Suit no. 597/10 had sustained fatal injuries and deceased Sh. Ram Iqbal Thakur in Suit No.595/10 had died due of the injuries sustained by him and petitioner Ms. Manju Devi in Suit no.593/10, petitioner Sh. Gauri Shankar Jha in Suit No. 594/10, petitioner Sh. Shailesh Kumar in Suit no. 596/10 and petitioner Ms. Pawan Devi in Suit No. 598/10 in an accident which took place on 04.8.2010 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no.HR38G 2778 by respondent no.1?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
8. During the course of proceedings, petitioner Sh. Ram Iqbal Thakur in Suit No. 595/10 had died. An application for impleading legal heirs of the deceased as petitioners was accepted vide order dated Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 12/__ 19.4.2011. Thereafter, Amended petition and amended memo of parties were filed.
9. During the course of proceedings, respondent no.2 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 24.2.2011.
10. Petitioners have examined four witnesses in support of their claims.
11. PW1 Sh.Gauri Shankar Jha, (injured in Suit no. 594/10 and petitioner in Suit No.597/10) tendered in evidence his examinationin chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A regarding death of his father Suit No. 597/10 and Ex.PW1/B regarding injury sustained by him Suit No. 594/10 and stated therein that 04.8.2010 at about 9:30 pm the deceased Sh. Ramdev Jha in Suit no. 597/10, injured Ms. Manju Devi in Suit no.593/10, injured Sh. Gauri Shankar Jha in Suit No. 594/10, deceased Sh. Ram Iqbal Thakur in Suit No.595/10, injured Sh. Shailesh Kumar in Suit no. 596/10 and injured Ms. Pawan Devi in Suit No. 598/10 were coming from Haridwar to Delhi by Innova Car bearing no. DL1YB 7356. In the meanwhile, a truck bearing no. HR38G2778 driven by respondent no. 1 at very high speed, in rash and negligent manner had hit their Innova Car. As a result thereof, the deceased Sh. Ramdev Jha and Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 13/__ the petitioners in Suit no.593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 and 598/10 had fallen down on the road. Sh. Ramdev Jha had died on the spot and all the petitioners had received grievous injuries on all parts of their body. They were taken to Divyajyoti Specialities at C1/4, Plot No. D, Ganga Nagar, Mawana Road, Meerut, U.P. with the help of some locals and the police.
Thereafter, an FIR was registered at P.S. Inchauli, Meerut, u/s. 279/304A IPC against the respondent no. 1.
The injured Sh. Ram Iqbal Thakur in Suit no. 595/10 was thereafter admitted in Vimhans Hospital. Thereafter, he was discharged from Vimhans Hospital and was under supervision and continuous medical treatment of local doctors. But after a long treatment, the injured could not recover and had died on 15.2.2011 due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
He also proved copy of the election I Card of the deceased Ex.PW1/1, his election ICard Ex.PW1/2, election ICard of Mahender Jha Ex.PW1/3, certified copy of criminal case record Ex.PW1/4, his discharge summary Ex.PW1/5, his medical bills Ex.PW1/6, his voter ICard Ex.PW1/7 and school certificate Ex.PW1/8.
He stated that the deceased was 73 years old at the time of accident and had good health and physic and was much careful about the welfare of his family.
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 14/__ He also stated that at the time of accident the deceased was earning about Rs.20,000/ per month from the business and other sources. He further stated that the he and his brother, namely, Mahender Jha are the only legal heirs of the deceased and were totally dependent on the income of the deceased.
He further stated that he has spent more than Rs.50,000/ on account of medical treatment, Rs.50,000/ on account of special diet and Rs.50,000/ on account of hospitalization expenses. He also stated that he is still an out door patient and is likely to spent about Rs.1,00,000/ on account of future medical expenses and physiotherapy.
He stated that he was about 48 years of age at the time of accident and was having good health and physic. He also stated that he was earning Rs.20,000/ per month from different work but due to the said accident he is not able to perform his duty and unable to earn for his family.
On being crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 he stated that he is eyewitness to the accident. I cannot give the date of birth of my deceased father. He also admitted that he do not have any proof regarding income or employment of his father. He denied that his father was not earning anything and financially dependent on him and his brother. He denied that his father was old and ailing and therefore, was not in a position to earn anything.
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 15/__ Police has not recorded my statement. He denied that accident had taken place due to the negligent driving of the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3, Insurance Company he stated that he cannot produce any receipt regarding the expenses of Rs.1 Lakh on the funeral ceremony of his deceased father. He stated that he is working as a farmer and his father was also a farmer.
12. PW2 Sh. Shailesh (Petitioner in Suit no.596/10) tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/A and stated same facts about the accident as deposed by PW1 Sh. Gauri Shankar Jha.
He stated that he has already spent more than Rs.50,000/ on account of medical treatment, Rs.50,000/ on account of special diet and Rs.50,000/ on account of hospitalization expenses. He stated that he is still out door patient and is likely to spent Rs.1,00,000/ on his future medical treatment and physiotherapy.
He further stated that at the time of accident he was about 25 years old and was having good health and physic. He was earning more than 20,000/ per month from different work. But due to the present Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 16/__ accident he was not able to perform his duty.
He also proved documents i.e. copy of his nationality certificate Ex.PW2/A1, the documents of his medical expenditure and medical treatment Ex.PW2/A2 to Ex.PW2/A6, certificate regarding his educational qualification Ex.PW2/A7.
On being cross examined by Sh. S.P. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 he admitted that he is eyewitness to the accident. He also admitted that the FIR was not registered on my statement and no site plan was prepared at his instance and no one was arrested at his pointing out. He stated that he was admitted in Divya Jyoti Hospital after the accident.
He stated that he used to earn Rs.15,000/ per month but he has no proof of my income and employment.
On being cross examined by Ms. Kusum Bisht, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3, Insurance Company he stated that he was sitting on the left side of the driver on passenger seat and had become unconscious after the accident. He had remained admitted in the hospital for above 15 days.
13. PW3 Smt. Pawan Devi, (injured in Suit No.598/10 and wife of the deceased in Suit no.595/10) tendered her examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A regarding death of her husband in Suit No. Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 17/__ 595/10 and Ex.PW3/B regarding injuries sustained by her in Suit no. 598/10 and stated the same facts as stated by PW1 Sh. Gauri Shankar Jha.
She further stated that she alogwith her deceased husband were taken to Divyajyoti Specialisties Hospital where her husband was given all sorts of treatment since he had sustained grievous head injuries. But he could'nt recover from coma. Thereafter, they were discharged from the hospital on 16.8.2010 vide discharge summary Ex.PW3/3 and Ex.PW3/7 respectively. Thereafter, the deceased was admitted in Vimhans Hospital where major operation on his head was conducted. Since the deceased could not recovered, he was discharged from the hospital on17.9.2010. He was still in coma. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to his native place in Nepal and was under continuous medical treatment and supervision. The deceased had died on 15.2.2011 and his death certificate was proved as Ex.PW3/2.
She stated that they had spent more than Rs.6,00,000/ on account of medical treatment, Rs.2,00,000/ on account of special diet, Rs.3,00,000/ on account of hospitalization expenses and Rs.1,00,000/ on account of his funeral expenses.
She stated that the deceased was 57 years of age at the time of accident and was having a good health and physic. He was earning Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 18/__ Rs.12,000/ per month from farming and other sources. She stated that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased and were dependent on the deceased.
She also proved the medical treatment and expenditure of her deceased husband Ex.PW3/1 (colly), death certificate of her husband Ex. PW3/2, discharge summary of her husband Ex. PW3/3, Nationality certificate of her husband Ex.PW3/4, the certificate regarding legal heirs of the deceased Ex.PW3/5. She also proved her nationality certificate Ex.PW3/6, her discharge summary Ex.PW3/7 and her medical bills Ex.PW3/8 (Colly).
On being cross examined by Sh. S.P. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 she admitted that the medical expenses bills which were filed by her are less than Rs.40,000/. She also admitted that she cannot produce any document that she is an expert of handicrafts work. She admitted that she is a housewife and 5th class pass.
On being cross examined by Ms. Kusum Bisht Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 she stated that she had remained admitted in the hospital for 10 days.
14. PW4 Smt. Manju Devi, (injured in Suit no. 593/10) tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/A and stated same facts about Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 19/__ the accident as deposed by PW1 Sh. Gauri Shankar Jha.
She also proved her discharge summary Ex.PW4/1, medical bills Ex.PW4/2(colly.), estimate for future surgery Ex.PW4/3, medical reports Ex.PW4/5 (colly) and her voter ICard Ex.PW4/6.
She further stated that she has spent Rs.1,50,000/ on account of her medical treatment, Rs.1,00,000/ on account of her special diet and Rs.50,000/ on account of her hospitalization expenses. She stated that she is still out door patient and needed major neuro operation in future due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The estimate for future surgery has been proved as Ex.PW4/3 which amounts Rs.2,50,000/ and Rs.1,00,000/ on removal of steel rod.
She also stated that she was about 40 years of age at the time of accident and was having a good health and physic. She was earning more than Rs.10,000/ from different sources apart from performing duty of prudent housewife. She further stated that her both hands are not working now and she is still totally dependent on others for daily routine work due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
On being cross examined by Sh. S.P. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 she admitted that the medical expenses bills which are filed by her are less than Rs.40,000/. She also admitted that she is not in service. She admitted that she cannot produce any document that Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 20/__ she was earning any extra income by doing the work of weaving khadi. She could not tell the date when she was discharged from the hospital.
On being cross examined by Ms. Kusum Bisht, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3, Insurance Company she stated that she had remained admitted in the hospital for 10 days.
15. Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed.
16. Respondents did not lead any evidence. Therefore, respondent's evidence was closed.
17. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. Counsel for petitioners as well as for the respondents. After hearing arguments and having gone through the record, I record my findings on issues settled as follows: ISSUE NO.1 IN ALL THE SIX CLAIM PETITIONS:
18. Whether the deceased Sh.
Ramdev Jha in Suit no. 597/10 had sustained fatal injuries and deceased Sh. Ram Iqbal Thakur in Suit No. 595/10 had died due of the injuries sustained by him and petitioner Ms. Manju Devi in Suit no.593/10, petitioner Sh. Gauri Shankar Jha in Suit No. 594/10, petitioner Sh. Shailesh Kumar in Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 21/__ Suit no. 596/10 and petitioner Ms. Pawan Devi in Suit No. 598/10 in an accident which took place on 04.8.2010 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no.HR38G2778 by respondent no.1?
The petitioners have filed on record certified copy of FIR as well as certified copies of the challan. Police investigation has concluded that the accident, in this case, has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 who is driver of the offending vehicle and who is accused in the criminal case filed by the police.
The postmortem report of the deceased Sh. Ramdev Jha, on the other hand, also reflects that the injuries are of the nature which could have been caused due to injuries sustained in road traffic accident.
PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 have also stated on oath that the accident in this case has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 as has been discussed above in the testimony of the PWs i.e. injured persons.
Therefore, issue no.1 is decided accordingly.
19.ISSUE NO.2 IN ALL THE SIX CLAIM PETITIONS.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to get any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 22/__ Onus to prove this issue was also on the petitioners. Since it has been clearly mentioned in the testimonies of the PWs that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased. No contrary evidence has been led by respondents to rebut the claim of petitioners. Therefore, testimonies of petitioners have remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
Since, issue no.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioners that the deceased persons Sh. Ramdev Jha and Sh. Ram Iqbal Thakur had died due to the injuries sustained by them in the accident and injured persons had received injuries with the offending vehicle, petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 597/10 wherin Sh.
20. Ramdev Jha had died.
LOSS OF FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY.
21. PW1 Sh. Gauri Shankar Jha, who is son of the deceased has stated that his father was 73 years of age at the time of accident and was doing business and was earning Rs.20,000/ per month from the business and other sources. However, he has not filed on record any document regarding the employment and earning of deceased. I am, therefore, inclined to consider minimum wages of unskilled labourer to assess the loss of income of the deceased.
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 23/__ It is settled in the case of Kanwar Devi Vs.Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi III (2008) ACC 134 and UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi, MAC. APP.No.310/2007 decided on 28/07/2008 that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate. The Court has taken the view that the minimum wages get doubled over the period of 10 years and increase in minimum wages is not akin to future prospects and the income should be computed by taking the average of minimum wages and its double.
At the time of death of deceased i.e. 04.08.2010, minimum wages of unskilled labourer were Rs.5,278/ (Round figure Rs.5,280/ per month).
Following the aforesaid judgment, the monthly income of the deceased will be Rs.5,280/ plus Rs.10,560/ divided by 1/2 which comes to Rs.7,920/ per month.
Petitioners are the parents of the deceased. In the judgment of New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Shanti Pathak reported as III (2007) ACC 505 (SC) it has been held that multiplier to be adopted is to be determined on the basis of age of claimant and not age of deceased.
As per the election card of the petitioner Sh. Mahender Jha who is son of deceased, his age is mentioned as 38 years on 01.01.1994. Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 24/__ Therefore, I am inclined to take the age of the son of the deceased to be 54 years as on the date of accident. Hence multiplier of 11 as per the Judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, CA 3483 of 2008, SC is to be applied.
As per Sarla Verma's Judgement, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses where the number of dependent family members are 2 to 3. Therefore, 1/3rd amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses in the present case Therefore, total loss of financial dependency accordingly will be Rs.7,920/ x 12 x 11 x 3/4 which comes to Rs.7,84,080/ LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.
25. No amount of compensation can compensate the loss of father to his children. No amount of money can wipe the tears, the trauma of the petitioners and the feeling that the petitioners must be feeling each day having lost their father. The Trauma is for the lifetime. Therefore, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.10,000/ to the petitioners for loss of love and affection.
FUNERAL EXPENSES.
22. Rs.5,000/ is awarded to the petitioners on account of funeral expenses.
LOSS TO ESTATE.
23. Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 25/__ I award Rs.10,000/ on account of loss to estate to petitioners. RELIEF.
26. In view of my finding on issue no.1 and 2, the petitioners are awarded following compensation in Suit no. 597/10: Loss of financial dependency Rs.7,84,080/ Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/ Loss to Estate Rs.10,000/ Total Rs.8,09,080/
29. Therefore, total compensation comes to Rs.8,09,080/. Petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 30.11.2010 till its realization.
Out of the said compensation, Petitioner no.1/Mahender Jha being son of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,04,540// with 7.5% interest as stated above. Out of said amount, Rs.50,000/ be given in cash to petitioner no.1 and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of five years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
30. Petitioner no.2/Gauri Shankar Jha being son of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,04,540// with 7.5% interest as stated above. Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 26/__ Out of said amount, Rs.50,000/ be given in cash to petitioner no.2 and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of five years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.2 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 593/10 wherein Ms.
22. Manju Devi has sustained injuries.
23. MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT.
As per discharge summary of Divyajyoti Specialities Hospital Ex.PW4/1 has remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 04.8.2010 to 18.8.2010. She had sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner has stated that she is still under treatment from different hospitals and is likely to continue the same in future also. She has filed medical bills in the sum of Rs.__________. Therefore, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs._____/ towards medical expenses to the petitioner.
24.LOSS OF WAGES.
The petitioner has stated that she was earning Rs.10,000/ per month by doing work of weaving Khadi. However, she has not filed on record any document regarding her employment and earning. I am, therefore, inclined to consider minimum wages of unskilled labourer to Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 27/__ assess the loss of income of the deceased.
It is settled in the case of Kanwar Devi Vs.Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi III (2008) ACC 134 and UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi, MAC. APP.No.310/2007 decided on 28/07/2008 that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate. The Court has taken the view that the minimum wages get doubled over the period of 10 years and increase in minimum wages is not akin to future prospects and the income should be computed by taking the average of minimum wages and its double.
At the time of death of deceased i.e. 04.08.2010, minimum wages of unskilled labourer were Rs.5,278/ (Round figure Rs.5,280/ per month).
Following the aforesaid judgment, the monthly income of the deceased will be Rs.5,280/ plus Rs.10,560/ divided by 1/2 which comes to Rs.7,920/ per month.
As per medical record of the petitioner, she has remained admitted in hospital for 14 days i.e. from 04.8.2010 to 18.8.2010. Considering the nature of injuries as sustained by the petitioner, she would not have been able to perform her weaving work for __. Therefore, I am inclined to give loss of wages to petitioner for _____ Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 28/__ which she had to take only because of the accident.
Therefore, the total loss of wages for ____ is Rs.7,920/ x __. Therefore, the total loss of wages for ___s is Rs.________.
25. PAIN AND SUFFERING.
The petitioner has suffered grievous injuries. Considering the prolonged treatment, I am inclined to grant Rs._____ towards pain and suffering to petitioner.
26. CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, I grant him a sum of Rs.______ conveyance and Rs.______ towards special diet to the petitioner.
27. RELIEF.
In view of my finding on issue no.1 and 2, the petitioner Ms. Manju Devi is awarded following compensation: Medicines and medical treatment Rs._____ Loss of wages Rs._______ Pain and Suffering Rs.________ Conveyance & Special Diet Rs.____________ Total Rs.________ Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 29/__
28. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs._________. Petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 30.11.2010 till its realization.
Out of the said compensation, a sum of Rs.__________ be given in cash to the petitioner and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of ___ years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable. Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 594/10 wherein Sh.
29. Gauri Shankar Jha has sustained injuries.
30. MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT.
As per discharge summary of Divyajyoti Specialities Hospital Ex.PW1/5 has remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 04.8.2010 to 15.8.2010. He had sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner has stated that he is still under treatment from different hospitals and is likely to continue the same in future also. He has filed medical bills in the sum of Rs.__________. Therefore, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs._____/ towards medical expenses to the petitioner.
31.LOSS OF WAGES.
The petitioner has stated that he was earning Rs.20,000/ per month by doing different work. However, he has not filed on record any Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 30/__ document regarding his employment and earning. I am, therefore, inclined to consider minimum wages of unskilled labourer to assess the loss of income of the deceased.
It is settled in the case of Kanwar Devi Vs.Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi III (2008) ACC 134 and UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi, MAC. APP.No.310/2007 decided on 28/07/2008 that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate. The Court has taken the view that the minimum wages get doubled over the period of 10 years and increase in minimum wages is not akin to future prospects and the income should be computed by taking the average of minimum wages and its double.
At the time of death of deceased i.e. 04.08.2010, minimum wages of unskilled labourer were Rs.5,278/ (Round figure Rs.5,280/ per month).
Following the aforesaid judgment, the monthly income of the deceased will be Rs.5,280/ plus Rs.10,560/ divided by 1/2 which comes to Rs.7,920/ per month.
As per medical record of the petitioner, he has remained admitted in hospital for 11 days i.e. from 04.8.2010 to 15.8.2010. Considering the nature of injuries as sustained by the petitioner, he would not have been Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 31/__ able to perform his work for __. Therefore, I am inclined to give loss of wages to petitioner for _____ which he had to take only because of the accident.
Therefore, the total loss of wages for ____ is Rs.7,920/ x __. Therefore, the total loss of wages for ___ is Rs.________.
32. PAIN AND SUFFERING.
The petitioner has suffered grievous injuries. Considering the prolonged treatment, I am inclined to grant Rs._____ towards pain and suffering to petitioner.
33. CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, I grant him a sum of Rs.______ conveyance and Rs.______ towards special diet to the petitioner.
34. RELIEF.
In view of my finding on issue no.1 and 2, the petitioner Sh. Gauri Shankar Jha is awarded following compensation: Medicines and medical treatment Rs._____ Loss of wages Rs._______ Pain and Suffering Rs.________ Conveyance & Special Diet Rs.____________ Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 32/__ Total Rs.________
35. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs._________. Petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 30.11.2010 till its realization.
Out of the said compensation, a sum of Rs.__________ be given in cash to the petitioner and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of ___ years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable. Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 595/10 wherein Sh.
36. Ram Iqbal Thakur has died.
MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT.
37. It is stated LOSS OF FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY.
38. PW3 Smt. Pawan Devi, who is wife of deceased has stated that his husband was 57 years of age at the time of accident and was doing farming work and was earning Rs.12,000/per month. However, he has not filed on record any document regarding the employment and earning of deceased. I am, therefore, inclined to consider minimum wages of unskilled labourer to assess the loss of income of the deceased.
It is settled in the case of Kanwar Devi Vs.Bansal Roadways, Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 33/__ 2008 ACJ 2182, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi III (2008) ACC 134 and UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi, MAC. APP.No.310/2007 decided on 28/07/2008 that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate. The Court has taken the view that the minimum wages get doubled over the period of 10 years and increase in minimum wages is not akin to future prospects and the income should be computed by taking the average of minimum wages and its double.
At the time of death of deceased i.e. 04.08.2010, minimum wages of unskilled labourer were Rs.5,278/ (Round figure Rs.5,280/ per month).
Following the aforesaid judgment, the monthly income of the deceased will be Rs.5,280/ plus Rs.10,560/ divided by 1/2 which comes to Rs.7,920/ per month.
Petitioners are the parents of the deceased. In the judgment of New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Shanti Pathak reported as III (2007) ACC 505 (SC) it has been held that multiplier to be adopted is to be determined on the basis of age of claimant and not age of deceased.
As per the discharge summary of the petitioner Smt Pawan Devi who is wife of deceased, her age is mentioned as 45 years. The petitioner has also stated in her affidavit that she is 45 years old. In the petition Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 34/__ also, her age has been mentioned as 45 years.. No other proof of age has been filed on record. Therefore, I am inclined to take the age of the wife of the deceased to be 45 years as on the date of accident. Hence multiplier of 14 as per the Judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, CA 3483 of 2008, SC is to be applied.
As per Sarla Verma's Judgement, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses where the number of dependent family members are 2 to 3. Therefore, 1/3rd amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses in the present case Therefore, total loss of financial dependency accordingly will be Rs.7,920/ x 12 x 14 x 3/4 which comes to Rs.9,97,920/. (round figure Rs.9,98,000/).
39. LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.
No amount of compensation can compensate the loss of husband to his wife and loss of father to his sons. No amount of money can wipe the tears, the trauma of the petitioners and the feeling that the petitioners must be feeling each day having lost their husband/father. The Trauma is for the lifetime. Therefore, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.10,000/ to the petitioners for loss of love and affection.
40. FUNERAL EXPENSES.
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 35/__ Rs.5,000/ is awarded to the petitioners on account of funeral expenses.
41. LOSS TO ESTATE.
I award Rs.10,000/ on account of loss to estate to petitioners.
42. RELIEF.
In view of my finding on issue no.1 and 2, the petitioners are awarded following compensation in Suit no.595/10: Medicines and medical treatment Rs._____________/ Loss of financial dependency Rs.9,98,000/ Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/ Loss to Estate Rs.10,000/ Total Rs.10,23,000/
43. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.__________. Petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 30.11.2010 till its realization.
44. Out of the said compensation, Petitioner no.1/Ms. Pawan Devi being wife of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs._____/ with 7.5% interest as stated above towards love and affection. Out of said amount, Rs.__________/ be given in cash to petitioner no.1 and remaining Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 36/__ amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of _____ years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
45. Petitioner no.2/Sh. Nilesh Kumar Thakur and 3/Sh. Shailesh Kmar Thakur being sons of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.______ each with 7.5% interest as stated above. Out of said amount, Rs._______/ be given in cash to petitioner no.2 and 3 and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of ________ years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.2 and 3 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
46. Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 596/10 wherein Sh. Shailesh Kumar has sustained injuries.
47. MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT.
As per discharge summary of Divyajyoti Specialities Hospital, petitioner has remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 04.8.2010 to 15.8.2010. He had sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner has stated that he is still under treatment from different hospitals and is likely to continue the same in future also. He has filed medical bills in the sum of Rs.__________. Therefore, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs._____/ Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 37/__ towards medical expenses to the petitioner.
48. LOSS OF WAGES The petitioner has stated that he was earning Rs.20,000/ per month by doing different work. However, he has not filed on record any document regarding his employment and earning. I am, therefore, inclined to consider minimum wages of unskilled labourer to assess the loss of income of the deceased.
It is settled in the case of Kanwar Devi Vs.Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi III (2008) ACC 134 and UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi, MAC. APP.No.310/2007 decided on 28/07/2008 that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate. The Court has taken the view that the minimum wages get doubled over the period of 10 years and increase in minimum wages is not akin to future prospects and the income should be computed by taking the average of minimum wages and its double.
At the time of death of deceased i.e. 04.08.2010, minimum wages of unskilled labourer were Rs.5,278/ (Round figure Rs.5,280/ per month).
Following the aforesaid judgment, the monthly income of the Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 38/__ deceased will be Rs.5,280/ plus Rs.10,560/ divided by 1/2 which comes to Rs.7,920/ per month.
As per medical record of the petitioner, he has remained admitted in hospital for 11 days i.e. from 04.8.2010 to 15.8.2010. Considering the nature of injuries as sustained by the petitioner, he would not have been able to perform his work for __. Therefore, I am inclined to give loss of wages to petitioner for _____ which he had to take only because of the accident.
Therefore, the total loss of wages for ____ is Rs.7,920/ x __. Therefore, the total loss of wages for ___ is Rs.________.
49. PAIN AND SUFFERING.
The petitioner has suffered grievous injuries. Considering the prolonged treatment, I am inclined to grant Rs._____ towards pain and suffering to petitioner.
50. CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, I grant him a sum of Rs.______ conveyance and Rs.______ towards special diet to the petitioner.
51. RELIEF.
In view of my finding on issue no.1 and 2, the petitioner Sh. Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 39/__ Shailesh kumar is awarded following compensation: Medicines and medical treatment Rs._____ Loss of wages Rs._______ Pain and Suffering Rs.________ Conveyance & Special Diet Rs.____________ Total Rs.________
52. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs._________. Petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 30.11.2010 till its realization.
Out of the said compensation, a sum of Rs.__________ be given in cash to the petitioner and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of ___ years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable. Coming to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 598/10 wherein Ms.
53. Pawan Devi has sustained injuries.
54. MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT.
55.LOSS OF WAGES.
56. PAIN AND SUFFERING.
57. CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET.
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 40/__
58. RELIEF.
31. Respondent no.1 being driver, respondent no. 2 being owner and respondent no.3 being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severely liable to make the payment of compensation to petitioners.
Respondents No.3, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount with the Nazir of the Court within 30 days. Insurance Company/driver/owner are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, the notice of the deposit to the claimants and the calculation of interest in the Court within 30 days from today.
In case the Insurance Company fails to do so, General Manager of Insurance Company will file reason for noncompliance.
In case of further delay the Insurance Company will deposit the cheque alongwith the cost of Rs.5,000/ without any further directions as per Judgment of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688. Nazir will report to the undersigned if the cheques in this case are not received within 30 days of passing of this Judgement. Nazir to note the particulars of the award amount etc. in his register today. Copy of the order be given dasti to respondent no.3 for compliance and copy of this order and information be also sent to General Manager of Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 41/__ Insurance Company.
The petitioners will file two sets of photographs alongwith their specimen signatures. The same shall be retained in the Court for future reference. The photographs be got stamped and be sent to the Court as and when ordered. The proof of residence and details of the bank account be also provided by the petitioners within seven days to the Nazir.
31. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (SWARANA K.SHARMA)
on 24.12.2010 JUDGE:MACT: CENTRAL DISTT. :
DELHI
Attested copy prepared by the Reader
and given to the Ahlmad today itself.
Suit No.597/10, 593/10, 594/10, 595/10, 596/10 & 598/10 Page 42/__