Munesh Ors vs Mohd. Zubair Ors on 28 February, 2025

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Munesh Ors vs Mohd. Zubair Ors on 28 February, 2025

        IN THE COURT OF MS. MAYURI SINGH
                PRESIDING OFFICER:
     MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, EAST,
          KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________

In the matters of:
(i) MACT No.757/19
   Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

(ii) MACT No.758/19
   Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr.

(iii) MACT No.763/19
     Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

(iv) MACT No.786/19
   Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.


                                 MACT No. 757/2019

(i) Munesh
    W/o- Sh. Inder Singh
(ii) Inder Singh
     S/o Sh. Rajender
     Both R/o- H.No.1038, Jhutiya Mohalla, Badoli, Barauli,
     (149), Palwal, Haryana-121102.

                                                                    ......Petitioners
                                             Versus

1. Md. Zubair (Driver)
   S/o Sh. Julfikar Ali
   R/o 470/2, Nagliya Akil
   Tehsil Sadar,
   Rampur-244027, U.P.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer of Canter)
  506-507, 5th Floor,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr. MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 1 of 56

Pragati Deep Building Laxmi Nagar, District Centre New Delhi-110092

3. Satpal Singh (Registered owner of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488) S/o- Sh. Bhiki R/o- Village Basantpur Faridabad, Haryana-121003

4. LRs of Driver, Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar (deceased) (Driver of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488)

(i) Pooja Nagar, W/o-Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(ii) Arjun Awana, S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(iii) Shubh Awana, S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(iv) Jag Roshni, W/o- Sh. Satpal Singh

(v) Sh. Satpal Singh, W/o- Sh. Bhiki Singh All R/o- H.No. 1/6903, Azad Gali, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, S.O., East Delhi, Delhi-110032

5. Go Digit GIC Ltd. (Insurer of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488) Smartworks Business Center Nyati Unitree, West Wingh 1st Floor, Samrat Ashok Road Yerawada, Pune-411006 ....Respondents MACT No. 758/2019

1. Pooja Nagar W/o Late Sh. Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

2. Arjun Awana S/o- Late Sh. Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

3. Shubh Awana S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

4. Jag Roshni, W/o- Sh. Satpal Singh

5. Sh. Satpal Singh, W/o- Sh. Bhiki Singh

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr. MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 2 of 56

All R/o- H.No. 1/6903, Azad Gali, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, S.O. East Delhi, Delhi-110032 ......Petitioners Versus

1. Md. Zubair (Driver-cum-owner of Canter No.UK-06CA-6124) S/o Sh. Julfikar Ali R/o 470/2, Nagliya Akil Tehsil Sadar,Rampur-244027, U.P.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.

   (Insurer of Canter No. UK-06CA-6124)
   506-507, 5th Floor,
   Pragati Deep Building
   Laxmi Nagar, District Centre
   New Delhi-110092                                                      ....Respondents



                                 MACT No. 763/2019

1. Prince Kumar Bansla
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o Kushak Badauli
Palwal, Haryana-12102
                                                               ............Petitioner
Versus

1. Md. Zubair (Driver)
   S/o Sh. Julfikar Ali
   R/o 470/2, Nagliya Akil
   Tehsil Sadar,
   Rampur-244027, U.P.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.

(Insurer of Canter No. UK-06CA-6124) 506-507, 5th Floor, Pragati Deep Building Laxmi Nagar, District Centre

Page 3 of 56

New Delhi-110092

3. Satpal Singh (Registered owner of Vehicle No. HR-51AY- 9488) S/o- Sh. Bhiki R/o- Village Basantpur Faridabad, Haryana-121003

4. LRs of Driver, Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar (deceased) (Driver of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488)

(i) Pooja Nagar, W/o-Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(ii) Arjun Awana, S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(iii) Shubh Awana, S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(iv) Jag Roshni, W/o- Sh. Satpal Singh

(v) Sh. Satpal Singh, W/o- Sh. Bhiki Singh All R/o- H.No. 1/6903, Azad Gali, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, S.O., East Delhi, Delhi-110032

5. Go Digit GIC Ltd. (Insurer of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488) Smartworks Business Center Nyati Unitree, West Wingh 1st Floor, Samrat Ashok Road Yerawada, Pune-411006 ....Respondents MACT No. 786/2019

1. Rashmi W/o Late Sh. Vineet Awana

2. Sushant W/o Late Sh. Vineet minor aged about 3 years

3. Poonam Awana W/o- Sh. Kuwarpal Awana

4. Kuwar Pal S/o- Sh. Bhikki All R/o 77/3, Near Haunman Mandir, Basantpur, Sector-91, Faridabad, Haryana-121013.

......Petitioners Versus

1. Md. Zubair (Driver)

Page 4 of 56

S/o Sh. Julfikar Ali R/o 470/2, Nagliya Akil Tehsil Sadar, Rampur-244027, U.P.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.

(Insurer of Canter No. UK-06CA-6124) 506-507, 5th Floor, Pragati Deep Building Laxmi Nagar, District Centre New Delhi-110092

3. Satpal Singh (Registered owner of Vehicle No. HR-51AY- 9488) S/o- Sh. Bhiki R/o- Village Basantpur Faridabad, Haryana-121003

4. LRs of Driver, Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar (deceased) (Driver of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488)

(i) Pooja Nagar, W/o-Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(ii) Arjun Awana, S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(iii) Shubh Awana, S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(iv) Jag Roshni, W/o- Sh. Satpal Singh

(v) Sh. Satpal Singh, W/o- Sh. Bhiki Singh All R/o- H.No. 1/6903, Azad Gali, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, S.O., East Delhi, Delhi-110032

5. Go Digit GIC Ltd. (Insurer of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488) Smartworks Business Center Nyati Unitree, West Wingh 1st Floor, Samrat Ashok Road Yerawada, Pune-411006 ....Respondents Date of Institution : 30.08.2019 Date of reserve of order : Not reserved Date of pronouncement : 28.02.2025

Page 5 of 56

AWAR D

1. By this common award, three claim petitions bearing MACP Nos. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19 based on claim petitions filed by the injured victim Prince Bansla and LRs of the deceased victims namely Late Sachin @ Sachin Bainsla and Late Vinit Awana, seeking compensation under Sections 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising out of the same accident, would be decided. Further, by this common award, the claim Case bearing no. 758/19, under Section 166 MV Act, relating to death of Pradeep Kumar, the driver of victim vehicle, is also being decided. It is to mention here that while according to averments in claim petitions MACP Nos. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19, the accident took place due to composite negligence of R1 i.e. charge-sheeted accused and deceased Pradeep Kumar i.e. driver of victim vehicle, in juxtaposition to it, according to facts in claim petition MACP no. 758/19 Titled Pooja Nagar Vs Mohd. Zubair and Anr., the accident was solely attributable to the driver of offending vehicle i.e. Canter/Mini Truck, half open body (as per description in the registration Certificate) bearing registration no. UK-06CA-6124.

2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the claim petitions bearing MACP Nos. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19 are that on 07.08.2019 at about 09:15 p.m., victims namely Sh. Sachin @ Sachin Bainsla, Prince Bansala and Vineet were going in vehicle bearing No. HR-51AY-9488 being driven by Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar from Palwal to Sonipat. Deceased Pradeep @ Pardeep

Page 6 of 56

Kumar was driving the vehicle at a very high speed and in most rash and negligent manner and despite the occupants of the vehicle having asked Pradeep to drive the vehicle at a slow speed, he continued to drive the vehicle at very high speed. When all of them reached peripheral highway, Delhi Baghpat Crossing, an Eicher Canter bearing No. UK-06CA-6124 came from the wrong side at a very high speed and being driven in most rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle bearing No.HR-51AY-9488, resulting in serious injuries to all of them. All of the injured were removed to District Hospital, Baghpat. The driver of the vehicle bearing No. HR-51AY-9488 as well as occupants Vineet and Sachin died on the way to hospital. Injured Prince was admitted to Apollo Hospital.

3. The facts as stated in the claim petition no. 758/2019, titled Pooja Nagar vs Mohd. Zubair and Anr., are that on 07.08.2019, deceased Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar alongwith deceased Sachin, Prince and deceased Vineet were travelling in Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488 from Palwal to Sonipat and when they reached on peripheral highway, Delhi Baghpat Crossing, an Eicher Canter bearing No. UK-06CA-6124, came from the wrong side at a very high speed and being driven in most rash and negligent manner and Canter hit the vehicle bearing No. HR-51AY-9488, resulting in serious injuries to all of the occupants of the vehicle bearing No. HR-51AY-9488. All of the injured were removed to Dist. Hospital, Baghpat. The driver of the vehicle bearing No. HR-51AY-9488 as well as occupants

Page 7 of 56

Vineet and Sachin died on the way to hospital. Injured Prince was admitted to Apollo Hospital.

4. Case FIR No. 615/19, PS- Baghpat was registered on the complaint given by informant Ramkesh (Uncle of deceased Pradeep @ Ashu, S/o- Sh. Satyapal) with allegation that on 07.08.2019, Pradeep @ Ashu were going from Palwal to Sonipat on his Duster vehicle bearing No. HR-51AY-9488 alongwith Sachin ,Vineet and Prince seated in his vehicle and at about 09:15 p.m., when the deceased Pradeep reached on Peripheral Highway, Delhi Baghpat Crossing, an Eicher Canter bearing No. UK-06CA-6124 came from the wrong side, while being driven at a fast speed and in a negligent manner and hit the vehicle of Pradeep & all of the occupants of the vehicle, including driver Pradeep were severely injured and, further that while Pradeep, Vineet and Sachin died on way to the District hospital, injured Prince was referred to higher Centre and that Duster Car was also damaged. During investigation, it was found that the accident was caused by the said offending vehicle/Canter (mini truck, half open body), being driven by respondent No.1/Md. Zubair in a rash and negligent manner and he was charge-sheeted in the case.

5. Notice of the claim petitions (MACP No. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19) were issued to all the five respondents i.e. driver-cum-owner namely Md. Zubair and insurance company namely Shri Ram GIC of the offending Eicher Canter bearing No. UK-06CA-6124 and LRs of deceased driver Pradeep (namely Pooja Nagar, Arjun Awana, Subh Awana, Jag Roshni and

Page 8 of 56

Satpal Singh), registered owner of Duster Car namely Satpal Singh and Insurer/GO Digit Insurance company Ltd. of the Duster Car bearing HR-51AY-9488 (victim vehicle as per charge- sheet in connected criminal case bearing FIR no. 615/19).

6. In the claim petition Nos. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19, written statement was filed by R1, R2, R3 & R5. No written statement was filed by R4 on date fixed for hearing (LRs of deceased Pradeep Kumar i.e. driver of the offending Duster Car bearing No. HR-51AY-9488) and opportunity of LRs of R4 to file Written Statement was closed on 03.09.2021. However, perusal of the record shows that written statement on behalf of R4 was filed on 14.12.2020 itself with copy and was kept separately in a folder as per instructions of Ld. District Judge, East -as mentioned in the noting of Reader dt. 17.12.2020 -due to corona pandemic and thus, it is seen that Written Statement of R4 was already on record much prior to 03.09.2021 and hence, being considered.

6(a) In the written statement filed on behalf of R1/Md. Zubair (in MACP Nos.757/19, 763/19, 786/19), it is stated that he has been falsely implicated and that deceased driver Pradeep Kumar was driving his Duster Car at a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner. Late Pradeep Kumar hit his vehicle against the back side of the vehicle of R1 and due to this, the vehicle of R1 fell down on the roadside and had become unbalanced before falling down on the road and that accident occurred due to mistake of deceased driver of the Duster Car. Vehicle of R1 was

Page 9 of 56

duly insured with R2 from 16.08.2018 to 15.08.2019. The allegations against him have been denied by R1. 6(b) In the written statement filed by R2/Shri Ram GIC Ltd. (Insurer of Canter Vehicle bearing No. UK-06CA-6124), it is stated that claim petition is vague and does not disclose any cause of action and this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction. R1, driver-cum-owner of Canter namely Md. Zubair was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and hence, R2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of Duster Car, as he could not control his vehicle and caused the accident. Other general defences have been taken by R2/Shri Ram GIC Ltd. 6(c) In the written statement filed on behalf of R3, it is stated that R3 is not liable to pay any compensation 'as R3 was driving the vehicle carefully'. The accident was caused due to negligent driving on the part of driver of Canter/R1Md. Zubair. The Duster Car was duly insured with R5/GO Digit Insurance Com. Ltd. on the date of accident. The accident had occurred due to negligent driving on the part of R1, as his vehicle had come on the wrong side of the road.

6(d) Written statement is filed on behalf of R4/LRs of deceased Pradeep Kumar (namely Pooja, Satpal Singh and Jag Roshni) and the same is on the lines of the WS filed by R3. It is stated that they are not liable to pay any compensation, as deceased driver Pradeep Kumar was driving carefully and accident took place due to sole negligence of driver of Canter no. UK-06CA-6124.

Page 10 of 56

6(e). In the written Statement filed on behalf of R5/GO Digit GIC, it is stated that claim petition is not maintainable before this Tribunal as accident took place in Bagpat, U.P. and petitioner is resident of Haryana and even policy issuance office of the insurance company is of outside Delhi. It is further stated that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Canter no. UK-06CA-6124 and further R5 is not liable to pay compensation, in case the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence, or in case there is any collusion between the insured/driver and the petitioner. The insurance policy was issued by R5 in the name of R3 and valid from 06.03.2019 to 05.03.2020. Other general defences have been taken by R5.

7. Notice of the claim petition no. 758/2019 were issued to both the respondents i.e. driver-cum-owner namely Md. Zubair and insurance company namely Shri Ram GIC of the offending Eicher Canter bearing No. UK-06CA-6124. In the claim petition 758/2019, Written Statement was filed by both of the respondents.

7(a) In the written statement filed on behalf of R1/Md. Zubair, it is stated that he has been falsely implicated and that deceased driver Pradeep Kumar was driving his Duster Car at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and while driving so, he hit his vehicle against the back side of the vehicle of R1 and due to this, the vehicle of R1 fell down on the roadside and had become unbalanced before falling down on the road and

Page 11 of 56

accident occurred due to mistake of deceased driver of the Duster Car. Vehicle of R1 was duly insured with R2 from 16.08.2018 to 15.08.2019. The allegations against him have been denied by R1.

7(b) In the written statement filed by R2/Shri Ram GIC Ltd. (Insurer of Canter Vehicle bearing No. UK-06CA-6124), it is stated that claim petition is vague and does not disclose any cause of action and this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction. R1, driver-cum-owner of Canter namely Md. Zubair was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and hence, R2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of Duster Car as he could not control his vehicle and caused the accident. Other general defences have been taken by R2/Shri Ram GIC Ltd.

8. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed on 26.07.2022 :-

In MACP No. 757/2019 :

i). Whether Sachin @ Sachin Bainsla and son of petitioner Nos.1 & 2 died in a motor vehicular accident happened on 07.08.2019 at 09:15 p.m. at Peripheral Highway, Bagpat Crossing, U.P., within jurisdiction of PS-Bagpat, due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher Canter bearing registration No. UP-06A-6124 driven by Respondent No.1/ Md. Zubair and car bearing Registration No. HR-51AY-9488 driven by Respondent No.4/Pradeep (since deceased)? (OPP)

ii). Whether there was composite negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.4 (since deceased) in causing the accident, if any, if so, its extent? OPP

iii). Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of said death and if yes, to what extent and from

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 12 of 56

whom?

iv).     Relief.


         In MACP No. 758/2019 :

(i)      Whether Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar, husband of petitioner

No.1, father of Petitioner No.2 and 3 and son of Petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 died in a motor vehicular accident happened on 07.08.2019 at 09:15 p.m. at Peripheral Highway, Bagpat Crossing, U.P., within jurisdiction of PS-Bagpat, due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher Canter bearing registration No. UP-06A-6124 driven by Respondent No.1/ Md. Zubair ? (OPP)

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of said death and if yes, to what extent and from whom?

(iii)    Relief.


In MACP No. 763/19 :
(i)      Whether petitioner Prince Kumar Bansala suffered

grievous injuries in a motor vehicular accident happened on 07.08.2019 at 09:15 p.m. at Peripheral Highway, Bagpat Crossing, U.P., within jurisdiction of PS-Bagpat, due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher Canter bearing registration No.UP-06A-6124 driven by Respondent No.1/ Md. Zubair and car bearing Registration No. HR-51AY-9488 driven by Respondent No.4/Pradeep (since deceased)? (OPP)

(ii) Whether there was composite negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.4 (since deceased) in causing the accident, if any, if so, its extent? OPP (iii.) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of said death and if yes, to what extent and from whom? OPP

Page 13 of 56

 (iv)     Relief.


In MACP No. 786/19:
(i)      Whether Vinit, husband of Petitioner No.1, father of

Petitioner No.2 and son of Petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 died in a motor vehicular accident happened on 07.08.2019 at 09:15 p.m. at Peripheral Highway, Bagpat Crossing, U.P., within jurisdiction of PS-Bagpat, due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher Canter bearing registration No. UP-06A-6124 driven by Respondent No.1/ Md. Zubair and car bearing Registration No. HR-51AY-9488 driven by Respondent No.4/Pradeep (since deceased)? (OPP)

(ii) Whether there was composite negligence on the part of the deceased bearing Registration No.DL-8CNA-1463 (WAGON R Car) and causing the accident, if so, its effect ? OPP

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of said death and if yes, to what extent and from whom?

(iv) Relief.

9. In order to establish their claim, petitioners in MACP No.757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019 have examined the following witnesses:

9(a). PW1 is Naveen Kumar, Senior Tax Assistant, who proved on record the ITR of deceased/injured Vinit Awana for the assessment year 2019-2020 which is Ex. PW1/2. He was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the R2/Shri Ram GIC Limited and R5/Go Digit Insurance Company.

9(b). PW1 Prince Kumar Bansla (examined-in MACP no.763/2019) tendered his evidence by way of affidavit

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr. MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 14 of 56

Ex.PW1/A and deposed regarding the date, time, place and manner of occurrence and the high speed, rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing no. HR-51-AY-9488 (vehicle in which he was travelling) and further high speed, wrong side, rash and negligent driving by driver of the Eicher Canter No. UK-06-CA-6124, as resulting in the hitting of canter against the vehicle in which he was travelling & receiving of serious injury by the occupants of his vehicle no. HR-51- AY-9488 and relied upon the following documents:

a.)      Copy of aadhar card Ex. PW1/1.
b.)      Medical bills Ex. PW1/2.
c.)      Criminal case record Ex. PW1/3.

He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the R2/Shri Ram GIC Limited and R5/Go Digit Insurance Company. 9(c). PW1 Sh. Himkaran Bidhori has been examined as PW1 (in connection with MACP no. 757/2019) and he produced before the court the joining letter of deceased Sachin @ Sachin Bainsla Ex. PW1/1. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the R2/Shri Ram GIC Limited and R5/Go Digit Insurance Company. 9(d). PW1 Sh. Bikram Singh, Tax Assistant (deposed in connection with MACP no. 763/2019) deposed that ITR of the petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla for the assessment year 2019- 2020 is Ex. PW1/2 and that authority letter PW1 is Ex. PW1/1. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the R2/Shri Ram GIC Limited and R5/Go Digit Insurance Company.

10. Vide order dated 23.08.2023, all the three claim cases bearing no. 757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019 were consolidated,

Page 15 of 56

as were pertaining to the same accident and common evidence was directed to be recorded further and as these cases are consolidated, the evidence recorded in all of these three cases shall be read together.

Thereafter, petitioners closed their PE.

11. Respondents did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf in any of these three cases.

12. In case bearing no. 758/19, petitioner examined the following witnesses:

12.1 PW1 is Sripal Sharma, who produced the ITR of deceased Pradeep Kumar for the assessment year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 Ex. PW1/2 and authority letter (Ex. Pw1/1) in his favour as executed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(1), New Delhi.

12.2. PW Pooja Nagar deposed on the basis of her affidavit Ex PW 1/A and relied on the following documents:

Copy of her Adhar Card Ex PW1/1

Copy of Adhar Card of her son Arjun Awana Ex PW1/2 Copy of Aadhar Card of her son Shubh Awana Ex PW1/3 Copy of Aadhar Card of her mother-in-law namely jag Roshni Ex PW1/4 Copy of Aadhar Card of her father-in-law namely Satpal Singh Ex PW1/5 ITR of deceased for the year 2019-20 Ex PW1/6 Copy of School receipt of minor son Arjun Awana Mark 1

13. On 29.11.2024, an application under Section 151 CPC was

Page 16 of 56

moved with prayer to consolidate this case with the other three cases and consider the testimonies recorded so far in those cases, in this matter as well. Prayer was also made for waiver of cost imposed on 27.09.2024. The prayer made was allowed and MACP no. 758/19 was also consolidated with other three cases for the purpose of enquiry and just decision in all of the three cases.

14. I have heard Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Ld. counsel for petitioners in MACP no. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19, Sh. Amit Tomar, Ld. Counsel for R2 / Shriram GIC Ltd. and Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Yadav, on behalf of main counsel Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 5/Go Digit Insurance Company (in the three claim cases). Record of the case has also been perused.

ISSUE No.1: (In MACP No. 757/2019, 758/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019) & Issue no. 2 (In MACP No.757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019)

15. The issue no. 1 in all of the four claim cases are closely related and hence being taken up together and being decided by a common finding. Further, Issue no. 2 in the above-stated three out of the four claim petitions , being intimately connected with Issue no. 1 in all of these four petitions, is also being discussed together in succeeding paragraphs and decided.

16. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is

Page 17 of 56

sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and in fact is the preponderance of probabilities which is applied in civil cases. It is also the law that the tribunal is not bound by the technical rules of evidence. Further in holding any inquiry under section 168, The Claims Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.

17. In order to prove their cases, the petitioner/s in the above-stated claim petitions MACP No. 758/2019, 757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019 have examined six witnesses. It is worthwhile here to mention that while the petitioners in MACP No.757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019 have alleged composite negligence on the part of the driver vehicle bearing no. HR-51-AY-9488 (Duster Car) and driver of the Eicher Canter bearing no. UK-06-CA-6124, petitioners in MACP no. 758/2019 have alleged negligence against and put entire blame for the accident, on the driver of the Eicher Canter no. UK-06-CA-6124. Petitioners in MACP no. 758/2019 are the LRs of late Sh. Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar, the driver of the Duster Car no. HR-51-AY-9488 and they failed to lead any evidence from their side in support of their version of the accident. They are also impleaded in MACP no. 757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019 as R4 in capacity of LRs of the driver of the Duster Car no. HR-51-AY-9488, the alleged offending vehicle in these claim petitions, apart from the driver cum owner and Insurance Company of the Canter above-referred. Even in the capacity of R4 in the three claim petitions as above-mentioned, the petitioners in MACP no. 758/2019 failed to lead any evidence to

Page 18 of 56

reflect anything on their version of the accident. It is relevant here to mention that the petitioners in MACP no. 758/2019 are not even eye witnesses to the accident. Hence, an application was filed in MACP no. 758/2019, with prayer for consolidation of all of the connected cases, including this one, for purpose of enquiry, which has been allowed. During the course of inquiry before the Tribunal, the only eye witness examined to reflect on the manner of accident is injured Prince Kumar Bansla and finding of the Tribunal is to be based heavily on his testimony and the other documents placed on record in the claim petitions.

18. It is seen that in the Claim petitions bearing no. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19, all of the petitioners have made a claim against drivers of both of the vehicles involved in the accident i.e. both offending vehicle and victim vehicle (including in the claim petition filed by injured/sole eye witness Prince Bansla). This claim of composite negligence is contrary to the finding in the charge-sheet in case FIR no.615/19. Here, two factors need to be kept in mind: first that none of the petitioners are eye witnesses in these cases, except Prince and hence, their assertion regarding victim vehicle driver being at fault is meaningless unless, there are other attending circumstances and evidences to support it, including that of eye witness. No circumstantial evidence as such in the shape of photographs of the spot, CCTV footage of accident etc has been collected by IO. Moreover, there is no such material brought on record to apply the principle of res ipsa loquitor, other than site plan and specific undisputed factum of R1 (in all of the claim petitions) driving on wrong side of the

Page 19 of 56

road. Further, it has to be borne in mind that neither injured Prince nor any of the victims in claim petitions no. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19 was on driving seat of victim vehicle at the time of accident. It is to be kept in mind that when there is an accident, the tendency of aggrieved to put blame on both vehicles involved is there and driver, owner and Insurer of both vehicles may be involved so that irrespective of finding of Tribunal on the point of who was at fault, claim to compensation of petitioners may remain intact and claims do not fall flat in case petitioners are unable to establish fault on the part of offending vehicle or in case, there is any breach of term and condition of Insurance policy by driver or owner of any of the vehicles, petitioners can maintain claim against the driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle. The same appears to be the situation in this case. None of the petitioners in Case bearing. 757/19, and 786/19 have come up with any explanation as to how they learnt that driver Pradeep was driving at fast speed and further, how was he negligent in causing the accident or contributing to it to any extent.

19. PW Prince Kumar Bansla (spelling as per Aadhar Card and Pan Card), sole eye-witness to the accident, clearly deposed regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Canter resulting in the accident in question. His testimony has to be considered in all of the above-stated claim petitions. Accident was reported to the police on the very next day by Ramkesh, relative of injured/deceased Pradeep Kumar i.e. driver of victim Duster Car, alleging that the driver of the offending Canter bearing registration no. UK06CA6124 was driving the same at a

Page 20 of 56

fast speed and negligent manner and came from wrong side and hit against the victim vehicle, resulting in accident and sustaining of injuries by all four occupants in the Car and death of injured Sachin, Pradeep Kumar and Vinit . PW Prince deposed on the lines of allegation in the FIR in so far the role of offending vehicle is concerned. However, he additionally deposed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that driver of victim vehicle namely late Pradeep Kumar was driving at a very high speed and most rashly and negligently. However, this version of his, could not withstand the rigours of cross-examination. The petitioner was cross- examined by counsel for respondent No. 3 and 5. Eye witness Prince, during his cross-examination, did not support his own version, in so far as his assertion in the claim petition regarding deceased Pradeep driving the duster Car at a fast speed and being rash or negligent is concerned. There is nothing to suggest in the criminal case record that during investigation, any of the petitioners in MACP no. 763/19, 757/19 and 786/19, gave any statement to the police against Pradeep, alleging contributory negligence against him. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Respondent no. 5/ Go digit Insurance Company Ltd., Prince deposed that his vehicle (Duster Car) was at a speed of about 70 km per hour and that the car was being driven in middle lane of their side and that the spot of accident was a highway, with a very big road having divider and three lanes road on each of the side. He also deposed that Canter had suddenly come towards wrong side from opposite direction. He admitted in his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R5 that "It is correct that

Page 21 of 56

there was no fault at all on the part of driver of the car for (sic) the accident. The accident took place solely because of rash and negligent driving of the offending Canter." Even though during his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R2, PW Prince deposed that para no. 1 of his affidavit is correct (where there is specific allegation of contributory/composite negligence against the driver of duster Car), it does not go to establish that the conduct of Pradeep led to accident. In para no. 1 of the affidavit, PW Prince has stated that the vehicle was being driven by Pradeep at a very high speed and most rashly and negligently. However, here, he did not state the speed of the vehicle. It is only during his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R5 that he stated that the speed of the victim vehicle was 70 km per hour. However, the negligence and rashness can not be attributed on the part of Late Sh. Pradeep Kumar merely because the victim car was at a speed of 70 km per hour. The place of accident is highway and a very wide road, with three lanes on each side of the divider and the speed of 70 km per hour is not unusual on such a road. Pradeep was driving in a straight line and he can not be faulted at, merely because speed of his car was 70 km per hour. How could he even be expected to maintain safe distance from a vehicle suddenly coming on road from wrong side on a one-way road divided into three sub lanes? During cross-examination of PW Prince, Ld. counsel for R 5 was able to bring to light the admission on the part of Prince that the police had rightly registered case only against the driver of offending Canter and that there was no negligence on the part of driver of victim car. It is seen that in the

Page 22 of 56

MLC of Prince, history of transient loss of consciousness was reported to the doctor. Further in the MLC, under history reported to doctor, it is mentioned that 'Alleged history of RTA brought at around 8:30 P.M. on 7/8/2019 when p**** ( not legible) 4 wheeler rammed into a stationary truck at the speed of around 150 kmph, causing the truck to overturn.' However, no question was put to PW Prince in this regard during his cross- examination and he was not confronted with this document. He is not author of this document. No suggestion was given to PW Prince that truck was in a stationary condition and it is not the case of any of the petitioners or respondents. In fact, PW1 Zubair has not denied in his written statement that he was driving his vehicle at the time of accident and taken up the only plea that his vehicle was hit from backside by the car. Photographs and mechanical inspection report of the offending Canter show extensive frontal damages on the same and driver failed to prove anything in defence.

20. After investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against respondent no. 1 Md Zubair, the driver of the offending Canter bearing no. UK-06A-6124. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver of offending vehicle prima-facie points to his culpability. (New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Washeema Bano (2022) SCC OnLine All 403 and Mangla Ram vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (2018) 5SCC 656).

21. In New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Pazhaniammal (2011) (2) KLT 648, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held

Page 23 of 56

that as a general rule, it can be accepted that production of charge-sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under section 166 MV Act. If any party does not accept such charge-sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels that charge-sheet is collusive, it can record that charge-sheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties at any stage to adduce oral evidence of accident and alleged negligence. In such cases, issue of negligence must be decided on other evidence ignoring the charge-sheet.

22. Respondent no.1 & Respondent No. 2 i.e. the owner cum driver and Insurer of the offending Canter did not lead any evidence to prove anything contrary to the Charge-sheet and claim of the petitioners in MACP no. 658/19 and further, claim of petitioners in other cases qua R1, read with testimony of the eye witness. In the case of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Kamlesh and Others2009 (3) AD Delhi 310 it was held that an adverse inference can be drawn when the driver of the offending vehicle does not enter into the witness box.

23. Thus, prima facie, it is clear that respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. The MLC of the petitioners Prince and treatment papers make it clear that petitioner/ Prince Bansla suffered grievous injuries in the accident and had sustained fractures. Post -Mortem reports of deceased Sachin, Vinit and

Page 24 of 56

Pradeep show that they died due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon injuries. In view of above, it stands proved that petitioner Prince sustained grievous injury and further deceased victim Late Sh. Vinit, Late Sh. Sachin and late Sh. Pradeep Kumar sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no.1. Petitioners miserably failed to establish any 'composite negligence' and role of Late Pradeep Kumar in the accident. Thus, issue no.1 in MACP no.757/19, 758/19, 763/19 and 786/19 is decided in favour of petitioner(s) and against the respondents no. 1 and 2. However, as Petitioners failed to prove negligence or rashness on the part of deceased Pradeep Kumar, the issue no. 1 and 2 in MACP no.757/19,763/19 and 786/19 is decided in favour of R3 to R5.

ISSUE NO. 3 in MACP no. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19 and Issue no. 2 in MACP no. 758/19

24. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. The compensation should not be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.

25. The scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr. MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 25 of 56

"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.

Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, hardship, frustration and mental stress in life."

26. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr. MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 26 of 56

4. The provisions 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 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.

5. 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.

Page 27 of 56

(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.

27. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla in injury case is entitled shall be as under:-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr. MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 28 of 56

(MACP No. 763/19 : In Prince Kumar Bansla Vs. Zubair & Ors.) MEDICAL EXPENSES

28. No amount is being given under this head as no original medical bill is relied upon and proved on record. Petitioner has relied on copy of Final Bill of Saroj Medical Institute. HDFC ERGO GIC Ltd is specified underneath this document and it appears that the bill was already paid for by the Insurance company. This bill is dated 05.02.2022 for removal of implant. No insurance policy is brought and proved on record to suggest in whose name policy was and who was paying premium towards the same and whether petitioner Prince was a beneficiary under any Insurance policy or policy holder of any Mediclaim policy. Similarly, no original bill of Khetrapal Hospital is filed and proved on record and only a copy of a duplicate final bill is filed on record and it remains unproved. Even receipts in proof of payments towards this bill are not proved on record. Hence, no amount as compensation is being granted under this head. PAIN & SUFFERING

29. According to testimony of petitioner Prince, after the accident, he was taken to District Hospital, Baghpat and after first aid there, he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Delhi on the same day i.e. 7.8.2019 i..e. date of accident. He was discharged on 8.8.2019 from there and an amount of Rs. 80,000/- was paid in the hospital. However, no such payment receipt or final bill of Apollo hospital and even treatment papers of Apollo hospital are placed and proved on record. Only one copy of MLC of Apollo Hospital is on file which reflects that opinion was reserved on

Page 29 of 56

nature of final injuries. Petitioner deposed that he was referred to Khetrapal hospital and discharged from there on 12.8.2019. Thereafter, he continued his treatment as an outpatient for about an year and bills were reimbursed by Mediclaim and original bills and treatment record were taken by 'them'. MLC of Prince shows that he suffered from multiple wounds and X-rays were prescribed for forearm and knee and further treatment paper of Khetrapal Hospital shows that he was taken to the said hospital with alleged history of RTA near Baghpat on 7.8.2019 and was admitted there on 08.8.2019 and it was observed that multiple injuries involving right forehead, lip, chin, right arm and forearm and right knee was observed. It was also observed that patient was initially taken to Apollo hospital where MLC was made vide no. 629/19 and had taken LAMA thereafter. His X-ray right forearm showed fracture right radius and ulna for which plaster was applied. He had deep lacerated wound and debridement was done and sutures applied on 8.9.2019. He had fracture in both bones of right forearm and hence, surgery was performed on 10.9.2019. He remained hospitalized for about 4-5 days. In Saroj Hospital, he was admitted with history of BB Fracture right forearm and surgery was performed where he remained hospitalized for a day for removal of implant. There are no such medical documents produced and proved on record to suggest that petitioner remained on bed rest for an particular period of time during treatment. In Khetrapal Hospital, he was discharged with advice for follow up sessions. He had deep multiple contused lacerated wound on facial region. He deposed that he

Page 30 of 56

could not continue his work for about an year. Considering the nature of injuries and treatment undertaken, it can reasonably be assumed that petitioner must have endured considerable pain and suffering on account of accidental injuries. Hence, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla towards pain and suffering on account of the accident.

LOSS OF INCOME

30. Medical documents of petitioner show that he was admitted to Khetrapal Hospital and remained admitted for about 4 days and was asked to review in some days. No further medical documents have been filed and proved on record to suggest that OPD treatment continued for how long. Petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla has not led any documentary evidence to show any loss of income. He deposed that he was doing business at the time of accident and was unable to work for about an year. However, in absence of any concrete documentary proof to suggest that petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla could not work for such a long time, no convenient conclusion can be drawn in this regard. At the same time, in view of the nature of injuries sustained, it can be considered that petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla must not have been able to work for about 3-4 months. The testimony of PW1 is in direct conflict with the claim petition where he mentioned that he was in private service. PW1 namely Bikram Singh brought on record Income Tax record of the petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla for the assessment year 2019-20 Ex. PW1/1. It has been admitted by PW1 that prior to it, Prince had not filed any income Tax

Page 31 of 56

return. ITR mentions the address of petitioner as that of Village Barauli, Faridabad. Accident is dated 07.08.2019 and ITR was filed on 29.07.2019 i.e. prior to the date of accident. Considering the ITR, the annual income of petitioner is taken to be 3.8 lakhs and hence per month income is taken as 31,667/-. Hence, petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 31667 x 4 = 1,26,668/- as compensation under this head.

CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES

31. No document in support of conveyance, special diet and attendant expenses have been filed and proved on record. Petitioner after accident was taken to Govt Hospital i.e. District Hospital, Baghpat and then to Apolla and subsequently to Khetarpal Hospital and after discharge from hospital as well, he must have had several visits to doctor. In the year 2022, he visited Saroj hospital and remained admitted for a day to undergo procedure for removal of implant. Hence, an inference can be drawn that he must have incurred some expenses on his visits to hospitals. Hence, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is being granted towards conveyance expenses and Rs.15000/- towards special diet.

32. Further, it cannot be ignored that family members of the petitioner must had to render their services for providing assistance to the petitioner in his routine activities and that was bound to suffer their work / job. For claiming compensation, necessity of employing a professional attendant / care taker is not required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (Refer : DTC &

Page 32 of 56

Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). In view of above, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to petitioner as attendant charges.

33. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 45,000/- (20,000+15,000+10,000) is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

34. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner prince Kumar Bainsla is summarized as under:-

   Sl. No.           Head of compensation                                   Amount
      1.         Medical Expenses.                                    Nil.
      2.         Pain & Suffering.                                    Rs 40,000/-
                 Loss of income (during                               Rs.1,26,668/-
       3.
                 treatment).
       4.        Conveyance and Special Diet                         Rs. 35000/-
       5.        Attendant Charges                                   Rs. 10,000/-
                       TOTAL                                         Rs.2,11,668/-

35. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr. MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 33 of 56

death:

(a) age of the deceased;

(b) income of the deceased; and

(c) the number of dependents.

These issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:

(i) additions/ deductions to be made for arriving at the income;

(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and

iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.

If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.

19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:death case Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses.

The balance expired e which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the

Page 34 of 56

multiplicand.

Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) death case Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.

Step-3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.

Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-

may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.

The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred)

Page 35 of 56

should also be added."

36. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters in the three death cases.:-

(MACP No. 758/19 : In Pooja Nagar & Ors Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr.) ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:

37. PW1 Sripal Sharma produced ITR record of the deceased Pradeep Kumar for the assessment year 2018-19 and 2019-2020. He deposed that deceased did not file any ITR prior to year 2018 and that the ITR for the year 2019-20 was filed after the date of accident. i.e. 07.08.2019. He also admitted that nature of business of deceased was not specified in ITR. ITR of the year 2018-2019 shows the annual gross income of deceased to be Rs. 247860/-. ITR for the assessment year 2019-20 shows the gross annual income to be Rs.5,24,330/- and date of filing as 20.8.2019. ITR is in his individual name and not any business name and it is strange that ITR was filed after his demise in his name and purpose of it is unknown. It shows the return to be verified by none other than Pradeep Kumar himself, which is not possible as Pradeep expired on 08.08.2019. This ITR filed after demise of Pradeep Kumar in his name shows subsequent increase in his income and can be treated as a fraudulent document, as Pradeep Kumar could not have verified it even electronically, as mentioned in this document. As per FIR dated 08.08.2019,

Page 36 of 56

Pradeep Kumar had expired on the way to hospital. Post mortem report of deceased dated 08.08.2019 also corroborates it. Hence, income of deceased is taken as per gross annual income of the assessment year 2018-19, which was about Rs.250000/- annually. It has come in the testimony of PW Pooja Nagar that her husband was a lawyer at Faridabad. However, no educational document and no enrolment certificate of her husband has been filed by her and relied in evidence. She also admitted in her cross-examination by Ld. counsel for R2 that she has not filed any Bar Enrolment certificate in support of her claim that her husband was a practicing advocate. She deposed in her cross- examination that her father-in-law was an advocate and that he was running the business of water bottling plant at Faridabad. She deposed that she was unaware regarding the income of her father-in-law and also testified that he even had rental income. She also deposed that presently, her expenses are being met by her father-in-law. She was suggested by Ld Counsel for R-2 that her husband was not earning and not employed as claimed and further that the ITR was filed after her husband's demise for the year 2019-20 with a view to claim false compensation. Though she claimed that he was an income tax assess, ITR of the year 2018-19 which was last filed prior to his demise, does not show that any income tax was paid by him. In these circumstances, the income of deceased has to be considered on the basis of ITR for the assessment year 2018-19, which was approximately Rs. 250000/- per year. Thus, the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs. 2,50,000/- annually.

Page 37 of 56

Number of dependents :

38. Petitioner no.5 was employed and earning and also having rental income and business and hence, he can not be considered as a dependent of the deceased especially when deceased had responsibility of two minor children and wife.

However, other petitioners being non-working wife, minor children and mother of the deceased are considered as dependents of the deceased Pradeep Kumar. Thus, for the purpose of ascertaining the dependency of the deceased, all the petitioners except P-5, are considered dependents of the deceased. They are also surviving class I legal heir of deceased Pradeep Kumar. One photocopy of I.D. card of Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana is filed by petitioners, though not relied in evidence or proved on record and it reflects the date of birth of Pradeep Kumar as 06.06.1992. Deceased was 27 years old on the date of accident.

Application of Multiplier:

39. As discussed above, the deceased is considered to be 27 years old at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr. MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 38 of 56

                  MULTIPLIER                                  AGE GROUP OF
                                                              DECEASED

                 M-18                              Age group between 15 to 20 &
                                                   21 to 25 years)
                 M-17                              Age group between 26 to 30
                                                   yrs
                 M-16                              Age group between 31 to 35
                                                   yrs
                 M-15                              Age group between 36 to 40
                                                   yrs

                 M-14                              Age group between 41 to 45
                                                   yrs

                 M-13                              Age group between 46 to 50
                                                   yrs

                 M-11                              Age group between 51 to 55
                                                   yrs

                 M-9                               Age group between 56 to 60
                                                   yrs

                 M-7                               Age group between 61 to 65
                                                   yrs

                 M-5                               Age group between 66 and
                                                   above

40. In view of the above, multiplier of 17 shall be applicable in the present case.

Future Prospects:

41. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 39 of 56

parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years.

In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(iv) In case the deceased was self-

employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.

An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."

42. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. In view of the above said judgment, the deceased, who was 27 years of age, an addition of income of deceased to the extent of 40% has to be considered in view of decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (Supra) benefit of future prospects.

Page 40 of 56

Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:

43. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :

Deductions out of earning of the Number of deceased dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six)

44. Four petitioners are considered as dependents upon the deceased as held above. Accordingly, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.

45. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.44,62,500/- (2,50000/-x 3/4 x 140/100 x 17).

Page 41 of 56

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

46. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. In this case, there are five legal heirs of the deceased. Thus, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- (48,000x5+18,000+18,000) under this head.

47. Thus, all the petitioners i.e. wife, children, mother and father of the deceased in the instant case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.47,38,500/- (44,62,500 +2,76,000) only. P-5 is entitled to compensation for loss of consortium only. ( In MACP No. 757/19 : In Munesh & Ors Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.) ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:

48. P-2 is the father of the deceased and one of the claimants. Other claimant is mother of the deceased. Both of the claimants are stated to be dependents of deceased. It was stated by Ld. Counsel for petitioners that deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. It has come in evidence of PW Inder Singh that his

Page 42 of 56

son was a graduate and working as a Quality Supervisor in Anupam Prints, Noida, U.P. by profession and earning Rs.33,000/- per month. He has filed on record photocopies of his educational documents Ex.PW1/4 and his appointment letter Ex.PW1/5. However, there is no authorized stamp on the appointment letter, hence it cannot be considered as his proof of income and it does not establish the actual income of deceased. It is to be seen that in the claim petition, it is claimed that deceased Sachin Bainsla was in private service. It is interesting here to note that PW Himkaran Bidhori, who claimed himself to be proprietor of Anupam prints, failed to bring on record a single document in proof of the existence of proprietorship concern and further, his status as a proprietor of the same. Further, it is strange to note that while in the employment letter, the address of office is mentioned as that of Greater Noida , UP, in the testimony of PW Himkaran Bidhori, he had disclosed his address to be that of South Delhi. He nowhere testified that despite he being a resident of Delhi, he was managing any business from Utter Pradesh and further, where was his office situated. He did not produce a single document to suggest that he was running the business of Printing from U.P. Further, he failed to produce any register regarding employees and did not even give out exact number of his employees. He stated that he had 4-5 employees working with him. He did not disclose their names and further, failed to produce any register to prove their attendance, employment etc. He failed to produce any register to show that salary was paid to deceased Sachin or that he was employed by any Anupam Prints.

Page 43 of 56

It is seen that according to PW Himkaran Bidhori, 4-5 employees working with him were all karigars but in the very next line, he deposed that deceased was a supervisor. Further, he deposed that after the deceased, he did not engage any other person as a supervisor. He deposed that deceased was employed about a month back. In absence of any proof of salary and absence of any proof regarding running of any business in the name of Anupam prints and employing deceased, testimony of PW Himkaran Bidhori is doubtful. No bank statement of deceased is produced or proved on record to even prima facie suggest that he was working. Further, it is strange that while petitioners claimed in their petition that deceased was earning Rs.25000/- per month, in the testimony of PW Himkaran Bidhori, the monthly salary is given as Rs.33000/-. Hence, testimony of PW Himkaran Bidhori is not at all credible and can not be considered. However, deceased is a graduate, in these circumstances, the income of deceased has to be considered on the basis of minimum wages applicable to a skilled person in the State of Haryana on the date of accident i.e. 07.08.2019, considering him to be a resident of Haryana which were Rs10,218/- per month. Thus, the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.10,218/- per month.

Number of dependents :

49. Petition mentions that there are 2 petitioners / legal heirs of the deceased Sachin, who are father and mother. Both of them are stated to be dependents on the deceased. Thus, for the purpose of ascertaining the dependency of the deceased, all the

Page 44 of 56

petitioners are considered dependents on the deceased.

Application of Multiplier:

50. The deceased was 21 years 9 months of age at the time of accident as per educational record and aadhar card of deceased. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:-

                 MULTIPLIER                                  AGE GROUP OF
                                                              DECEASED

                 M-18                              Age group between 15 to 20 &
                                                   21 to 25 years)
                 M-17                              Age group between 26 to 30
                                                   yrs
                 M-16                              Age group between 31 to 35
                                                   yrs
                 M-15                              Age group between 36 to 40
                                                   yrs

                 M-14                              Age group between 41 to 45
                                                   yrs

                 M-13                              Age group between 46 to 50
                                                   yrs

                 M-11                              Age group between 51 to 55
                                                   yrs

                 M-9                               Age group between 56 to 60
                                                   yrs

                 M-7                               Age group between 61 to 65


                                                                               Page 45 of 56
                                                    yrs

                 M-5                               Age group between 66 and
                                                   above

51. In view of the above, multiplier of 18 shall be applicable in the present case.

Future Prospects:

52. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years.

In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(iv) In case the deceased was self-

employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.

An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary

Page 46 of 56

method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."

53. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. In view of the above said judgment, the deceased, who was about 22 years of age, an addition of income of deceased to the extent of 40% has to be considered in view of decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors . (Supra) benefit of future prospects.

Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:

54. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :

Deductions out of earning of the Number of deceased dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr. MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors. MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 47 of 56

Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six) Deductions out of earning of the Number of deceased dependents Bachelor In case family is not large Half In case dependents are the widowed 1/3rd mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters and brothers

55. Since deceased was a bachelor, accordingly, one-half of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.

56. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.16,50,801/- (10,218x 1/ 2x 140/100 x 18x12).

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

57. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 48 of 56

Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. In this case, there are three legal heirs of the deceased. Thus, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.96,000/- (48,000x2+18,000+18,000) under this head.

58. Thus, both the petitioners i.e. mother and father of the deceased in the instant case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,46,801/- only (16,50,801+96,000).

(MACP no. 786/19: Rashmi and others vs Md. Zubair and Others) ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:

59. Deceased Vinit Awana is stated to be about 27 years old at the time of accident. According to the claim petition, deceased was a property dealer and earning about 5,50,000/- per annum. No evidence was led by any of the petitioners in proof of age of the deceased. He is stated to be graduate. PW Naveen Kumar is an official witness from Income Tax Office and proved on record ITR of Vinit Awana for the assessment year 2019-20 EX PW1/2. He deposed that deceased did not file any ITR prior to year 2019. He also admitted in his cross-examination that ITR for the year 2019-20 was not filed by Vinit Awana but the same was filed by Sh. Nitin after the accident dated 07.08.2019. He deposed that no supporting document in proof of income shown in ITR was submitted in the office of PW Naveen Kumar and that ITR was filed by assessee on his own and department does not certify the genuineness of income as shown in the ITR. A bare perusal of

Page 49 of 56

the document Ex.PW1/2 shows that the same was filed on 22.08.2019 i.e. after 15 days of death of deceased. It is shown to have been verified by Nitin but there is no explanation as to who was Nitin. There is no document placed on record to suggest that deceased Vinit was running any property dealing business and if so, from where. No bank statement of his is produced on record either to prove it. Even the place of employment of deceased is nowhere disclosed by any of the petitioners. Petitioner Rashmi deposed that her husband was income tax Assessee but there is no document produced to suggest that he was earning and paid any income tax during his lifetime. There is no explanation given as to why income tax return was filed after demise of deceased and that too for the first time and for what purpose. As ITR was filed after demise of deceased victim only, it strengthens the plea taken by Insurance companies that the same has been filed with a view to get more compensation. Hence, such an ITR, cannot be considered as a proof of income, especially when no ITR of any preceding year and no document in support of the business of property dealing and occupation of deceased Vinit Awana is filed. There is absolutely no document to justify such income of the deceased as claimed in the ITR filed post demise of the victim and even to prima facie show that he was engaged in the business of property dealing. Hence, such an ITR is highly doubtful and can not be considered as proof of income. There is one B.com degree certificate on judicial file and petitioners have not relied on this document Ex.PW1/6. No other document like aadhar card and marksheet of deceased have been filed on record.

Page 50 of 56

However, there is no serious dispute to the degree certificate Ex.PW1/6 and hence petitioner is considered to be a graduate. Petitioners are stated to be residents of Haryana. In the claim petition, place of employment of deceased is not mentioned. However, in the cross-examination, she deposed that her husband was a property dealer at Faridabad. In view of this court, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the deceased was a resident of Haryan and a graduate and in absence of his income and occupation proof, his income is taken as per minimum wages of graduate /skilled worker. In her cross-examination, PW Rashmi deposed that date of birth of her husband was 19.11.1992. His age as per post-mortem report is 27 years. No documentary proof in support of age of deceased Vinit Awana is filed on record. However, there is no serious dispute to the claim of him being 27 years old at the time of accident. PW Rashmi deposed that her father-in-law was a property dealer and also has rental income and that he was taking care of all of the expenses as on date. Salary of the petitioner has to be taken as per minimum wages applicable to a graduate person on the date of accident in the State of Haryana, as deceased is stated to be resident of Haryana and was a graduate which were Rs.10,218/- per month. Thus, the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.10,218/- per month.

APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:

60. As per PMR and testimony of PW Rashmi, deceased Vinit was 27 years on the date of accident. In view of this, multiplier of 17, as applicable to age group between 26-30 years, would be

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 51 of 56

applicable.

DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES:

61. Petitioner no.4 was employed and earning and also having rental income and business and hence, he can not be considered as a dependent of the deceased especially when deceased had responsibility of a minor child and wife. However, other petitioners being non-working wife, minor child and mother of the deceased are considered as dependents of the deceased Vinit.

Since the deceased was married at the time of accident and petitioners No. 1 to 3 are stated to be dependents of his, 1/3 rd of his income is to deducted towards his personal and living expenses.

FUTURE PROSPECTS:

62. Deceased can be considered as self-employed and further, he was below 40 year old. Thus, an addition of income of deceased to the extent of 40% has to be considered in view of decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157).

LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:

63. Applying the multiplier of 17, after making deduction of half of the income of the deceased and by applying 40% addition towards future prospects, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.19,45,507/- (10218 x 140/100 x 2/3 x 17x12). NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

64. In view of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.48,000/-, Rs.18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- are added on account of loss of

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 52 of 56

consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, a total sum of Rs.2,28,000/- (Rs.48,000x4+18,000+18,000) is granted under this head.

65. Accordingly, all the petitioners i.e. wife, child, mother and father of the deceased in the instant case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,73,507/- (19,45,507+2,28,000) only. P-4 is entitled to compensation for loss of consortium only.

LIABILITY:

66. Since the offending vehicle bearing no. UK-06CA-6124 ( Mini Truck, half body) was insured with Respondent no. 2 and R-2 has been unable to prove that there was any breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy by the driver cum owner /R1, respondents No. 2 /Shri Ram GIC Ltd. shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Copy of driving licence of R-1 is filed by the petitioners and same reflects that the driver had a valid driving licence on the date of accident. In view of the discussion above- said, as the offending vehicle being driven by R1/driver-cum- owner Mohd. Zubair (who was charge-sheeted in the criminal case bearing FIR no. 615/19 and composite negligence on the part of victim vehicle is not proved on record) was insured with R2/Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident, it is clear that R2/Insurer is liable to compensate the petitioners in all the the above-mentioned four claim cases.

Page 53 of 56

ISSUE No.4: (In MACP No. 757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019) & Issue no. 3 (In MACP No.758/2019)

67. The petitioners have conducted the proceedings in their case diligently. Therefore, they are entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization.

RELIEF:

(MACP No.757/19 : In re Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.)

68. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.17,47,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Forty Seven Thousands Only) (rounded off from Rs.17,46,801/-) to the petitioners along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.2/ Shriram GIC Ltd, within 30 days. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.

(MACP No.758/19; (In re Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr).

69. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.47,38,500/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousands Five Hundred Only) to the petitioners along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.2/ Shriram GIC Ltd, within 30 days.

Page 54 of 56

Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.

(MACP No.763/19: In re Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.)

70. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve Thousand Only) (rounded off from Rs.2,11,668/-) to the petitioner along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.2/ Shriram GIC Ltd, within 30 days. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.

(MACP No.786/19 : In Re Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.)

71. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.21,74,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Seventy Four Thousands Only) (rounded off from Rs.21,73,507/-) to the petitioners along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.2/ Shriram GIC Ltd, within 30 days. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.

Page 55 of 56

72. The apportionment of the award amount shall be decided only after deposit of award amount.

73. With these observations, the claim petition is disposed of.

74. Files be consigned to Record Room.

Digitally signed by MAYURI

                                                   MAYURI            SINGH
                                                   SINGH             Date:
                                                                     2025.02.28
                                                                     16:49:37 +0000


Announced in the open                               (Mayuri Singh)
Court on 28.02.2025                             Presiding Officer-MACT (East)
(Total 56 pages)                                Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

Page 56 of 56

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Munesh Ors vs Mohd. Zubair Ors on 28 February, 2025