Delhi District Court
Urmila vs Mohd. Kashif on 12 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL : EAST DISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Suit No.: 284/16
Unique Case I.D. No.: 0240 2C03 5861 2011
1. Urmila
W/o Late Kahar Munsi
2. Master Prince
S/o Late Kahar Munsi
3. Kajal
D/o Late Kahar Munsi
All R/o: 1108, Dallu Pura, Delhi
Also at: 20/461, Trilokpuri, Delhi
..... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Mohd. Kashif
S/o. Sh. Mohd. Sabir
R/o 7974, Shamsuddin Mohalla,
Shakhan Bara, Hindu Rao,
Delhi
..... Driver
2. Mohd. Faheem Ansari
S/o. Sh. Mohd. Yunus Ansari
R/o. H. No. 6236, Pakki Gali,
Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi-110006
..... Previous owner
3. Mohd. Kashif
S/o Sh. Jameel Ahmed
R/o H. No. 3312, Baghichi Achchiji,
Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi-110006
..... Registered owner
..... Respondents
Date of institution : 27.09.2011
Reserved for orders: 12.03.2018
Date of Award : 12.04.2018
JUDGMENT
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 1 of 21 Brief facts:
1. Mr. Kahar Munshi (the deceased), 50 years and 8 months, born on 02.01.1961, died on 29.08.2011 consequent to injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 28.08.2011 at 8.15 a.m. at Traffic Light, 18 Block Chowk, Ghazipur Road, Delhi while crossing the road when he was hit by a motor vehicle described as Santro Car bearing registration No. DL 8 CG 4979 (offending vehicle) driven allegedly in rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1. The petitioners being wife and minor children of the deceased instituted an accident claim case in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) submitted by ASI Satyapal Singh, Investigating Officer on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation of the corresponding criminal case vide FIR No. 207/11, initially, registered under section 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS Mayur Vihar.
2. In the meanwhile, the petitioners instituted a petition on the principle of fault liability under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) impleading, inter alia, the driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle as the respondent No. 1 and 3. The respondent No. 2 is the second owner of the offending vehicle who had sold it to the respondent No. 1 after having purchased it from the respondent No. 3.
3. On being noticed, the respondent No. 1, in his written statement, has not denied the place of the accident. He has not denied the accident. He denied rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He attributed negligence to the deceased.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 2 of 21
4. According to the respondent No. 1, he was driving the offending vehicle in average speed and the deceased was crossing the road hurriedly and he came in front of his car suddenly. He stated that the deceased did not move despite the fact that he blew the horn. He denied his liability to pay compensation to the petitioners.
5. The respondent No. 2, in his written statement, stated that the offending vehicle is registered in the name of the respondent No. 3. He stated that he had sold the offending vehicle to the respondent No. 1 in April, 2011. He stated that he is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
6. The respondent No. 3, in his written statement, contended that the respondent No. 1, at the time of the accident, was the owner of the offending vehicle. He stated that he had sold the offending vehicle to the respondent No. 2 on 09.10.2009. He stated that the respondent No. 2 sold the offending vehicle to the respondent No. 1 on 11.04.2011. He stated that the petitioner No. 1 is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased. He stated that the petitioner No. 1 is not the legal representative of the deceased and the petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the children of Suraj and not of the deceased. He stated that the petitioners are not entitled to seek compensation. Issues:
7. On the pleadings, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the deceased Kahar Munshi suffered fatal injuries in a road accident on 28.08.2011 involving vehicle i.e. Santro Car bearing registration No. DL 8 CG 4979 driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner?
(OPP) Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 3 of 21
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Relief.
Evidence:
8. The petitioner No. 1 / Urmila filed her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. She relied on ration card Ex.PW1/A, criminal case record Ex.PW1/C (colly, 15 sheets) and driving license of the deceased Mark 'A'.
9. PW-2 Dharampal Singh, Admission In-charge, RSBV School, Dallupura, Delhi proved application for admission in class 6th in respect of the petitioner No. 2 / Prince and admission and withdrawal register for the year 2014 Ex.PW2/A (colly, 2 pages), certificate issued by Vice Principal Ex.PW2/B and copy of School Leaving Certificate issued by East Delhi Municipal Primary School, Dallupura Ex.PW2/C.
10. PW-3 SI Kali Charan was the author of FIR. He deposed about the manner of the accident. He stated that the driver of the Santro Car jumped the red light signal and hit the pedestrian. He stated that he had chased the offending vehicle but it fled towards Noida.
11. PW-4 Vasu Jiwan Vyas, LDC, Circle 55, Food and Supply Office, Trilokpuri, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi proved the record pertaining to application made by the petitioner No. 1 for issuing ration card on 12.02.2014. A copy of ration form is Ex.PW4/A. A copy of details uploaded on the website pertaining to the said application Ex.PW4/B. He stated that no ration card was issued on the said application for want of aadhaar card.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 4 of 21
12. PW-5 Prem Chand Koli, F.S.O., Circle-55 (Trilokpuri), Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, Deptt. of Food Supplied & Consumer Affairs brought detail of old ration card No. APL55100991, true attested copy of application filed by Smt. Urmila, true attested copy of receipt of aadhaar card of Urmila and Prince, true attested copy of electricity bill of Om Prakash and weeding out of records Ex.PW5/A (colly, 22 sheets).
13. PW-6 ASI (Retd.) Satya Pal Singh was the second investigation Officer. He got conducted post-mortem upon the body of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had recorded statement of the petitioner No. 1 in the hospital.
14. R2W1 Mohd. Fahim stated that he had purchased the offending vehicle from the respondent No. 3 in the year 2009.
He stated that he had sold the offending vehicle to the respondent No. 1 in the presence of the respondent No. 3 vide affidavit Mark 'R2W1/X'.
15. R3W1 Mohd. Kashif (inadvertently mentioned as R2W1) is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. He stated that on 09.10.2009, he had sold the offending vehicle to the respondent No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 90,000/- vide affidavit Ex.R2W1/1.
Final arguments:
16. I have heard arguments of Ms. Sulekha Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Sudha Rani, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and 3 and Sh. Shuaib, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and examined the evidence, oral and documentary.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 5 of 21 Issue wise finding:
(i) Whether the deceased Kahar Munshi suffered fatal injuries in a road accident on 28.08.2011 involving vehicle i.e. Santro Car bearing registration No. DL 8 CG 4979 driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner?
(OPP)
17. In order to discharge the burden of proof, the petitioners examined PW-3 SI Kali Charan. He categorically deposed that in the intervening night of 27 and 28.08.2011, he alongwith Ct. Shri Bhagwan was on patrol duty in Mayur Vihar from 9.00 p.m. to 9.00 a.m. He stated that on 28.08.2011 at about 8.15 a.m., when he reached 18 Block Chowk, Ghazipur Road, he saw that one pedestrian was crossing the road on Red Light Signal from the side of Dharamshila Hospital, suddenly a Santro Car bearing registration No. DL 8 CG 4979 came from Ghazipur side in high-speed and had hit the pedestrian. He stated that the driver of the said car fled away from the place of the accident. He stated that they chased the said car but the driver of the said car fled towards Noida. He stated that he sent the injured to LBS Hospital in an auto- rickshaw. He stated that he informed the police about the accident. He stated that he handed over driving license and mobile of the injured to SI Narendra. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was near Red Light Signal while patrolling on motorcycle. He stated that the driver of the offending vehicle jumped the Red Light Signal and hit the pedestrian. He stated that he had noted the registration number of the offending vehicle and thereafter, sent the injured to LBS Hospital.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 6 of 21
18. The respondent No. 1 was the driver of the offending vehicle. He has not denied the accident. However, he attributed negligence to the deceased. According to him, the deceased was crossing the road hurriedly and he suddenly came in front of the offending vehicle. He also stated that the deceased did not move despite the fact that he was blowing the horn. However, he has not suggested his case to PW-3 SI Kali Charan. He has not explained as to why he could not control the offending vehicle. He has not stated as to why he could not avoid the accident.
19. PW-3 SI Kali Charan is the author of FIR. The case FIR was lodged promptly without any delay within 2 hours 30 minutes after the accident. He proved that the respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle in high-speed. The respondent No. 1 fled after the accident and it points his culpability. It is proved that the respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner as he was driving the offending vehicle in high-speed and while driving so, he jumped red light signal and had hit the deceased who was crossing the road. From the post-mortem report, it is evident that the deceased died on 29.08.2011 due to 'cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force trauma to the head'. All injuries were ante-mortem and possible in a road traffic accident (RTA).
20. It is therefore, proved that the deceased had died due to injuries suffered by him in an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1.
21. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 7 of 21
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
22. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is the wife of the deceased. She submitted that the petitioner No. 2 and 3 are minor children of the deceased. She submitted that the deceased was a Muslim and the petitioner No. 1 was a Hindu and therefore, the deceased was using the name 'Suraj'. She submitted that old ration card Ex.PW5/A of the deceased would show that the petitioner No. 1 is wife of the deceased and the petitioner No. 2 is his son. She submitted that PW-6 ASI (Retd.) Satyapal Singh, Investigating Officer stated that the dead body of the deceased was identified by the petitioner No. 1. She submitted that PW-6 deposed that son of the deceased from his previous marriage refused to receive the dead body of the deceased. She submitted that PW-6 deposed that during investigation, it emerged that the deceased married with the petitioner No. 1 after converting his religion. She submitted that the petitioners were financially dependent upon the deceased.
23. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 3 submitted that there is no evidence that the petitioner No. 1 was legally wedded wife of the deceased. She submitted that father's name of the petitioner No. 2 and 3 is mentioned as 'Suraj' instead of 'Kahar Munshi' in admission register and application form Ex.PW2/A. She submitted that ration card Ex.PW1/A was applied on 27.10.2011 and therefore, it cannot be considered.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 8 of 21
24. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 3 submitted that the petitioner No. 2 and 3 are not the children of the deceased. She submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to seek compensation as she has failed to prove that she is legally wedded wife of the deceased. She submitted that the petitioners have not led any evidence to prove conversion of the deceased from Muslim to Hindu. She submitted that 'no objection certificate' was neither relied nor proved during inquiry. She submitted that the petitioners are not legal representatives of the deceased and therefore, they cannot seek compensation for his death. She relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Subhiya Bai & Ors., 1998 (2) TAC 272 (MP) and Manonmani & Ors. versus R. Ranjitham & Ors., CMA No. 491 of 2005 decided by Hon'ble Madras High Court on 27.03.2006.
25. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is wife and the petitioner No. 2 and 3 are minor children of the deceased. The petitioner No. 1 appeared as PW-1. She deposed, on the strength of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A, that she is wife of the deceased and the petitioner No. 2 and 3 are son and daughter of the deceased respectively. She has not stated as to when she was married and what ceremonies were performed at the time of her marriage. She has not stated as to the time and place of her marriage. In her cross-examination, she stated that she was married before 15 years in a temple in Distt. Pratapgarh, U.P. and came to Delhi. She stated that besides ration card, she has no evidence that she was legally wedded wife of the deceased.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 9 of 21
26. Ration card No. APL55100991 Ex.PW1/A was issued on 27.10.2011 after death of the deceased. Application for renewal of the said ration card was rejected.
27. According to application for admission in RSBV, Dallupura, Delhi-110096 and admission and withdrawal register Ex.PW2/A, the petitioner No. 2 / Master Prince was admitted in the said school on 01.04.2014 in class 6 th in the academic session 2014-15. His father's name is mentioned as 'Suraj' and not 'Kahar Munshi'. School Leaving Certificate Ex.PW2/C issued by East Delhi Municipal Corporation Primary School, Dallupura-II would show that the petitioner No. 2 / Prince passed 5th standard in their school in the academic session 2013-14 and his father's name is mentioned as 'Suraj'.
28. There is considerable merit in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 3 that ration card Ex.PW1/A would not prove the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased as it was issued on 27.10.2011 after death of the deceased. The accident claim case was instituted on 27.09.2011. There is merit in her contention that father's name of the petitioner No. 2 is mentioned as 'Suraj' instead of 'Kahar Munshi' in the school records of the petitioner No. 2 / Master Prince.
29. Standard of proof in an accident claim case is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubts. There must be evidence on the file of the Tribunal which probabilize the existence of a fact.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 10 of 21
30. PW-6 ASI (Retd.) Satyapal Singh was the Investigating Officer of the case. He investigated the case since 30.08.2011. He categorically deposed that dead body of the deceased was identified by his son born from first marriage and the second wife / Urmila.
31. The date of the accident is 28.08.2011. The deceased died on 29.08.2011 at 8.30 a.m. in Lok Nayak Hospital. His address is mentioned as H. No. 1108, Dallupura, Delhi. According to identification memos, dead body of the deceased was identified by the petitioner No. 1 and Jasmuddin Munshi, son of the deceased. In the identification memo, the petitioner No. 1 is shown as resident of H. No. 1108, Dallupura (house of Satya Prakash), Delhi. In the identification memo, it is recorded that the petitioner No. 1 / Urmila stated that she is residing at the said address alongwith her children and her husband Kahar Munshi died on 29.08.2011 in an accident taken place on 28.08.2011 and she identified the dead body as that of her husband. In the application for conducting post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased and post-mortem report, the status of the petitioner No. 1 is mentioned as wife of the deceased and the address of the deceased and the petitioner No. 1 is mentioned as H. No. 1108, Dallupura, Delhi-110096. PW-6 stated that son of the deceased refused to receive the dead body of the deceased for conducting last rites. According to dead body handing over memo, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the petitioner No. 1 / Urmila. In her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 30.08.2011, she disclosed her relationship with the deceased.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 11 of 21
32. In the handing over memo, it is stated that the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the petitioner No. 1 being wife of the deceased. The said handing over memo was signed by Jasmuddin Munshi, son of the deceased from his previous marriage and Akbar Ali Munshi, brother of the deceased.
33. Even if no objection certificate / declaration is excluded from consideration, there is sufficient contemporary evidence to establish the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased.
34. From the afore-said material, it is evident that the petitioners were residing at the address of the deceased at H. No. 1108, Dallupura, Delhi-110096. The petitioner No. 1 disclosed her status as the wife of the deceased soon after the accident and she identified the deceased as her husband. The petitioner No. 1 received the dead body of the deceased and cremated him. Therefore, it is proved that the petitioner No. 1 was living with the deceased as his wife at the time of his death. It is proved that the petitioner No. 2 and 3 are children of the petitioner No. 1 and the deceased.
35. The fact that the ration card Ex.PW1/A was prepared on 27.10.2011 and the name of father of the petitioner No. 2 is mentioned as 'Suraj' instead of 'Kahar Munshi' would not affect the case of the petitioners. The fact that the deceased was a Muslim and there is no evidence that he changed his religion before marrying the petitioner No. 1 / Urmila is also not material.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 12 of 21
36. The petitioner No. 1 and the deceased belonged to poor section of society. It cannot be expected that there would be any document regarding conversion and change of name. Judicial notice can be taken that poor section of society live the life as it comes. Even there is no evidence that the deceased had converted his religion or name or married the petitioner No. 1, there is sufficient evidence that the petitioner No 1 and the deceased were living as the husband and wife since more than 10 years and they given birth to the petitioner No. 2 and 3.
37. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 3 relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Subhiya Bai & Ors. (supra) to contend that an accident claim case filed by not legally wedded wife is not maintainable. Relevant portion of the judgment, as relied, is as under:
"5. In the present case, the claimant said that she was not and could not be the wife of the deceased but she had been residing with the deceased for 28 years as his keep. The question is whether she was entitled to maintenance from the deceased under the Personal Law. The Hindu Guardianship and Maintenance Act, 1956 deals with this aspect and enumerates persons who are entitled to maintenance. It nowhere speaks of a concubine. The status of concubine is not recognized as a legal status even under the Hindu Law for the purpose of inheritance or maintenance. It is apparent that Claimant / Respondent No. 1 is not a legal representative and was not entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act."
38. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 3 relied on Manonmani versus R. Ranjitham & Ors. (supra) to contend that the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to maintain claim for compensation in the presence of legally wedded wife of the deceased.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 13 of 21 Relevant portion of the judgment, as relied, is as under:
"14. Hence, I hold on the point that the claimants 2 and 3 will alone come under the definition of legal representative under Section 2 (11) C.P.C. and are entitled to maintain the claim petition No. 14 of 2001 in the capacity of legal representative under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The first claimant is not entitled to maintain the claim petition No. 14 of 2001 under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, since she has no marital status with the deceased Ponnusamy Nadar, as the marriage between the first appellant and the deceased Ponnusamy Nadar still subsists and not dissolved by any legal separation. The point is answered accordingly."
39. An application for compensation arising out of an accident resulting in death may be made by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. The term "legal representative" has not been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is defined in the definitions in Section 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as under:
"Legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued."
40. The term "legal representative" cannot be given a restricted meaning. It does not confer a right on any person nor it creates a class of heirs. It only enacts that a person who in law can represent the estate of the deceased can only be a legal representative and it may even include an intermeddler.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 14 of 21
41. The purpose to allow a legal representative of a deceased to sue or be sued will be frustrated by giving a narrow meaning. The term must be interpreted in view of the objective and the nature of legislation. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a social justice legislation. It does not confer any right but only provides for an expeditious remedy for an action for damages arising out of road accidents.
42. In Subhiya Bai (supra), the children of the deceased were not party to the petition. That case related to marriage between Hindus governed by the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. In the present case, the deceased is a Muslim and the children of the deceased are also seeking compensation.
43. In R. Ranjitham (supra), second wife and two children of the deceased through the second wife (claimants) filed an accident claim case. The first wife and two children through the first wife of the deceased filed a counter claim contending that the second wife and two children were not legal representatives of the deceased and thus, they were not entitled to seek compensation. In the present case, first wife of the deceased has not raised any objection to the claim of the petitioners. Even in the said case, the award was set aside in respect of the second wife but it was confirmed in respect of the children of the deceased through the second wife.
44. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad versus Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr., 1987 SCR (3) 404, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that 'a legal representative in a given case need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child'. (Ref: Page No. 420).
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 15 of 21
45. In the considered opinion of the Tribunal, the petitioner No. 1 was living with the deceased as his wife and she was financially dependent upon him. The petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased through the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners are covered under the definitions of legal representatives under Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus, they are entitled to seek compensation. Loss of dependency:
46. For computing the loss of dependency on account of death of the deceased, ascertainment of his income is the first step.
Assessment of income of the deceased:
47. The petitioners, in the petition, stated that the deceased was working in a jewellary shop and earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The petitioner No. 1, in her affidavit Ex.PW1/A, has not stated anything about the avocation and income of the deceased. They have not led any evidence on this aspect.
48. In the absence of any evidence regarding employment and income of the deceased, the Tribunal is constrained to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages as payable to an unskilled worker at the relevant time. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is notionally assessed as Rs. 6,422/-, it being the prevalent rates of minimum wages as payable to an unskilled worker in Delhi. Deduction for personal and living expenses:
49. The deceased was survived by three dependents and therefore, one-third of his income can only be deducted towards personal and living expenses.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 16 of 21 Application of multiplier:
50. The petitioners have placed a copy of PAN card vide PAN BOTPM9561G issued by Income Tax Department, Government of India in the name of Kahar Munshi S/o Sh. Kahar Anowar wherein date of birth of the deceased / Kahar Munshi is mentioned as 02.01.1961. In the presence of such credible evidence of the date of birth of the deceased, no reliance can be placed upon the age of the deceased as mentioned as 40 years in his post-mortem report. As such, the deceased was 50 years and 8 months old as on 29.08.2011.
51. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Harsh Wadhwan, MAC APP. 521/2008 decided on 20.07.2017, the deceased was 50 years and 8 months old on the date of the accident. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the multiplier must be adopted in accordance with the nearest slab of age group. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi invoked multiplier of 11 as applicable to age group 51 to 55 years.
Future prospects:
52. The deceased was self-employed. He was between the age of 52 to 60 years. In view of dispensation in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017, there shall be 10% addition of income. Loss of dependency:
53. Applying the multiplier of 11 after deducting one-third from the notional income of the deceased, loss of dependency is computed as (6,422 x 110 / 100 x 2 / 3 x 11 x 12) = 6,21,649.6 (rounded of) Rs. 6,22,000/-.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 17 of 21 Non-pecuniary (general) damages:
54. In view of Pranay Sethi (supra), loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively added. Liability:
55. The respondent No. 1 / driver of the offending vehicle is the principal tort-feasor. The respondent No. 2 is neither the driver nor the registered owner of the offending vehicle and therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation. The respondent No. 3 is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. In view of dispensation in Naveen Kumar versus Vijay Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1427/2018 decided on 06.02.2018, he is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
The offending vehicle was put on the public road without insurance. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
AWARD
56. The respondent No 1 and 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 6,42,000/- (after adjusting the interim award amount of Rs. 50,000) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition (27.09.2011) till the date of award within 30 days and otherwise, they would be liable to pay the awarded amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization. (Ref: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sangeeta Devi, MAC APP 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 18 of 21 Apportionment of the award:
57. The petitioners shall be entitled to the award amount with corresponding interest in the ratio of 40:30:30. Final directions:
58. In accordance with direction in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr., MAC APP. 422/2009 dated 15.12.2017, an amount of Rs. 56,800/- out of Rs. 2,56,800/-, will be released to the petitioner No. 1 / Smt. Urmila and balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- will be secured in the following manner:
Sl. No. Amount of FDR Period of FDR
1. Rs. 25,000/- 6 months
2. Rs. 25,000/- 1 year
3. Rs. 25,000/- 18 months
4. Rs. 25,000/- 24 months
5. Rs. 25,000/- 30 months
6. Rs. 25,000/- 36 months
7. Rs. 25,000/- 42 months
8. Rs. 25,000/- 48 months
9. Interest component 54 months
59. Amount of Rs. 1,92,600/- alongwith corresponding interest, as awarded to each of the petitioner No. 2 and 3 will be secured in the form of FDRs till they attain the age of majority.
60. Manager, UCO Bank, KKD Court, Delhi shall retain original FDRs. It shall provide the statement containing FDR numbers, amount, date of maturity and the maturity amount to the petitioners. It shall not encash any of the FDRs before their maturity date without permission of the Tribunal.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 19 of 21
61. Copy of Award be given to the petitioners and respondent No. 1 and 3.
62. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court Sh. Sanjay Sharma Dated: 12th April, 2018 Presiding Officer MACT (East) Karkardooma Court, Delhi Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Location: East District, SHARMA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2018.04.13 12:48:42 +0530 Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 20 of 21 Suit No. 284/16 12.04.2018 Present : Ms. Sulekha Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners.
R1 and R3 are present.
Sh. Shuaib, Advocate with R2.
Vide separate judgment, award is passed. Following direction dated 15.12.2017 in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr., MAC APP. 422/2009, the petitioner No. 1 / Urmila, the petitioner No. 2 / Master Prince and the petitioner No. 3 / Baby Kajal shall open a bank account, if not opened, in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence in their individual name. Concerned Manager is directed not to issue any cheque book and / or debit card to the petitioners and if the same have already been issued, the concerned bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the passbooks of the petitioners to the effect that no cheque book and / or debit card shall be issued without the permission of the Tribunal. The petitioners are directed to produce copy of the order before the concerned bank whereupon the bank is directed to make an endorsement on the passbooks. The petitioners are directed to produce the original passbooks with the necessary endorsement as well as aadhaar card and PAN card before the Tribunal. To come up for compliance on 11.07.2018.
Sanjay Sharma PO MACT (East)/KKD Delhi/12.04.2018.
Suit No.: 284/2016 Urmila & Ors. vs Mohd. Kashif & Ors. 21 of 21