Delhi District Court
Smt. Prabhawati Sharma Wd/O Late Shri ... vs Shri Daljit Singh S/O Shri Mela Singh on 5 March, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DILBAG SINGH : JUDGE : MACT : DELHI
PETITION NO. 317/04
In re:
1. Smt. Prabhawati Sharma Wd/o Late Shri Shiv Dutt Sharma
2. Baby Rita Kumari D/o Late Shri Shiv Dutt Sharma
3. Baby Kavita Kumari D/o Late Shri Shiv Dutt Sharma
4. Baby Kamini D/o Late Shri Shiv Dutt Sharma
5. Master Akash S/o Late Shri Shiv Dutt Sharma
All R/o : AIA, Deepa Enclave, Part II, Gali No.2
Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi - 59.
(Petitioner No.2 to 5 are minor through their
natural guardian/mother/petitioner No.1)
6. Shri Faya Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Ram Bali Sharma
7. Smt. Brija Devi W/o Shri Faya Prashad Sharma
Both R/o : Village and P.O. Malathu Buzurg,
P.S. Inayat Nagar, District Faizabad, U.P.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Shri Daljit Singh S/o Shri Mela Singh
(Driver)
R/o Village Malikpur, P.O. LA Randhawa,
District Ludhiana, Punjab.
2. Ravinder Pal S/o Shri Hari Chand (Owner)
ii) Mahinder Pal S/o Shri Krishan Kumar
Both R/o village Khamano, the. Khas,
District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.
(Both registered owner in joint name)
3. Shri Paramjeet Singh S/o Shri Mahender Singh
R/o Village and P.O. Dandari Kalan,
District Ludhiana, Punjab.
4. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Issuing office at Chandigarh Road,
Samrala, Punjab.
........Respondents
Date of Institution : 25.08.2004 APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 166 AND 140 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION APPEARANCES:
Sh. Mohd. Illahi, Advocate for the claimants.
Smt. Shubhda Khosla, Adv. for respondent No.3.
Contd..../-2
JUDGEMENT/AWARD
1. This judgment cum award shall decide the above noted claim petition filed u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') filed by the claimant for grant of compensation on account of death of deceased Shiv Dutt Sharma.
2. The facts as disclosed from the petition in brief are : on 24.04.04, deceased Shiv Dutt Sharma was driving the vehicle bearing No. HR38-F-9215 and was coming from Amritsar to Delhi after loading clothes in his vehicle. On 25.02.04 at about 5.30 a.m. when his vehicle reached at village Mohanpur near G T Road, Khanna, Punjab, a truck bearing No.PB10-G-9727 loaded with scrap was standing on the road without any indicators. As indicators were switched off, vehicle of the deceased hit Truck from back side, as a result of which deceased sustained injuries and was taken to Civil Hospital, Khanna where he succumbed to injuries. The vehicle was stopped by respondent No.1 on the wrong side of National Highway. Accident took place due to sole negligence on the part of driver of truck. Deceased was a hard working person with a history of longevity of life. A case FIR No.89/2004 stand registered against the respondent No.1, driver of truck bearing No.PB10G-9727.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents, some of whom appeared and contested the case of the claimants. Respondents Arvinder Pal and Mahender Pal in their WS have taken the plea that Truck in question had been transferred to Shri Paramjeet Singh, respondent No.4. Vide orders dated 18.05.05, driver and present owner i.e., Paramjeet Singh were directed to be served by publication and they were proceeded ex-parte by my Ld. predecessor on 02.08.05.
4. Respondent No.1 and 2 i.e., Ravinder Pal Singh and Mahender Pal in their WS have taken the preliminary objection concerning sale of Truck. It was denied that accident was caused by respondent No.1. It was pleaded that accident was planted by the police.
Contd..../-
35. Respondent No.4 National Insurance Company in its WS has denied the allegations of the claimants and has taken its usual statutory defences. Negligence on the part of driver of Truck has been denied and the same has been imputed on the driver of the vehicle No.HR38-F-9215 by the deceased Shiv Dutt Sharma. Factum of Truck being insured has not been denied in para No.17 of the WS wherein it stands admitted that Truck was insured vide Policy No.401602/31/03/6700398 with validity period from 29.08.03 to 28.04.04 in the name of Ravinder Pal and Shri Mahender Pal. The amount of compensation claimed has been pleaded to be exaggerated.
6. On 08.09.05, interim compensation was awarded and following issues were framed :
1. Whether the deceased Shiv Dutt Sharma received fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. PB-10 G 9727 being driven by respondent No.1 on 25.04.05 ?
2. Whether claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Shiv Dutt Sharma ?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation ? if so, what amount and from whom ?
4. Relief.
7. Petitioners in support of their case have examined PW-1 Smt. Prabhawati Sharma, PW-2 Dalip Singh and PW-3 Shri Mohan Singh. PW-1 Smt. Prabhawati Sharma has proved her affidavit as Ex.PW 1/X, copy of Post Mortem Report as Ex.PW 1/1. In her cross examination on 26.09.06, she has proved the school leaving certificate and Driving Licence of her husband as Ex.PW 1/ 2 and Ex.PW 1/3. PW- 2 and PW-3 as eye witnesses of the accident have deposed about the manner in which accident took place and have imputed rashness and negligence on the part of Truck Driver. Respondents on the other hand have not led any evidence and on 04.01.07 evidence was closed.
8. Arguments were heard at the bar. Ld. counsel Shri Mohd. Illahi for the petitioner and Smt. Shubda Khosla for R-4/National Contd..../-
4Insurance Company have been heard at length. They have argued in consonance with their case put forth respectively. Counsel Smt. Shubda Khosla has argued that in this case deceased Shiv Dutt Sharma was at fault and it is a case of contributory negligence. She requested for apportionment of liability as 50 : 50. She has placed reliance on U P State Road Transport Corporation vs. Radha Mohan Mal & Ors. reported in 2004 (4) RCR Civil 782 Punjab & Haryana High Court (Division Bench) and Rules of the Road Regulations 1989.
9. I have carefully perused the records of the case and considered the submissions. My issue-wise findings are as follows :
ISSUE NO.1
10. In my considered view, driver of the Truck bearing registration No.HR38-F-9215 is solely responsible for the accident and there is no negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driving Truck No.HR38-F-9215 . Reasons for this observation are as follows :
Testimony of PW-1 is of no help as far as this point is concerned and testimonies of PW-2 Dalip and PW-3 Shri Mohan Singh are relevant for determination of this question.
Prior to that a look at the pleadings and proceedings is also required. In para 23 of the petition, it stands averred that accident took place at about 5.30 a.m. in the month of April, Ten wheeler Truck bearing No. PB-10 G 9727 was stationery loaded with scrap without giving any indication. Respondent No.1 Daljeet Singh has not appeared and given his version. He was proceeded ex-parte after substituted service as is evident from orders dated 02.08.05. Perusal of the order sheet dated 31.10.06 reveals that respondents have not taken any steps to summon driver Daljeet Singh. The present owners of the Truck in their WS, in their preliminary objection attributed rashness and negligence on the driver of the Truck bearing No. HR38-F-9215 . In para 8 and 9 it was pleaded that the case has been falsely planted upon driver of the Truck No. PB10-G-9727. The pleadings at page 6 of WS are worth noting and are extracted herein below :
" the said accident has been planted upon respondent No.1, who happened to be passed by there from at that time." Respondent No.4 in its Contd..../-5
preliminary objection No.6 pleaded to the following effect. "There is total negligence on the part of driver of vehicle No. HR38-F-9215, who drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the standing Truck No. PB-10 G-9727 from behind".
11. A bare perusal of the pleadings as extracted above of respondent Mahender Pal, Ravinder Pal and Insurance Company show that they have taken contradictory stands as as per Mahender Pal and Ravinder Pal Truck was not stationary on the road whereas as per Insurance Company the Truck was stationary. This fact in itself shows that respondents are not clear in their stand and an adverse inference can be drawn against the respondents concerning rashness and negligence of driver of the Truck bearing No. PB-10 G-9727.
12. PW-2 in his examination in chief has testified that accident occurred on 25.04.04 at about 5 or 5.30 a.m. in the morning near Khanna after Manji Shehar. He has further testified that he was following deceased Shiv Dutt, who was driving Tata 709. This witness further testified that he saw that tempo collided with a ten wheeler Truck which was loaded with scrap items, That the ten wheeler Truck was parked in the middle of the road. This witness stated that ten wheeler Truck was parked in the middle of the road and therefore, driver of stationary Truck was at fault.
During cross examination this witness testified that deceased was driving his tempo at a normal speed of 40 to 45 kmph. That it was early morning hours and that he reached at he place of occurrence after about 02 minutes of the accident. That he heard a big bang of the vehicles colliding. This witness denied the suggestion that the driver of the offending Truck was not at fault.
13. From the testimony of this witness following facts can be inferred without any hitch :
(1) The stationary Truck was ten wheeler Truck which was loaded with scrap items, (2) It was parked in the middle of the road.
From the testimony of PW-2, it can be presumed that it was the driver of the Truck who was rash and negligent. No doubt this Contd..../-
6witness in examination in chief testified at one point of time that he could not tell as to who was at fault in the happening of the accident but in the very next breath he testified that since ten wheeler Truck was parked in the middle of the road its driver was at fault. So from examination in chief of this witness inference of rashness and negligence against the driver of the ten wheeler Truck can be drawn.
14. Assailment of testimony of this witness by Ms. Shubhda Khosla concerning imputing of rashness and negligence on the part of ten wheeler Truck and contributory negligence on the part of deceased, is of no help as it is common knowledge that in the morning hours at 5.00 a.m. in the month of April, visibility is low. PW-3 Mohan Singh has testified about visibility being low in his cross examination. Judicial notice of visibility being low at 5.00 a.m. in the month of April can be taken. Assailment of the testimony of PW-2 on the ground that this witness testified that the road was wide enough to allow two vehicles to ply on the same side of the middle divider is of no help as the fact of parking ten wheeler Truck in the middle of the road in itself, is sufficient to conclude about the rashness and negligence of the driver of the ten wheeler truck keeping in view principles of appreciation of evidence in civil cases and that too when beneficial provisions are to be interpreted. Categorical denial of PW-2 of the suggestion that driver of ten wheeler Truck was not at fault leads to the conclusion qua rashness and negligence of the driver of ten wheeler Truck. Deceased was supposed to presume that in the early hours of the morning there will be no vehicle parked in the middle of the road without indications of parking.
15. PW-3 Shri Mohan Singh has testified that he was travelling in Tempo Truck No. HR38-F-9215 being driven by PW-2 Dalip. This witness testified that deceased Shiv Dutt was driving Tempo bearing No.HR38-F-9215 ahead of their tempo and collided with a stationary Truck which was parked in the middle of the road without any indicators and without any signal as to diversion. That he gave the statement to the police on the basis of which FIR was recorded. That accident occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of stationary Truck. During cross examination this witness testified that it was dawn, During cross examination this witness stated that visibility was hardly 4 Contd..../-
7to 5 feet and only the vehicles which were plying ahead could be seen and the visibility was affected due to morning dew and little fog factor. This witness denied the suggestion that visibility was not poor. That the offending Truck was parked about two feet from the left edge of the road. This witness volunteered that it was impossible for any vehicle to pass through easily . This witness denied the suggestion that Truck was not parked in the middle of the road but was parked on the extreme left side of the road. This witness denied the suggestion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased.
16. From the testimony of PW-3, the facts which can be inferred are :
(1) Truck was parked in the middle of the road; (2) It was parked without any indicators and without any signal as to diversion;
(3) It was morning time and visibility was low.
17. Testimony of PW-3 coupled with the fact that it was morning time and visibility was low, is sufficient to attribute rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the stationary Truck.
18. Assailment of testimony of this witness on the ground that this witness has testified in contradictory terms concerning visibility is of no help to Ms. Shubhda Khosla, Ld. counsel for Insurance Company as it is common knowledge that in the month of April in the morning hours at 5.00 a.m. Visibility is low and the first line concerning visibility being not poor, in cross examination can be said to be a slip of tongue of PW-3 as this witness has categorically denied the suggestion that visibility was not poor. He has also given the details concerning visibility. The factors for low visibility having been given by this witness an inference concerning low visibility can be drawn from the testimony of this witness and version concerning visibility being there can be rejected. Assailment concerning the witness sleeping at the time of accident is of no help as facts of the present case speak about the rashness and negligence loudly and clearly. Doctrine of res-ipsa loquitor is applicable in this case. Speed of 40/50 kmph was not a very material factor but the material factor in this case is the parking in the middle of the road. So it can be Contd..../-
8said without any hitch that rashness and negligence has been proved by the petitioners by way of testimony of PW-3, of the driver of ten wheeler Truck.
19. In a civil case conclusions can be arrived by way of preponderence of probabilities and application of doctrine of res-ipsa loquitor . In the present case form the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the Truck can be inferred by applying the aforesaid doctrines. Parking of a ten wheeler Truck in the middle of the road, perse, is an act of rashness and negligence. A duty was cast on the driver of ten wheeler Truck, which is a heavy vehicle to give sufficient indications concerning making of the Truck stationary and that too in the middle of the road. Petitioners by way of testimony of PW-2 and 3 have discharged the onus of proof concerning rashness and negligence of the respondent No.1 driver of Truck No. PB-10 G 9727 by bringing it on record that it was parked in the middle of the road and was loaded with scrap items. After this onus shifted upon the respondents to dislodge the presumption which became available in favour of the petitioners.
20. Statutory provisions also show that driver of ten wheeler Truck was at fault. I am extracting some of the provisions for the sake of convenience herein below :
Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides as follows :
122. Leaving vehicle in dangerous position - No person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any public place in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers.
The rules of the Road Regulations 1989 provide in Rule 15 about parking as follows :
15. Parking of the vehicle - (1) Every driver of a motor vehicle parking on any road shall park in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users and if the manner of parking is indicated by any signboard or markings on the road side, he shall Contd..../-9
park his vehicle in such manner.
(2)A driver of a motor vehicles shall not park his vehicle, -
(i) at or near a road crossing a bend top of a hill or a humpbakced bridge;
(ii) on a footpath;
(iii) near a traffic light or one carrying fast traffic;
(iv) in a main road or one carrying fast traffic;
(v) opposite another parked vehicle or as obstruction to other vehicles;
(vi) along side another parked vehicle;
(vii) on roads or at places or roads where there is a continuous white line with or without a broken line;
(viii) on roads or a places or roads where there is a continuous white line with or without a broken line;
(ix) on the wrong side of the road; (x) where parking is prohibited; (xi) away from edge of the footpath.
Rule 138 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules provides :
"138. Signals and additional safety measures for motor vehicle . -
(1) The driver of a motor vehicle shall make such signals and on such occasions as are specified in the regulations made under section 118. (2) The driver of a motor cycle shall, in addition to the safety measures mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 128, comply with the requirements of Rule 123. (3) In a motor vehicle in which seat-belts have been provided under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (1-A) of Rule 125 or Rule 125-A, as the case may be, it shall be ensured that the driver, and the person seated in front seat of the persons occupying front facing rear seats, as the case may be , wear the seat belts while the vehicle is in motion.
(4) On and after expiry of one year from the date of commencement of the Central motor vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1999, the driver of every vehicle shall ensure that the following items are carried in the vehicle, namely-
(a) in case of vehicles other than motor cycles, a set of spare bulbs for headlamp and fuses, and a separate wheel ready for use :
(b) tool kit as prescribed by the manufacturer ;
(c) triangles of size 150 mm with a red reflecting surface as per IS : 8339-1993 specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards, for keeping in front and rear of the vehicle n case the vehicle is stranded on the road (applicable to vehicles other than two and three-wheelers), as specified below, namely :-
One triangle in case of four wheelers with GVW not exceeding 7.5 tons :
Provided that in case of vehicles manufactured on and after 1st January, 2003, the triangles of size and specification shall conform to AIS : 022-2001, as may be amended from time to time, till such time as corresponding Bureau of Contd..../-10
Indian Standards specifications are notified :
21. Rule 138 is applicable in the present case as the same has been made effective w.e.f. October 10, 2002 whereas the accident in this case had taken place on 25.04.2004. Rule provides that parking has to be done in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstructions or undue inconvenience to the other road users and if the manner of parking is indicative by any signboard or making marking on the road, he shall park his vehicle in such manner.
22. In the present case driver of ten wheeler Truck has parked his Truck in the middle of the road without any indicators being on. He has not given any other indication of the Truck being parked and thus, parking of the Truck in the middle of the road can be said to be an act of rashness and negligence perse. The above mentioned provisions go to show that driver of ten wheeler Truck was rash and negligent in parking his vehicle.
23. Doctrine of res-ipsa loquitor applies in this case. Had the driver of ten wheeler Truck parked his vehicle on the left side of the road, the accident would not have taken place. It is worth mentioning that it is not the case of the respondent Insurance Company that there was no place available to park ten wheeler Truck on the left side of the road. Insurance Company has not placed on record the site plan of the case as the same would have shown the availability of the space on the left side of the road. Insurance Company has also not placed on record, other records of the criminal case by virtue of which some help could have been taken. Insurance Company has also not placed on record the Mechanical Inspection Report of ten wheeler Truck, by virtue of which it could have been said that ten wheeler Truck was standing in the middle of the road on account of some mechanical failure.
24. Driver Daljeet Singh has not stepped into the witness box. In the absence of the same, by way of application of doctrine of res-ipsa- loquitor, rashness and negligence could be clearly attributed to the driver of the ten wheeler Truck and I have no hesitation in observing that it was the driver of the Truck who was rash and negligent in parking the Contd..../-
11ten wheeler Truck in the middle of the road.
25. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Dhanesh Kumar & Others reported in 1 (1994) ACJ 561. Another reason for attributing rashness and negligence on the part of driver of ten wheeler Truck is that he has not complied with rule 138 (4C) by virtue of which he was supposed to keep in front as well as in rear two triangles of 150 mm size with a red reflecting surface as per IS : 8339 - 1993 specified by Bureau of Indian Standard. So for non compliance of this rule also rashness and negligence has to be attributed to the driver of the ten wheeler Truck.
26. Another reason due to which rashness and negligence can be attributed to the driver of the ten wheeler Truck is that he had not put some stones or bushes in the front as well as in the rear at some considerable distance so that the vehicles coming on the rear side or that could have noticed the same and could have avoided the accident. In the early hours of morning, drivers of other vehicles who happened to take the road in question were supposed to presume that the road in their front will be empty. Had the precaution been taken by the driver of the ten wheeler Truck concerning placing of stones and bushes, the accident could have been avoided and thus, the negligence can be attributed to the driver of ten wheeler Truck for this reason also.
27. The plea of Ld. counsel for Insurance Company concerning contributory negligence of the deceased is not tenable in view of the above discussion. Another reason for disallowance is that respondents have taken contributory stands and have not pleaded about contributory negligence. Per contra petitioners by virtue of PW-2 and 3 have led the best possible evidence with them. Respondents on the other hand have withheld driver of the ten wheeler Truck. They have also withheld mechanical inspection report of ten wheeler Truck, site plan and other documents of criminal case. So arguments concerning contributory negligence are not available with them. The judgment placed reliance upon is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same are distinguishable. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Radha Mohan Mal 2004(4) RCR Civil 782 Punjab and Haryana (DB), case of the Contd..../-
12U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was that the bus was parked on the berm of the highway whereas in the present case, the fact reveal that Truck was parked in the middle of the road and thus this judgment becomes distinguishable.
ISSUE NO.2
28. Petitioner has filed amended memo of parties. As per the same deceased is survived by Smt. Prabhawati Sharma widow, baby Rita, Kavita, Kamini and master Akash, minor children of the deceased and his father and mother Shri Hari Prasad Sharma and Smt. Girja Devi. There is no challenge to the version of the petitioners on this issue during the course of arguments. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of petitioners.
ISSUE NO.3
29. Petitioners in their petition have pleaded that deceased was earning Rs.5,500/- p.m. and was aged about 30 years. In support of their pleadings in the petition concerning age and income of deceased, petitioners have led evidence by way of testimony of Smt. Prabhawati Sharma. She in her affidavit in para 2 has testified that deceased was 30 years of age and was earning Rs.5,500/- p.m. However, she has not proved any document in support of income of her husband and the documents available on record concerning his age are the Post Mortem Report and School Leaving Certificate in Ex.PW 1/ 2, the date of birth of the deceased is 18.10.1975 ( school leaving certificate ) and this can be considered as the proper age proof of the deceased. There is no need to look into Post Mortem Report and other documents concerning age as Ex.PW 1/ 2 is the best proof concerning age in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accident took place on 25.04.2004. So the deceased was 28 years and 6 months years of age at the time of accident. So the multiplier applicable is of 18 as the deceased was above 25 years but not exceeding 30 years.
30. The next requirement is to ascertain the income. Petitioner Smt. Prabhawati Sharma has not placed on record any proof by virtue of Contd..../-
13which the income of the deceased can be ascertained and simple self serving assertions cannot be believed. She has categorically admitted that she cannot show any salary slip or document of her husband. In the circumstances as also so fairly conceded by Ld. counsel for petitioner, resort to minimum wages has to be had. It is not disputed that Ex.PW 1/ 3 proves that deceased was driver and he will come under the category of a skilled worker.
Minimum wages of a skilled worker on 25.04.04 were Rs.3,286.90 say Rs.3,300/-. So the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.39,600/- p.a. Out of this amount one third is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. To this amount are deducted funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- including transportation charges of dead body, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.24,000/- towards loss of love and affection.
The amount of compensation is accordingly worked as under :-
(RUPEES) Average Monthly Income Rs. 3,300/-
Annual Income (3,300 x 12 = 39,600/-) Rs. 39,600/- Less: 1 /3 towards personal expenses Rs. 13,200/-
Annual dependency Rs. 26,400/-
HENCE:
Loss of Financial dependency
(26,400 x 18) Rs. 4,75,200/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs. 24,000/-
Funeral expenses(including transportation
of dead body) Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 5,24,200/-
I, therefore, find that the claimants are entitled to
compensation for an amount of Rs.5,24,200/-
RELIEF
Contd..../-
14
32. I, therefore, award total compensation of Rs.5,24,200/-
(RUPEE FIVE LACS TWNETY FOUR THOUSAND AND TWO HUNDRED ONLY) to the claimants with interest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of filing of petition till realization. The interest is awarded in view of the mandate of Arati Bezbaruah vs. Dy. Director General Geological Survey of India reported in 2003 ACJ 680, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Tribunal should award reasonable interest depending upon facts and circumstances of each case, by exercising judicial discretion. Interest was defined as compensation for forbearance and detention of money. The amount of compensation is directed to be apportioned amongst the claimants in the following manner :
1. Smt. Prabhawati Sharma (Widow) 2,74,200/-
2. Baby Rita Kumari (Daughter) 40,000/-
3. Baby Kavita Kumari (Daughter) 40,000/-
4. Baby Kamini (Daughter) 40,000/-
5. Master Akash (Son) 40,000/-
6. Shri Faya Prasad Sharma (father) 20,000/-
7. Smt. Brija Devi (Mother) 20,000/-
(i) It is directed that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- out of the compensation amount awarded to the claimant No.1 (widow) be invested in three Fixed Deposits of Rs. 1.25 lacs each for a period of 10 years with any Nationalized Bank , without any facility of loan, advances or withdrawal but entitling the claimant to withdraw interest,
(ii) It is also directed that amount awarded to the minor claimants be invested in Fixed Deposits with any Nationalized Bank , without any facility of loan, advances or withdrawal but entitling the claimants/mother to withdraw interest, till the time of their attaining the age of majority.
33. The offending Truck bearing No. PB10-G-9727 was insured for third party risks and therefore, liability to pay compensation to the claimants is fastened on respondent No.3, National Insurance Company Ltd. I hasten to add that liability of respondents is joint and several. Respondent No.3 is directed to make the payment to the claimants Contd..../-
15within 30 days from today.
34. A copy of this order be given to counsel for parties for necessary compliance.
35. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court this On 5th of March, 2007.
(DILBAG SINGH) JUDGE : MACT : DELHI Contd..../-