Delhi District Court
Smt. Usha Rana vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 1 Of 27 on 30 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL : EAST DISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
D-10736/16
Unique Case I.D. No.: MACT/43016/2015
Ms. Priya
D/o Sh. Upender Singh
R/o Vill. Khadoi, PS Narsaina,
Distt. Bulandshahr, U.P.
D-10827/16
Unique Case I.D. No.: MACT/43017/2015
Ms. Pooja Tomar
D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Tomar
R/o 18/465, Kailash Puri,
Distt. Bulandshahr, U.P.
D-10828/16
Unique Case I.D. No.: MACT/43018/2015
1. Smt. Poonam Sharma
W/o Sh. Dharmender Kumar Pathak
2. Mr. Dharmender Kumar Pathak
S/o Sh. Ram Charan Sharma
Residents of:
H. No. 547, Amar Maya Colony,
Tehsil & Distt. Bulandshahr, U.P.
D-10829/16
Unique Case I.D. No.: MACT/43019/2015
1. Smt. Usha Rana
W/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Rana
2. Mr. Suresh Kumar Rana
S/o Sh. Veerpal Singh
Residents of:
H. No. 426/15, Kailashpuri,
near Kamal Public School,
Distt. Bulandshahr, U.P.
..... Petitioners
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 1 of 27
VERSUS
1. Mr. Ajay Kumar Rana Bajpai
S/o. Sh. Parshu Ram
R/o J-56, Nehru Camp, I.P. Extension,
Delhi-110092
Also at:
11/67, 2nd Floor, Dhawal Giri Apartment,
Sector-34, Noida, U.P.
Also at:
VPO Lachipur, PS Khero,
Distt. Raibareily, U.P.
..... Driver-Owner
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
C-31/32, 1st Floor, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001
..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 07.12.2015
Date of Reserving : 20.09.2018
Date of Judgment : 30.10.2018
JUDGMENT
1. On 19.09.2015 at about 9.30 p.m., Ms. Priya, Pooja Tomar, Pooja Pathak and Shalini Rana and Bhola were moving in car described as Honda Civic bearing registration No. DL-3C BE 1550 (the car), on way to Laxmi Nagar from Spice Mall, Noida, U.P., allegedly driven by the respondent No. 1 in high speed despite repeated warnings. When the car reached at Patparganj Flyover, NH-24, Delhi, the respondent No. 1 started indulging in molesting Ms. Pooja Tomar and in that process, he lost control over the car and rammed it into rear portion of TATA Eicher bearing registration No. UP-16BT 5538 (the truck). Consequently, Ms. Pooja Tomar and Priya suffered 'grievous' injuries and Ms. Pooja Pathak and Shalini Rana suffered 'fatal' injuries.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 2 of 27
2. The above noted accident claim cases were instituted by Ms. Priya and Pooja Tomar, and parents of Ms. Pooja Pathak and Shalini Rana (collectively, the petitioners) in context of detailed accident reports (DAR) instituted by ASI Dinesh Tyagi, Investigating Officer, under section 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) on the basis of evidence collected during investigation of corresponding criminal case vide FIR No. 659/15, initially, registered under section 279/337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS Pandav Nagar impleading, inter alia, the respondent No. 1 and 2 being the driver-owner and insurer of the car. Subsequently, the petitioners filed petitions under section 166 M.V. Act.
3. The respondent No. 1, in his written statement, denied rash and negligent driving of the car and attributed negligence to some other vehicle.
4. The respondent No. 2 / insurer, in its reply, contended that the truck which was stationary on road contributed to the accident and owner, driver and insurer of the truck are necessary parties. It contended that the car was being driven when the respondent No. 1 was indulging in molestation and therefore, other occupants of the car were party to the said crime and contributed to the accident. It contended that 'no one is entitled to claim compensation for his own wrongs'. It contended that the doctrine of 'volenti non fit injuria' would apply as the commuters had full knowledge of nature and extent of risk voluntarily undertaken by them. It contended that there were six persons in the car beyond sitting capacity of the car including the driver.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 3 of 27 ISSUES:
5. On the pleadings, in D-10736/16, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road side accident on 19.09.2015 involving vehicle i.e. Honda Civic Car bearing registration No. DL-3C BE 1550 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Relief.
6. On the pleadings, in D-10827/16, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road side accident on 19.09.2015 involving vehicle i.e. Honda Civic Car bearing registration No. DL-3C BE 1550 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Relief.
7. On the pleadings, in D-10828/16, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a road side accident on 19.09.2015 involving vehicle i.e. Honda Civic Car bearing registration No. DL-3C BE 1550 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Relief.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 4 of 27
8. On the pleadings, in D-10829/16, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a road side accident on 19.09.2015 involving vehicle i.e. Honda Civic Car bearing registration No. DL-3C BE 1550 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE D-10736/16
9. Ms. Priya appeared as PW-1. She deposed, on strength of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, about manner of the accident. She relied on treatment record Ex.PW1/1, medical bills Ex.PW1/2, academic certificates Ex.PW1/3, identity card issued by Vedanga Institute for Civil Services Ex.PW1/4, fee receipts issued by Vedanga Institute for Civil Services Ex.PW1/5, fee receipts issued by Glovin Computer Education Ex.PW1/6, aadhaar card Ex.PW1/7, voter I-card Ex.PW1/8 and detailed accident report (DAR) Ex.PW1/9.
10. TW-1 Dharam Nath Kumar, Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi- 110092 brought a letter issued by Director alongwith application form and identity card of Priya Ex.TW1/1.
11. TW-2 Hemant Gupta was caretaker of H. No. 4/156, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 5 of 27 D-10827/16
12. Ms. Pooja Tomar appeared as PW-1. She deposed, on strength of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, about mode of accident. She relied on treatment record Ex.PW1/1, medical bills Ex.PW1/2, academic certificates Ex.PW1/3, fee receipt issued by Vedanga Institute Ex.PW1/4, PAN card Ex.PW1/5, aadhaar card Ex.PW1/6 and detailed accident report (DAR) Ex.PW1/7.
13. TW-1 Dharam Nath Kumar, Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi- 110092 brought a letter issued by Director alongwith application form and identity card of Pooja Tomar Ex.TW1/A.
14. TW-2 Hemant Gupta was caretaker of H. No. 4/156, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
D-10828/16
15. PW-1 Dharmender Kumar Pathak, father of the deceased Pooja Pathak filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied on medical bills of Rs. 79,000/- Ex.PW1/1, death certificate of deceased Ex.PW1/2, academic certificates of the deceased Ex.PW1/3, identity card of the deceased issued by Vedanga Institute for Civil Services Ex.PW1/4, fee receipt issued by Vedanga Institute for Civil Services Ex.PW1/4A, aadhaar card of the deceased Ex.PW1/5, aadhaar card of the petitioners Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 respectively, and detailed accident report (DAR) Ex.PW1/8.
16. PW-2 Priya filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. She described the sequence of events leading to the accident. She relied on her aadhaar card Ex.PW2/1.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 6 of 27
17. TW-1 Dharam Nath Kumar, Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi- 110092 brought a letter issued by Director alongwith application form and identity card of Pooja Pathak Ex.TW1/A.
18. TW-2 Hemant Gupta was caretaker of H. No. 4/156, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
D-10829/16
19. PW-1 Suresh Kumar Rana, father of the deceased Shalini Rana filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied on academic certificates of the deceased Ex.PW1/1, identity card of the deceased issued by Vedanga Institute for Civil Services Ex.PW1/2, fee receipt issued by Vedanga Institute for Civil Services Ex.PW1/2A, aadhaar card of the deceased Ex.PW1/3, aadhaar card of the petitioners Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5 respectively, and detailed accident report (DAR) Ex.PW1/6.
20. PW-2 Priya filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. She described the sequence of events leading to the accident. She relied on her aadhaar card Ex.PW2/1.
21. TW-1 Dharam Nath Kumar, Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi- 110092 brought a letter issued by Director alongwith I-card, payment slip and aadhaar card of Shalini Rana Ex.TW1/A.
22. TW-2 Hemant Gupta was caretaker of H. No. 4/156, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 7 of 27 Final arguments:
23. I have heard arguments of Sh. Upender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners, Sh. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Sh. Rakesh Rathi, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 / insurer and examined the evidence, oral and documentary.
D-10736/16, 10827/16, 10828/16 and 10829/16 ISSUE NO. 1
24. In an action instituted on the principle of fault liability under section 166 of the MV Act, the petitioners must prove involvement of the offending vehicle, and rash and negligent driving thereof. Standard of proof is not that stringent as that applied in criminal cases that is proof beyond reasonable doubts. In claims founded on tort liability, the principle of preponderance of probabilities applies.
25. In order to prove rash and negligent driving of the car, Ms. Priya and Pooja Tomar appeared as PW-1 in accident claim cases. Ms. Priya deposed, on strength of affidavit, sequence of events leading to occurrence. She categorically stated that on 19.09.2015, she alongwith her friends namely Ms. Pooja Pathak, Shalini Rana, Pooja Tomar and Bhola were moving to Laxmi Nagar from Spice Mall, Noida in car bearing registration No. DL-3C BE 1550 (Honda Civic). She categorically deposed that the respondent No. 1 was driving the car in high speed with high volume of music. She deposed that the respondent No. 1 was warned by her several times and other passengers but he had not paid any heed.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 8 of 27
26. Ms. Priya categorically deposed that at about 09.30 p.m., when the car reached at Patparganj Flyover, NH-24, Delhi, the respondent No. 1 was molesting Ms. Pooja Tomar and Bhola was molesting her and for that reason, the respondent No. 1 lost control over the car and rammed it into TATA Eicher bearing registration No. UP-16BT 5538 which was moving ahead of the car. She was cross-examined by counsel for the respondent No. 1. However, he could not elicit anything from her cross-examination. In her cross-examination conducted by counsel for the respondent No. 2 / insurer, she deposed that the respondent No. 1 was driving without taking care and concentrating on Pooja Tomar and molesting her. It is evident that there is nothing in her cross-examination which can render her version on the aspect of rash and negligent driving of the car not worthy of credit.
27. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of evidence of Ms. Pooja Tomar. She described manner of accident in her affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She materially corroborated evidence of Ms. Priya. There is nothing in her cross- examination which can throw any doubt on mode of accident.
28. It may be noted that the respondent No. 1 neither stated nor deposed his account of accident. The respondent No. 2 / insurer did not examine him to elicit anything to contrary. Evidence of Ms. Priya and Pooja Tomar remained unchallenged. The respondent No. 1 neither stated nor deposed as to why he could not avoid the accident.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 9 of 27
29. The accident was reported to the police at 9.30 p.m. on 19.09.2015 vide DD No. 43A. HC Prasadi Lal reached at the place of the accident. He found that the car in rammed condition into rear portion of the truck. The car and the truck were seized in accidental condition from the place of the accident. Mechanical Inspection Report (MIR) of the car and the truck would show that the car mangled due to the impact of the collision against rear portion of the truck. The truck also suffered considerable damage on its rear portion.
30. From evidence of Ms. Priya and Pooja Tomar and contemporary documents, as noted above, and photographs of the car and the truck, it is evident that the car had rammed into rear portion of the truck with considerable force leading to fatal injuries to Ms. Shalini Rana and Pooja Pathak, and grievous injuries to Ms. Priya and Pooja Tomar. The rash and negligent driving of the car is inherent in sequence of events brought on file of the tribunal.
31. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 / insurer submitted that the accident had not arisen from rash and negligent driving of the car but it was caused due to criminal act committed by the respondent No. 1 and his accomplice Bhola. He submitted that insurance policy was issued to indemnify liability arising out of use of motor vehicle and not to criminal acts. He submitted that the word 'accident' cannot be equated to deliberate culpable negligence unexpected from a prudent person. He submitted that claim of the petitioners is beyond scope of contract of insurance. He submitted that the insurance company deserves exoneration.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 10 of 27
32. The tribunal does not find any merit in the contention of the respondent No. 2 / insurer that the accident was caused not due to rash and negligent driving but due to criminal act committed by the respondent No. 1 and his accomplice Bhola. The petitioners are not seeking compensation for molestation or the criminal acts committed by the respondent No. 1 and his accomplice Bhola while they were traveling in the car. It is evident that the deceased, Shalini Rana, Pooja Pathak and the injured, Priya and Pooja Tomar, did not suffer injuries due to act of molestation but in motor vehicular accident. It is evident that the accident was not caused as the respondent No. 1 was indulging in molestation but it was caused due to high speed of the car. The fact that the respondent No. 1 and his accomplice Bhola started molesting other passengers of the car would not take accident claim cases out of ambit of motor vehicular accident.
33. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 / insurer contended that there were 6 persons traveling in the car beyond sanctioned strength of 5 persons. This fact is of no help as the cause of the accident was not the presence of 6 th person in the car but high speed of the car.
34. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 / insurer made an attempt to argue that the deceased and the injured had contributed to the accident as the respondent No. 1 was driving the car while molesting one of the passengers. The tribunal is not able to understand logic and reasoning of such contention. If a woman is subjected to a criminal act by his known person, then she cannot be labelled as party to the crime.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 11 of 27
35. According to MLC, Ms. Priya was admitted at 9.40 p.m. on 19.09.2015 in LBS Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi-110091 as a case of road traffic accident (RTA). She was examined to have suffered injuries on her cheek, chin and left ear. The nature of injury is 'grievous'.
36. According to MLC, Ms. Pooja Tomar was admitted at 9.55 p.m. on 19.09.2015 in LBS Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi- 110091 as a case of road traffic accident (RTA). She was examined to have suffered injuries over left temporal area and abrasions below clavicle. The nature of injury is 'grievous'.
37. According to post-mortem report, Ms. Pooja Pathak died due to 'cranio-cerebral injuries' subsequent to road traffic accident.
38. According to post-mortem report, Ms. Shalini Rana died due to 'hemorrhagic shock' consequent upon blunt force impact.
39. It is, therefore, proved that Ms. Shalini Rana and Pooja Pathak died, and Ms. Priya and Pooja Tomar suffered grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the respondent No. 1.
40. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. D-10736/16 titled as 'Priya versus Ajay Kumar & Anr.' ISSUE NO. 2:
41. Ms. Priya suffered grievous injury in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the car by the respondent No. 1. She is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for the injuries.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 12 of 27 PAIN AND SUFFERING:
42. According to MLC, Ms. Priya was admitted at 9.40 p.m. on 19.09.2015 in LBS Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi-110091 as a case of road traffic accident (RTA). She was examined to have suffered injuries on her cheek, chin and left ear. As noted in treatment record Ex.PW1/1, she received treatment as an indoor patient from 20.09.2015 to 21.09.2015 in MAX Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi. She received further treatment from 21.09.2015 to 23.09.2015 in ESI Hospital, Jhilmil, Delhi. She received further treatment as an outdoor patient from GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. The nature of injury is 'grievous'. In view of nature of injuries, surgical procedures and prolonged treatment, she is awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of 'pain and suffering'.
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
43. Ms. Priya proved medical expenses in the sum of Rs.
40,644/- vide medical bills Ex.PW1/2. Accordingly, she is awarded an amount of Rs. 41,000/- under the head of 'medical expenses'.
LOSS OF INCOME:
44. Ms. Priya, in her affidavit Ex.PW1/A, claimed that she was running a tuition centre under the name and style of 'Priya Tuition Centre' and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month to 20,000/-
per month. She has not led any evidence to prove that she was running tuition centre. TW-2 Hemant Gupta, Caretaker of the rented accommodation stated that no such tuition centre was running at the said address.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 13 of 27
45. Besides word of Ms. Priya, there is no evidence that she was earning any income from any avocation and therefore, she is not entitled to loss of income.
46. However, Ms. Priya was preparing for competitive examination at 'Vedanga Institute for Civil Services' in Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. TW-1 Dharam Nath Kumar, Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services proved application form. Ms. Priya was pursuing course for taking up Banking and SSC examination since 14.07.2015. The course duration was of 3 / 4 months. She discontinued her course due to the accident. She is awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of education. SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE:
47. Ms. Priya claimed Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance. However, she has not led any evidence to prove that she was prescribed any special diet. She has not led any evidence that she purchased protein rich or nutritious diet. She has not led any evidence that she engaged any conveyance and incurred expenses thereon. However, in view of the nature of injury and period of treatment in various hospitals, she is awarded Rs. 10,000/- each under the head of 'special diet and conveyance'. ATTENDANT CHARGES:
48. Ms. Priya claimed an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards attendant charges. She has not led any evidence to prove that she engaged any attendant or incurred any expense thereon. She will not be entitled to attendant charges. (See: Daisy Kuriakose versus Sanjay Kumar & ors., MAC APP No. 513/2008 decided on 26.04.2016).
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 14 of 27
49. The compensation awarded to Ms. Priya is computed, as under:
Sl. No Head of compensation Amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 41,000/-
3. Loss of education Rs. 25,000/-
4. Special diet and conveyance Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs. 1,36,000/-
D-10827/16 titled as 'Pooja Tomar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr.' ISSUE NO. 2:
50. Ms. Pooja Tomar suffered grievous injury in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the car by the respondent No. 1. She is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for the injuries.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
51. According to MLC, Ms. Pooja Tomar was admitted at 9.55 p.m. on 19.09.2015 in LBS Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi- 110091 as a case of road traffic accident (RTA). She was examined to have suffered injuries over left temporal area and abrasions below clavicle. As noted in treatment record Ex.PW1/1, she suffered 'bilateral fracture pars intra-arteauloris C2 vertebra'. She received treatment as an indoor patient on 20.09.2015 in Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi. The nature of injury is 'grievous'. In view of nature of injuries and prolonged treatment, she is awarded an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under the head of 'pain and suffering'.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 15 of 27 MEDICAL EXPENSES:
52. Ms. Pooja Tomar proved medical expenses in the sum of Rs. 36,435/- vide medical bills Ex.PW1/2. Accordingly, she is awarded an amount of Rs. 37,000/- under the head of 'medical expenses'.
LOSS OF INCOME:
53. Ms. Pooja Tomar, in her affidavit Ex.PW1/A, claimed that she was running a tuition centre under the name and style of 'Pooja Tomar Tuition Centre' and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month to 20,000/- per month. She has not led any evidence to prove that she was running tuition centre. TW-2 Hemant Gupta, Caretaker of the rented accommodation stated that no such tuition centre was running at the said address. Besides word of Ms. Pooja Tomar, there is no evidence that she was earning any income from any avocation and therefore, she is not entitled to loss of income. However, Ms. Pooja Tomar was preparing for competitive examination at 'Vedanga Institute for Civil Services' in Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. TW-1 Dharam Nath Kumar, Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services proved application form. Ms. Pooja Tomar was pursuing course for taking up Banking and SSC examination since 14.07.2015. The course duration was of 3 / 4 months. She discontinued her course due to the accident. She is awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of education.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE:
54. Ms. Pooja Tomar claimed Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 16 of 27
55. However, Ms. Pooja Tomar has not led any evidence to prove that she was prescribed any special diet. She has not led any evidence that she purchased protein rich or nutritious diet. She has not led any evidence that she engaged any conveyance and incurred expenses thereon. However, in view of the nature of injury and period of treatment in various hospitals, she is awarded Rs. 5,000/- each under the head of 'special diet and conveyance'.
ATTENDANT CHARGES:
56. Ms. Pooja Tomar claimed an amount of Rs. 30,000/-
towards attendant charges. She has not led any evidence to prove that she engaged any attendant or incurred any expense thereon. She will not be entitled to attendant charges. (See: Daisy Kuriakose versus Sanjay Kumar & ors., MAC APP No. 513/2008 decided on 26.04.2016).
57. The compensation awarded to Ms. Pooja Tomar is computed, as under:
Sl. No Head of compensation Amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 37,000/-
3. Loss of education Rs. 25,000/-
4. Special diet and conveyance Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 97,000/-
D-10828/16 titled as 'Poonam Sharma & Anr vs Ajay Kumar & Anr' ISSUE NO. 2:
58. The petitioners being parents of the deceased / Pooja Pathak are entitled to seek compensation.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 17 of 27 ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:
59. First step towards computation of loss of dependency is ascertainment of income of the deceased.
60. The case of the petitioners, as pleaded in the petition, was that the deceased was pursuing course for Bank PO and SSC examination in 'Vedanga Institute for Civil Services', Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 and was running tuition centre in the name of 'Pooja Pathak Tuition Centre' and earning Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- per month. The petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that the deceased was running tuition centre and earning Rs. 15,000 to 20,000/- per month. TW-2 Hemant Gupta, Caretaker of the rented accommodation deposed that no such tuition centre was functioning at the said premises. TW-1 Dharam Nath Kumar, Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 proved application form and payment receipt. The deceased taken admission in the said institute on 14.07.2015 and course duration was of 3 / 4 months. The deceased did graduation in B.com. The deceased was ordinarily residing in State of Uttar Pradesh. However, considering her academic status, her potential income is assessed as Rs. 10,000/- per month.
DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES:
61. The deceased was a bachelor. The petitioners are parents of the deceased. Therefore, 50% of the deceased is deducted towards her personal living expenses in accord with the ruling in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 18 of 27 APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:
62. The deceased was 20 years old. According to academic certificate Ex.PW1/3, the date of birth of the deceased is 28.12.1995. Therefore, multiplier of 18 as applicable to age group between 15 to 20 years would apply. FUTURE PROSPECTS:
63. The case of the deceased would fall under the category of 'self-employed'. He was below 40 years. Following the ruling of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., there will be addition of income to the extent of 40%. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
64. Applying the multiplier of 18 after making deduction to the extent of 50% towards personal living expenses and addition of 40% of future prospects, the loss of dependency is computed as (10,000 / 2 x 140 / 100 x 12 x 18) = 15,12,000/-. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
65. As per dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs. 15,000/- each on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses are added.
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
66. PW-1 Dharmender Kumar Pathak proved medical expenses in the sum of Rs. 79,000/- vide medical bills Ex.PW1/1. Accordingly, petitioners are awarded an amount of Rs. 80,000/- under the head of 'medical expenses'.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 19 of 27
67. The compensation awarded to the petitioners is computed, as under:
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 15,12,000/-
2. Non-pecuniary (in view of Pranay Sethi (supra) Rs. 30,000/-
3. Medical expenses Rs. 80,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 16,22,000/-
D-10829/16 titled as 'Usha Rana & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr.' ISSUE NO. 2:
68. The petitioners being parents of the deceased / Shalini Rana are entitled to seek compensation. ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:
69. First step towards computation of loss of dependency is ascertainment of income of the deceased.
70. The case of the petitioners, as pleaded in the petition, was that the deceased was pursuing course for Bank PO and SSC examination in 'Vedanga Institute for Civil Services', Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 and was running tuition centre in the name of 'Shalini Rana Tuition Centre' and earning Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- per month. The petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that the deceased was running tuition centre and earning Rs. 15,000 to 20,000/- per month. TW-2 Hemant Gupta, Caretaker of the rented accommodation deposed that no such tuition centre was functioning at the said premises. TW-1 Dharam Nath Kumar, Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 proved application form and payment receipt. The deceased taken admission in the said institute on 21.07.2015 and course duration was of 3 / 4 months. The deceased did graduation in B.com.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 20 of 27
71. The deceased was ordinarily residing in State of Uttar Pradesh. However, considering her academic status, her potential income is assessed as Rs. 10,000/- per month. DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES:
72. The deceased was a bachelor. The petitioners are parents of the deceased. Therefore, 50% of the deceased is deducted towards her personal living expenses in accord with the ruling in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:
73. The deceased was 21 years old. According to academic certificate Ex.PW1/3, the date of birth of the deceased is 02.05.1994. Therefore, multiplier of 18 as applicable to age group between 21 to 25 years would apply. FUTURE PROSPECTS:
74. The case of the deceased would fall under the category of 'self-employed'. He was below 40 years. Following the ruling of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., there will be addition of income to the extent of 40%. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
75. Applying the multiplier of 18 after making deduction to the extent of 50% towards personal living expenses and addition of 40% of future prospects, the loss of dependency is computed as (10,000 / 2 x 140 / 100 x 12 x 18) = 15,12,000/-.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 21 of 27 NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
76. As per dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs. 15,000/- each on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses are added.
77. The compensation awarded to the petitioners is computed, as under:
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 15,12,000/-
2. Non-pecuniary (in view of Pranay Sethi (supra) Rs. 30,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 15,42,000/-
LIABILITY:
78. The respondent No. 2 / insurer has not proved breach of any term and condition of insurance policy. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 / insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
AWARD D-10736/16:
79. Accordingly, the petitioner / Priya is awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,36,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award. The respondent No. 2 / insurer shall deposit the award amount with the tribunal within 30 days and otherwise, the award amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. [See: judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.] D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 22 of 27 D-10827/16:
80. Accordingly, the petitioner / Pooja Tomar is awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 97,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award. The respondent No. 2 / insurer shall deposit the award amount with the tribunal within 30 days and otherwise, the award amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. D-10828/16:
81. The petitioners are awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 16,22,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award. The respondent No. 2 / insurer shall deposit the award amount with the tribunal within 30 days and otherwise, the award amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
APPORTIONMENT AND MODE OF DISBURSAL:
82. The petitioner No. 1 / Smt. Poonam Sharma and the petitioner No. 2 / Mr. Dharmender Kumar Pathak shall be entitled to the award amount alongwith corresponding interest in the ratio of 60:40.
83. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 9,73,200/- alongwith corresponding interest would fall to the share of the petitioner No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 6,48,800/- alongwith corresponding interest would come to the share of the petitioner No. 2.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 23 of 27
84. An amount of Rs. 73,200, out of Rs. 9,73,200, will be released to Smt. Poonam Sharma and balance amount of Rs.
9,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest, will be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipts for the period, as under:
Sl. No. Amount Period of FDR
1. Rs. 1,00,000/- 1 year
2. Rs. 2,00,000/- 2 years
3. Rs. 2,00,000/- 3 years
4. Rs. 2,00,000/- 4 years
5. Rs. 2,00,000/- 5 years
6. Interest component 6 years
85. An amount of Rs. 48,800, out of Rs. 6,48,800, will be released to Mr. Dharmendeer Kumar Pathak and balance amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest, will be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipts for the period, as under:
Sl. No. Amount Period of FDR
1. Rs. 2,00,000/- 1 year
2. Rs. 2,00,000/- 2 years
3. Rs. 2,00,000/- 3 years
4. Interest component 4 years
D-10829/16:
86. The petitioners are awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 15,42,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award. The respondent No. 2 / insurer shall deposit the award amount with the tribunal within 30 days and otherwise, the award amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 24 of 27 APPORTIONMENT AND MODE OF DISBURSAL:
87. The petitioner No. 1 / Smt. Usha Rana and the petitioner No. 2 / Mr. Suresh Rana shall be entitled to the award amount alongwith corresponding interest in the ratio of 60:40.
88. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 9,25,200/- alongwith corresponding interest would fall to the share of the petitioner No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 6,16,800/- alongwith corresponding interest would come to the share of the petitioner No. 2.
89. An amount of Rs. 1,25,200, out of Rs. 9,25,200, will be released to Smt. Usha Rana and balance amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest, will be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipts for the period, as under:
Sl. No. Amount Period of FDR
1. Rs. 2,00,000/- 1 year
2. Rs. 2,00,000/- 2 years
3. Rs. 2,00,000/- 3 years
4. Rs. 2,00,000/- 4 years
5. Interest component 5 years
90. An amount of Rs. 1,16,800, out of Rs. 6,16,800, will be released to Mr. Suresh Rana and balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest, will be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipts for the period, as under:
Sl. No. Amount Period of FDR
1. Rs. 1,00,000/- 1 year
2. Rs. 2,00,000/- 2 years
3. Rs. 2,00,000/- 3 years
4. Interest component 4 years
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 25 of 27
Copy of award be supplied to the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 / insurer for compliance. File be consigned to record room.
SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY
SHARMA
Location: East District,
SHARMA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Date: 2018.11.01 16:19:46 +0530
Announced in the open Court Sh. Sanjay Sharma
Dated: 30th October, 2018 Presiding Officer MACT (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 26 of 27
DAR No. 10828/16
30.10.2018
Present : Sh. Upender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Sh. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for R1 / driverowner. Sh. Rakesh Rathi, Advocate for R2 / Insurance Co.
It is 4.45 p.m. Vide separate judgment, award is passed. To come up for compliance on 29.11.2018.
Sanjay Sharma PO MACT (East)/KKD Delhi/30.10.2018.
D10828/16 Poonam Sharma & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. 27 of 27