Delhi District Court
Versha Mehta vs . Gurpreet Singh & Ors. on 5 July, 2022
BEFORE THE COURT OF SH. SURINDER S. RATHI, LD. PO
MACT-II, WEST, THC, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-002179-2015
Petition No.77118/2016
FIR No.516/2014
PS Tilak Nagar
U/s 279/338 IPC, 3/181 MV Act
Harender Kumar Mehta (Now expired)
through his LRs
1. Versha Mehta (Widow of the Deceased)
aged about 77 years(Present)
W/o late Sh. Harender Kumar Mehta
R/o 13/33-A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
Also at
13/27B, 2nd floor, Tilak Nagar New Delhi
2. Monika Chawla(Daughter of the deceased)
aged 50 years
W/o Sh. Aman Chawla
D/o late Sh. Harender Kumar Mehta
R/o C-193, First Floor, Block-C
Vikaspuri, New Delhi.
3. Sonika Sharma(Daughter of the deceased)
aged 47 years
W/o Sh. Ajay Sharma
D/o Late Sh. Harender Kumar Mehta
R/o B-30. B-12, Tilak Nagar New Delhi
4. Shilpa Kathpalia(Daughter of the deceased)
aged 44 years
W/o Sh. Neeraj Kathpalia
D/o Late Sh. Harender Kumar Mehta
R/o 5/111, GF Sector-11,
Rohini Sector-7, Delhi
5. Neha Kalra (Daughter of the deceased)
aged 40 years
Petition no. 77118/2016 page 1 of 21
Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
W/o Sh. Tarun Kalra
D/o Late Sh. Harender Kumar Mehta
R/o EC-131, Maya Enclave,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi
......Petitioners
V/s
1. Gurpreet Singh(Driver)
S/o Sh. Charanjeet Singh
R/o A-10, Gali No.26, Chander
Vihar Extension, New Delhi
2 Charanjeet Singh(Owner)
s/o Sh. Karam Singh
R/o A-10, Gali No.26, Chander
Vihar Extension, New Delhi
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
Office at: 414, Veer Savarkar Marg
Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Mumbai
......Respondents
Date of Institution : 11.03.2015
Date of arguments : 05.07.2022
Date of pronouncement : 05.07.2022
Petition no. 77118/2016 page 2 of 21
Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
AWAR D
1. This claim petition has been filed under Section 140 MV Act for
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- by the LRs of Injured Harender
Kumar Mehta.
Brief Facts of the Case:
2. Facts of the case of the claimant and as per facts borne out of the DAR available on record are that injured Harender Kumar Mehta, aged about 71 years was hit by a motorcycle on 16.05.2014 at around 4 PM when he was standing in front of his house in Tilak Nagar. He suffered injuries in the accident which led to registration of FIR bearing no. 516/2014 under Section 279/337 IPC.
3. Injured Harender Kumar Mehta remained under treatment intermittently up to 05.07.2014, the date he expired at Jaipur Golden Hospital.
4. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents who filed their separate written statements. Prosecution maintained that injured Harender Kumar Mehta did not die of injuries caused in this accident and hence the chargesheet was only under Section 279/338 IPC. Issues:
5. Out of the pleadings and material found on record the following issues are identified by Ld. Predecessor on 03.02.2016:
1) Whether the deceased Harender Kumar Mehta died due to the injuries suffered by him on 16.05.2014, at about 4.00 PM in front of H. No. 13/33-A, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, in a vehicular accident involving a vehicle, bearing Registration No.DL-
10-SG-5759, due to wrongful act or negligence of respondent no. 1 Sh. Gurpreet Singh, who was driving the vehicle? OPP Petition no. 77118/2016 page 3 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the amount and who would be liable to pay?
3) Relief Evidence led by parties
6. Widow of deceased Harender Kumar Mehta namely Smt. Verhsa Mehta examined herself as PW1, PW2 is Dr. Rakesh Kumar Chawla of Jaipur Golden Hospital, PW3 is Dr. Ranjeet Gandhi, Kalra Hospital. Respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W1. Respondent no. 3 Insurance Company examined Sh. Gautam Bhatnagar as R3W1.
7. I have heard Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Sh. S K Sharma, Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company and perused the case file carefully.
Discussion and Findings on Issues:
8. My findings on the issues are as under:
Issue No. 1Whether the deceased Harender Kumar Mehta died due to the injuries suffered by him on 16.05.2014, at about 4.00 PM in front of H. No. 13/33-A, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, in a vehicular accident involving a vehicle, bearing Registration No.DL-10-SG-5759, due to wrongful act or negligence of respondent no. 1 Sh. Gurpreet Singh, who was driving the vehicle? OPP Case as per Chargesheet:
9. According to the chargesheet and the statement given by Injured Harender Kumar Mehta to the police is that on 16.05.2014 at around 4 PM when he was standing in front of his house on the opposite side of the lane, Respondent no. 1 Gurpreet Singh, a sardar boy, came on red colour Honda motorcycle bearing no. DL-10SG-5759 at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit him. As a result of the impact he fell down on the road. Police was called by some passerby.
Petition no. 77118/2016 page 4 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
He was shifted initially to Family Hospital, Shahpura but was thereafter sent to Kalra Hospital. Initially the injuries were opined simple and hence FIR was registered under Section 279/337 IPC. During the investigation it was found that R1 Gurpreet Singh was not having a valid driving licence and as such offence of Section 3/181 MV Act was added. The injuries sustained by Harender Kumar Mehta were opined to be grievous and accordingly chargesheet was filed under Section 279/338 IPC.
Case of the Claimant:
10. According to the petition filed and the evidence led by way of affidavit, the claim petition was filed by 5 LRs of the deceased including his widow and four daughters. They have reiterated the police case as far as incident in question is concerned. They have added that Harender Kumar Mehta was initially admitted to Kalra Hospital from 16.05.2014 to 22.05.2014. He was admitted to Kalra Hospital between 27.05.2014 to 05.06.2014. Since they were not satisfied with the treatment he was admitted at Jaipur Golden Hospital on 06.06.2014 up to 03.07.2014. He was readmitted to Jaipur Golden Hospital on 04.07.2014 and that he breathe his last on
05.07.2014. In her deposition as PW1 Versha Mehta(widow) filed her affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A. She has relied on the following documents:
i. Photocopy of MLC and discharge summary in the name of Harender Kumar Mehta issued by Kalra Hospital is Mark A; ii. Photocopy of discharge summary in the name of Harender Kumar Mehta issued by Kalra Hospital is Mark B;
iii. Case summary issued by Jaipur Golden Hospital is Ex.PW1/1; iv. Certified copy of admission form issued by Jaipur Golden Hospital is Petition no. 77118/2016 page 5 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
Ex.PW1/2;
v. Photocopies of treatment record of Harender Kumar Mehta is Mark C; vi. Treatment record of Harender Kumar Mehta is Ex.PW1/3; vii. Death summary of Harender Kumar Mehta is Ex.PW1/4; viii. Bill summary is Mark X;
ix. Medical treatment bills amounting to Rs.1,84.,368/- is Ex.PW1/5; x. Photocopy of High School Certificate of Harender Kumar Mehta is Ex.PW1/6;
xi. Photocopy of graduation certificate of Harender Kumar Mehta is Ex.PW1/7;
xii. Photocopy of her voter identity card is Ex.PW1/8; xiii. Photocopy of Surviving member certificate issued by SDM, West District, Delhi is Ex.PW1/9.
xiv.DAR is collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/10.
11.It is claimed that they have spent Rs.1,84,368/- in the treatment of her husband. It is case of the claimant that Harender Kumar Mehta died during the treatment post the injuries received by him during the accident. It is their case that he was having a sound health and would have continued to live up to the age of 90 years.
12.It is claimed that he was graduate and used to take private tuitions and was earning around Rs.15,000/- per month. It is their case that they have spent Rs.50,000/- as his funeral expenses.
13. It is interesting to observe that two affidavits-in-chief have been filed by Smt. Versha Mehta and the second affidavit is shown to be Ex.PW1/X but there is no separate reference of this affidavit in the deposition recorded in the Court. In this second affidavit which was filed prior in time, it is mentioned that Harender Kumar Mehta was getting around at Rs.19,520/- pension from Central Tibetan School Petition no. 77118/2016 page 6 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
Administration at Rohini. There is also a reference that the deceased was having benefit of Delhi Government Employees Health Scheme (DGHS) and the treatment expenses were directly claimed by Kalra Hospital and Jaipur Golden Hospital from Delhi Government. It is, however, mentioned that an additional amount of Rs.1,96,039/- was spent by them qua which bills were filed. In her cross-examination she has stated that her husband was a heart patient and had even underwent a bypass surgery. Although she has already stated in her affidavit that his treatment was covered by Delhi Government Employees Health Scheme (DGHS) but when she was suggested the same she denied this suggestion. She stated that her husband die due to respiratory failure followed by cardiac arrest.
14.PW2 is Dr. Rakesh Kumar Chawla, Jaipur Golden Hospital. He deposed that when the injured was admitted in their hospital he had renal injury in the left side with Pneumonia. There was accumulation of water in the lungs and abdomen. As per him Harender Kumar Mehta died of renal infection with uricemia apart from septic shock with respiratory failure. He too accepted that Harender Kumar Mehta had a history of Coronary Artery Disease for last 7 years.
15.PW3 is Dr. Ranjeet Gandhi, Kalra Hospital. He stated that Harender Kumar Mehta was admitted in their hospital on 16.05.2014 at 05.43 PM. He was admitted with multiple CLWs and abrasions on his forehead apart from a CLW on the left knee. He was given orthopedics dressing. The treatment record is proved as Ex.PW3/A. X-Ray Chest and kidney function test was carried out at the time was found to be within normal range. He stated that then this patient was discharged from Kalra Hospital his condition was stable.
Petition no. 77118/2016 page 7 of 21
Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
Case of the respondents:-
16. R1 Gurpreet Singh examined himself as R1W1 in his affidavitin chief Ex.R1W1/A. He denied that he was driving the offending vehicle causing any accident or the injuries. As per him the injuries were minor abrasions and was simple in nature and were caused as now deceased Harender Kumar Mehta was crossing the road following traffic rules. He stated that the motorcycle could not have been driven at a fast speed as the spot was a congested area. He stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. He also accepted that he did not lodge any complaint qua claimed false implication. He accepted that he was not having any valid driving licence at that time and that is why he is chargesheeted under Section 3/181 MV Act.
17.R3/Insurance company examined Sh. Gautam Bhatnagar as R3W1 who proved the insurance policy. He stated that the driver of the motorcycle was not having any driving licence. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
18.In so far as the FIR was registered under Section 279/337 IPC and chargesheet filed under Section 279/338 IPC, even though filed several months after the death of injured Harender Kumar Mehta, it is evident that according to the police the death was not caused as a result of the injuries sustained during the accident.
19.Ld. counsel for claimant/petitioner submits that the injured never became normal and he died of complications caused by the accidental injuries. He, however, accepted during the arguments that neither any intimation of death of Harender Kumar Mehta was given to the IO nor any postmortem was conducted. He stressed on the deposition of Petition no. 77118/2016 page 8 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
PW2 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Chawla and PW3 Dr. Ranjeet Gandhi but as discussed supra neither of these two witnesses have categorically stated that the accidental injuries were the cause of death.
20.In case titled as Pushpendra Singh Vs. Samay Singh@ Tofani & Ors, I (2007) ACC 793 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has categorically ruled out that onus to prove the death of deceased was caused by accidental injuries always remains on the claimant. Hon'ble High Court further observed as under:
"6....In my opinion, it is for the claimant to establish that the death of deceased occurred due to the injuries sustained by them in an accident. In the absence of postmortem report or medical certificate no presumption could be drawn about the cause of death. To make vehicle owner and the Insurance Company liable for compensation the claimant has to establish that the driver had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused accident that resulted into the death of deceased. Unless burden is discharged, the claim petitions cannot succeed."
The law in this regard is settled.
21.In the light of the above judgment, the primary onus of proving the proximate connection between the cause of death, the death and the accident has to be primarily established by the claimant alone. In the case in hand not only there is no PostMortem Report available but the deposition of two Doctors nowhere conclusively show that the patient died due to accidental injury. Moreover, Harender Kumar Mehta was aged 71 years and had undergone bypass surgery. He was discharged from the hospital thrice before he died on 05.07.2014. Evidently, the medical condition which led to his death are renal infection and uricemia apart from septic shock and respiratory failure, which are apparently not directly relatable to the Petition no. 77118/2016 page 9 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
blunt accidental injuries which as per PW3 Dr. Ranjeet Gandhiwas superficial in nature. As mentioned supra as per PW3, the chest and the kidney function of deceased was absolutely within the normal range. Hence, I have no hesitation in concluding that the claimants have failed to discharge the onus of proving this issue as far as the aspect of their claim that Harender Kumar Mehta died because of injuries sustained in the accident.
22.Perusal of DAR which is admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of Motor Accident Tribunal Rules 2008, also supports the version of claimants/LRs of deceased as far as rash and negligent driving of motorcycle in question by R1 Gurpreet Singh Driver and the fact that the accident was caused in the manner stated.
23.It is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition u/s 166 & 140 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 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 140 of the M.V Act.
24.Nevertheless, it is also a settled legal position that in a claim petition u/s 166 of the M. V. Act, burden is on the claimants/petitioners to prove negligence. The law to this effect declared in Minu B Mehta Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SC 441 was reiterated Petition no. 77118/2016 page 10 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Variyal 2007 (5) SCC 428, which has been followed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devki & Ors., MAC APP 165/2013 decided on 29.02.2016.
25.Having so concluded, material available on record shows that he had met with an accident and suffered grievous injuries as detailed supra. Accordingly, the claimants have been successfully in establishing that now deceased Harender Kumar Mehta had suffered grievous injuries in this accident. Hence, issue no. 1 is answered in favour of claimants/LRs of deceased and against the respondents with the above order.
26. Findings on Issue no. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the amount and who would be liable to pay?
Decision of issue no. 1 entitles the claimants to seek compensation.
27.In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
5 The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to Petition no. 77118/2016 page 11 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
6. the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary Damages (special damages) (I) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment.
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Damages (general damages)
(iv) Damages to pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (I), (ii), (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads
(ii), (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
Pecuniary Damages Expenses relating to Treatment, Hospitalization and Medicines
28.As detailed supra, claimant not has filed 2 affidavits-in-chief. There are contradictory stands taken therein. In affidavit-in-chief Ex.PW1/X it is accepted that injured Harender Kumar Mehta was getting around Rs.19,520/- per month and that his medical expenses were taken care of by Delhi Govt. at Kalra Hospital and Jaipur Golden Hospital but in the affidavit-in-chief Ex.PW1/A, both these facts have been concealed and nothing denied.
29.As far as medical expenses are concerned it has come on record that several bills and payment receipts have been placed on record with the plea that not all the bills were paid by DGHS. In this regard, Sh. S Petition no. 77118/2016 page 12 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
K Sharma Ld. Counsel for R3/Insurance Company has rightly pointed out that in most of the medical documents, there is a specific mention that treatment of Harender Kumar Mehta was sponsored by Delhi Government Employees Health Scheme(DGHS) be that as it mean, the several original paid bills available on record collectively is Ex.PW1/5 show that they are original bills and are shown to have been paid by Harender Kumar Mehta either by cash or by way of credit card. This amount is collectively said to be Rs.1,84,368/-. So LRs of the deceased are entitled to Rs.1,84,368/-towards Treatment, Hospitalization and Medicines.
Expenses towards Conveyance and Food (special diet):
30.According to treatment record filed, the injured Harender Kumar Mehta had undergone regular treatment. He must have incurred expenditure on transportation for making visit to different hospitals. He would have also required special diet during treatment. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 35,000/- towards Special Diet and Rs. 35,000/- towards Conveyance would be just and fair compensation to the claimants.
Attendant Charges
31.Though the petitioner has not produced on record any document to show employment of any attendant in DTC vs. Lalit, AIR 1981 Delhi 558, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that the victim is entitled to compensation even if no attendant is hired as some family member renders gratuitous services.
Keeping in view the injury suffered by the Harender Kumar Mehta, body parts involved, period of hospitalization and duration of Petition no. 77118/2016 page 13 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
treatment, he would have required assistance of a family member. Therefore, petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation of Rs. 35,000/- towards Attendant charges.
Loss of earning during the period of treatment:
32. As mentioned supra, Harender Kumar Mehta was receiving pension of around Rs.19,520/-. Although it is claimed that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from tuitions but no specific evidence in this regard has been filed. In so far as the factum of earning of pension was concealed in the subsequent evidence, no payment in the name of loss of tuition fees is being allowed to him. So claimants are not entitled to Loss of earning during the period of treatment. Funeral Expenses
33.It has already been concluded that the claimants have failed to discharge the onus of acting the death of Harender Kumar Mehta with the accident in question. A contradictory claim has been raised in the name of funeral expenses in Ex.PW1/X Rs.1,00,000/- has been claimed but in the second affidavit Ex.PW1/A Rs.50,000/- has been claimed. In the light of the above claimants are not entitled to get any compensation under this head.
Non-Pecuniary Damages (General Damages) Pain, Sufferings & Loss of Amenities
34.While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain vs. Jai Kisan, FAO No: 709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:
12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must Petition no. 77118/2016 page 14 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of the treatment As discussed supra, injured Harender Kumar Mehta was aged 71 years and was a heart patient and he got injured and sustained injuries in the accident. He remained hospitalized for a considerable period of time and underwent heart surgery. He would have suffered pain and suffering to a large extent. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that Rs.45,000/- would be just and fair compensation towards Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities.
In case title Benson George Vs. Reliance General InsuranceCompany Limited Civil APP 1540 of 2022 decided on 25.02.2022 Hon'ble Supreme Court while maintaining that the injured is entitled to reasonable interest of the compensation amount not only during the pendency of the case but also post the award in case of delay in payment awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the award amount interest 6% pendtlite and interest of 7.5% per annum in case of non-payment within 4 weeks.
However in this case, considering the latest base interest awarded by the nationalized banks witness is awarded interest @ 6 % per annum and 7.5% per annum in case of non-payment within 30 days. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal award compensation as tabulated hereunder:-
S No. Heads of Compensation Amount
1. Expenses relating to treatment, Rs.1,84,368/-
hospitalization and medicines
2. Expenses towards conveyance Rs.35,000/-
3. Expenses towards food (special Rs.35,000/-
diet)
4. Attendant charges Rs.35,000/-
Petition no. 77118/2016 page 15 of 21
Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
5. Loss of earning during the period Nil
of treatment
6. Pain, sufferings and loss of Rs.45,000/-
amenities
Total Rs.3,34,368/-
Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs.3,34,368/- (compensation awarded) plus Rs.1,46,975.35/-(interest for the period concerned) i.e Rs.4,81,343.35/- (rounded off to Rs.4,81,346/-) APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY/ MODE OF PAYMENT AND DISBURSEMENT S.No Name of petitioners Relationship with Share in the award deceased amount 1 Versha Mehta Daughter 40%(Rs.1,92,538/) 2 Monika Chawla Daughter 15%(Rs.72,202/) 3 Sonika Sharma Daughter 15%(Rs.72,202 /) 4 Shilpa Kathpalia Daughter 15%(Rs.72,202 /) 5 Neha Kalra Daughter 15%(Rs.72,202 /) Relief:
35. In view of about findings on Issues no. 1 & 2, this Tribunal award an amount of Rs.4,81,346 to the claimants. Claimants are also entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e on 11.03.2015 till its realization. Amount of interim award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount. Liability
36.In case titled Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Petition no. 77118/2016 page 16 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
Company Ltd. (2019) 7 SCC 217 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed if the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle as per "pay and recover" principle. R1 Gurpreet Singh being Driver of the offending vehicle, R2 Charanjeet Singh and R3 ICICI Lombard Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the above award amount of Rs.4,81,346/-.
Right of Recovery to Insurance Company
37.In the case in hand it is specifically mentioned that the Driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence at the time of accident. So the Insurance Company is entitled to right of recovery of the compensation amount as against R1 Gurpreet Singh Driver and R2 Charanjeet Singh. R3/insurance company is directed to compensate claimants/LRs of deceased coupled with right to recovery from R1 Gurpreet Singh and R2 Charanjeet Singh. R1 Gurpreet Singh(Driver) and R2 Charanjeet Singh(Owner) and R3/Insurance Company are directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.4,81,346/- within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's nameMotor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 West, A/C No. 40714429271, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the claimants and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Petition no. 77118/2016 page 17 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 6% per annum, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum for the period of delay.
38.Out of the total award amount of Rs.4,81,346/- the apportioned amount be released to the claimants/LRs of deceased in their saving bank accounts in nationalised bank immediately.
39.Petitioners/claimants shall open an account in SBI, Tis Hazari Branch Delhi. Manager of the Bank shall comply and release the reward amount to the petitioner in terms of the award.
40. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 08.01.2021. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case.
41. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 16.09.2022.
42. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
43. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.07.2022 (Surinder S. Rathi) PO MACT-II (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/05.07.2022 Petition no. 77118/2016 page 18 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
FORM-IV B SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : - 16.05.2014
2. Name of the injured : --- Harender Kumar Mehta
3. Age of the injured : --- 71 years(now expired)
4. Occupation of the injured: ---- Nil
5. Income of the injured : ---- Nil
6. Nature of injury : --- Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : --- 16.05.2014
8. Period of treatment : ---- 16.05.2014 to 05.07.2014
9. Whether any permanent disability: NA If yes, give details :
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure relating to Rs.1,84,368/-
treatment, hospitalization and
medicines
(ii) Expenditure towards Rs.35,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure towards food Rs.35,000/-
(special diet)
(iv) Attendant charges Rs. 35,000/-
(v) Loss of earning during period NA
of treatment
(vii) Any other loss which may NA
Petition no. 77118/2016 page 19 of 21
Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
require any special treatment
or aid to the injured for the
rest of his life
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Nil
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering and loss of Rs.45,000/-
amenities
(iii) Disfiguration N.A.
(iv) Loss of marriage prospects N.A.
(v) Loss of earning, N.A
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability NA
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A.
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Loss of future earning due NA
to disability
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.3,34,368/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 6% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the date Rs.1,46,975.35/-
of award
17. Total amount including Rs.4,81,343.35/-(rounded off to interest Rs.4,81,346/-)
18. Award amount released Award amount Petition no. 77118/2016 page 20 of 21 Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
19. Award amount kept in FDRs NA
20. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant
(s).
21. Next date for compliance of Mentioned in the award the award.
(Surinder S. Rathi)
PO MACT-II (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/05.07.2022
Petition no. 77118/2016 page 21 of 21
Versha Mehta Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.