Ankit Aggarwal & Ors. vs . Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. on 22 December, 2017

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Ankit Aggarwal & Ors. vs . Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. on 22 December, 2017

                                                        Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.
                                                        Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.
                                                        Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.
                                                        Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.
                                                        Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.


 
             IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,
                 JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), DELHI.



MACT No. 357081/16
Suit No. 401/2011
Unique Case ID No. DLCT-01-000271-2006

Date of filing of Claim Petition : 28.09.2006


1.        Sh. Ankit Aggarwal
          S/o Late Sh. Sri Narayan Aggarwal
          R/o H. No. 4657/21
          Ansari Road, Darya Ganj
          New Delhi-110002.

2.        Smt. Meenu Aggarwal
          W/o Sh. Manoj Aggarwal
          R/o H. No. 4226/1,
          Ansari Road, Darya Ganj
          New Delhi-110002.

3.        Smt. Bhawana Gupta
          W/o Sh. Sudhir Gupta
          R/o H. No. A-2/178,
          Pachim Vihar,
          New Delhi.

4.        Smt. Anu Bansal
          W/o Sh. Sachin Bansal
          R/o H.No. 32-C, New Rohtak Road,
          Near Jain Mandir
          Delhi.

                                                                                       ........Petitioners




MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);
 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11)                                    Page No. 1   of  74             
                                                         Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.
                                                        Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.
                                                        Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.
                                                        Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.
                                                        Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.


          VERSUS



1.         Sh. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal
           S/o Late Sh. Phool Chand Aggarwal
           R/o 4856/24, Ansari Road,
           Darya Ganj,
           New Delhi-110002.

                                                               ............Respondent No.1

(Owner of santro car)

2. The National Insurance Company Ltd.

Division No. XIII, 106, Palika Bhawan, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-66.

............Respondent No.2 (Insurer of santro)

3. Sh. Bachhu Singh S/o Sh. Jawahar Singh (since deceased through his legal heirs) 3a. Smt. Chandrawati Chahar W/o Late Sh. Bachuu Singh 3b. Sh. Jugraj Singh Chahar @Gajraj Singh Chahar S/o Late Sh. Bachuu Singh 3c. Sh. Ombeer Chahar S/o Late Sh. Bachuu Singh MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 2 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

3d.        Sh. Dharam Veer Chahar
           S/o Late Sh. Bachuu Singh

3e.        Sh. Raghu Raj Chahar
           S/o Late Sh. Bachuu Singh


           All Resident of:
           8-A, Arjun Nagar, Trihaya,
           Barhakhamba Khariya Road,
           Near Axis Bank, ATM
           Agra, UP.
                                   ............Respondent No.3
                                               (Owner of truck)

4.         Sh. Pappu
           S/o Sh. Arjun Singh
           r/o Village Basadi Chahar,
           P.S. Kaga, Rol, District. Agra

                                                               ............Respondent No.4
                                                                            (Driver of truck)


            AND


MACT No. 356940/16
Suit No. 395/2011

Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000126-2006 Date of filing of Claim Petition : 28.09.2006

1. Sh. Ankit Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Sri Narayan Aggarwal R/o H. No. 4657/21 Ansari Road, Darya Ganj New Delhi-110002.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 3 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

2. Smt. Meenu Aggarwal W/o Sh. Manoj Aggarwal R/o H. No. 4226/1, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj New Delhi-110002.

3. Smt. Bhawana Gupta W/o Sh. Sudhir Gupta R/o H. No. A-2/178, Pachim Vihar, New Delhi.

4. Smt. Anu Bansal W/o Sh. Sachin Bansal R/o H.No. 32-C, New Rohtak Road, Near Jain Mandir Delhi.

........Petitioners VERSUS

1. Sh. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Phool Chand Aggarwal R/o 4856/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.

............Respondent No.1 (Owner of santro car)

2. The National Insurance Company Ltd.

Division No. XIII, 106, Palika Bhawan, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-66.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 4 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

............Respondent No.2 (Insurer of santro car)

8-A, Arjun Nagar, Trihaya, Barhakhamba Khariya Road, Near Axis Bank, ATM Agra, UP.

............Respondent No.3 (Owner of the truck)

4. Sh. Pappu S/o Sh. Arjun Singh r/o Village Basadi Chahar, P.S. Kaga, Rol, District. Agra MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 5 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

............Respondent No.4 (Driver of truck) AND MACT No. 357214/16 Suit No. 400/2011 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000354-2006 Date of filing of Claim Petition : 28.09.2006 Smt. Madhu Aggarwal W/o Sh. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal R/o 4856/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.

........Petitioner VERSUS

1. The National Insurance Company Ltd.

Division No. XIII, 106, Palika Bhawan, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-66.

............Respondent No.1 (Insurer of santro car)

2. Sh. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Phool Chand Aggarwal R/o 4856/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 6 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

............Respondent No.2 (Owner of santro car)

8-A, Arjun Nagar, Trihaya, Barhakhamba Khariya Road, Near Axis Bank, ATM Agra, UP.

............Respondent No.3 (Owner of the truck)

4. Sh. Pappu S/o Sh. Arjun Singh r/o Village Basadi Chahar, P.S. Kaga, Rol, District. Agra MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 7 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

............Respondent No.4 (Driver of truck) AND MACT No. 356934/16 Suit No. 396/2011 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000118-2006 Date of filing of Claim Petition : 28.09.2006 Smt. Madhu Aggarwal W/o Sh. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal R/o 4856/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.

........Petitioner VERSUS

1. The National Insurance Company Ltd.

Division No. XIII, 106, Palika Bhawan, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-66.

............Respondent No.1 (Insurer of santro car)

2. Sh. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Phool Chand Aggarwal R/o 4856/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 8 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

............Respondent No.2 (Owner of santro car)

8-A, Arjun Nagar, Trihaya, Barhakhamba Khariya Road, Near Axis Bank, ATM Agra, UP.

............Respondent No.3 (Owner of the truck)

4. Sh. Pappu S/o Sh. Arjun Singh r/o Village Basadi Chahar, P.S. Kaga, Rol, District. Agra ............Respondent No.4 MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 9 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

(Driver of truck) AND MACT No. 357147/16 Suit No. 398/2011 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000312-2006 Date of filing of Claim Petition : 13.11.2006

1. Smt. Rani Aggarwal W/o Sh. Bhagwan Swarup Aggarwal

2. Sh. Vivek Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Swarup Aggarwal

3. Master Madhav Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Swarup Aggarwal

4. Ms. Ridhi Aggarwal D/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Swarup Aggarwal (Petitioner No. 3 & 4 are through Smt. Rani Aggarwal being the natural guardian/mother/next friend) All Resident of:

H. No. 4856/24, 2nd Floor, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.

........Petitioners VERSUS MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 10 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

1. Sh. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Phool Chand Aggarwal R/o 4856/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.

............Respondent No.1 (Owner of santro car)

2. The National Insurance Company Ltd.

Division No. XIII, 106, Palika Bhawan, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-66.

............Respondent No.2 (Insurer of santro car)

3. Sh. Bachhu Singh S/o Sh. Jawahar Singh (since deceased through his legal heirs) 3a. Smt. Chandrawati Chahar W/o Late Sh. Bachuu Singh 3b. Sh. Jugraj Singh Chahar @ Sh. Gajraj Singh Chahar S/o Late Sh. Bachuu Singh 3c. Sh. Ombeer Chahar S/o Late Sh. Bachuu Singh 3d. Sh. Dharam Veer Chahar S/o Late Sh. Bachuu Singh 3e. Sh. Raghu Raj Chahar S/o Late Sh. Bachuu Singh MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 11 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

All Resident of:

8-A, Arjun Nagar, Trihaya, Barhakhamba Khariya Road, Near Axis Bank, ATM Agra, UP.

............Respondent No.3 (Owner of the truck)

4. Sh. Pappu S/o Sh. Arjun Singh r/o Village Basadi Chahar, P.S. Kaga, Rol, District. Agra ............Respondent No.4 (Driver of truck) Arguments heard on : 22.11.2017 Date of passing of Award : 22.12.2017 Present: Sh. Sumit Goswami, Advocate, counsel for petitioners Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1 Sh. S. C. Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2 Sh. Arun Yadav, Advocate, counsel for LR No.2 (Jugraj Singh Chahar) of respondent No.3 LR No.1 (Chandrawati), LR No.3 (Om Vir), LR No.4 (Dharamvir) & LR No.5 (Raghuraj) of respondent No.3 are ex-parate Sh. Ravi Shanker, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.4 MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 12 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

A W A R D:

1. The above said five claim suits are the subject matter of this award. All the above claim suits have arisen from the same motor vehicular accident that took place on September 10, 2005, in which five persons, namely Mrs. Kusum Lata Aggarwal, Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Aggarwal, Mr. Sri Narayan Aggarwal, Mr. Aniket & Mr. Samarth Aggarwal sustained fatal injuries. All the claim suits are preferred under Section 166 read with 140 of Motor Vehicles Act (in short M.V Act).

(i) In MACT suit No. 357081/16 a sum of ` 30

Lac is claimed; in MACT suit No. 356940/16 a sum of ` 35 Lac is claimed; in MACT suit No. 357214/16 a sum of ` 80 Lac is claimed; in MACT Suit No. 356934/16 a sum of ` 80 Lac is claimed whereas in MACT Suit No. 357147/16 a sum of ` 95 is claimed.

(ii) Though the accident had not taken place within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, yet claim suits have been filed before this Tribunal as the petitioners are residing in Delhi. Moreover, office of insurer of offending santro car (The National Insurance Company) is also located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 13 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

2. Facts in brief as emerged from the claim petitions are that on September 10, 2005 at about 11:30 PM, Smt. Kusum Lata Aggarwal, Sh. Bhagwan Swarup Aggarwal, Sh. Sri Narayan Aggarwal, Mr. Aniket and Samrath Aggarwal were travelling in a Santro bearing registration No. DL-6C-J-4466, which was being driven by Mr. Samarth Aggarwal. They were going to Mathura via Delhi Mathura road and when they reached in front of Gopal Dhaba, situated within the area of village Jait, PS Vrindaban, at that time santro car was being driven at fast speed in a rash and negligent manner. It was further alleged that a truck bearing registration No. UP-80H-9410 loaded with bricks was going ahead to the said Santro car and driver of santro car intended to overtake the truck. But the truck driver swerved the truck towards left and thereafter, abruptly applied brakes, consequence thereof, car rammed into the rear portion of the said truck. Due to forceful impact, all occupants of santro car namely Smt. Kusum Lata Aggarwal, Sh. Bhagwan Swarup Aggarwal, Sh. Sri Narayan Aggarwal, Mr. Aniket including driver namely Mr. Samarth Aggarwal suffered multiple injuries and all succumbed to their injuries at the spot itself. The santro car was also badly damaged. It was alleged that after the accident, truck driver absconded from the spot. It was alleged that the negligence on the part of driver of truck in question was that he absconded from the place of accident after leaving the truck at the spot without caring for injured. In this regard, an FIR No. 377/2005 MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 14 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

under Section 279/338/304-A/427 IPC was registered at PS Vrindavan, Mathura, UP.

(i) It was alleged that at the time of accident, the alleged truck was being driven by respondent No.4 (Pappu) whereas offending santro car was being driven by Mr. Samarth Aggarwal, who also sustained fatal injuries in the said accident and succumbed to his injuries at the spot.

(ii) It was alleged that the offending santro car was registered in the name of respondent No.1 (Sh. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal) and same was insured with The National Insurance Company whereas respondent No.3 (Mr. Bacchu Singh) was the registered owner of the alleged truck. Truck was not insured.

(iii) It was alleged that deceased Smt. Kusum Lata was about 54 years old at the time of accident having sound heath and physique. She was graduate. She was running a photocopy Center and was earning about ` 10,000/- per month at the time of her death.

(iv) It was alleged that deceased Sri Narayan Aggarwal was about 58 years old at the time of accident having sound heath and physique. He was doing the business in the name and style of M/s Vikas Batteries as proprietor from Darya Ganj and was earning about ` 15,000/- per month at the time MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 15 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

of his death.

(v) It was further alleged that deceased Mr. Samrath Aggarwal was about 21 years old at the time of accident having sound heath and physique. He was a partner in M/s Matushree Investments and one of the Directors of M/s Admirable Financial Services Ltd and was earning about ` 50,000/- per month at the time of his death.

(vi) It was further alleged that deceased Mr. Aniket Aggarwal was about 18 years old at the time of accident having sound heath and physique. He was doing B. Com (Hons) at the time of accident and had applied for Chartered Accountant with Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. It was further alleged that though at the time of accident, he was unemployed, but after becoming Chartered Accountant, he would secure employment and would earn about ` 5 lac per annum, besides perks.

(vii) It was further alleged that deceased Bhagwan Swarup Aggarwal was about 45 years old at the time of accident having sound heath and physique. He was Director in seven Companies and working as Manager of M/s Devta Sarees and also running a tuition center in the name and style of M/s Professionals. He was also Karta of M/s B. S. Aggarwal & Sons (HUF). He was earning about ` 40,000/- per month at the time of his death.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 16 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

3. All the respondents contested the claim suits by filing their separate written statement.

(i) In his written statement, respondent No.1 did not dispute the averments of the claim petitions and took the plea that since santro car was insured with insurance company (The National Insurance Company), insurance company is liable to indemnify the liability of insured. He further submitted that since respondent No.3 was the owner of offending truck, he is also liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

(ii) Respondent No.2 (The National Insurance Company) took the plea that insurance company is not liable to indemnify the liability of insured as the alleged accident had not been caused due to the negligence of santro car; rather it had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of truck bearing No. UP-80H-9410 who was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. Further, insurance company also took the plea that Mr. Samarth Aggarwal was not having a valid driving licence. Moreover, owner of the car had not paid extra premium for covering the risk of occupants of the car.

(iii) Respondent No.3 submitted that his truck bearing registration No. UP-80-H-9410 was parked outside his house and in the intervening night of September 10 & 11, 2005, same was taken away by some unknown person without MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 17 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

his consent and permission, accordingly he had lodged an FIR in the police station regarding the theft of his truck. It was accordingly alleged that he is not liable to pay any compensation.

(iv) Respondent No.4 took the plea that at the time of accident, he was taking food at Dhaba and the alleged truck was in a stationary position at Dhaba. He further submitted that driver of the santro car struck the car with stationary truck as he was driving the car at fast speed in a rash and negligent manner, accordingly, he is not liable to pay compensation.

(v) During inquiry, respondent No.3 Bacchu Singh reported to be dead. Therefore his LRs were brought on record. LR No.1 (Chandrawati) was proceed ex-parate vide order dated October 24, 2017 whereas LR No.3 (Om Vir), LR No.4 (Dharamvir) & LR No.5 (Raghuraj) of respondent No.3 were proceeded ex-parate vide order dated September 19, 2017.

4. On the basis of pleadings, vide order dated January 16, 2008, following issues were framed:

In MACT No. 357081/16:

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 18 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

(i) Whether Smt. Kusum Lata Aggarwal, Sh.

Bhagwan Swarup Aggarwal & Sri Narayan Aggarwal sustained fatal injuries on account of composite rashness and negligence of drivers of Santro car No. DL-6C-J-4466 and Truck No. UP-80H-9410 on 10.09.2005 in the area of PS Vrindaban?

(ii) To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom?

(iii) Relief.

In MACT No. 3576940/16:

(i) Whether Smt. Kusum Lata Aggarwal, Sh.

Bhagwan Swarup Aggarwal & Sh. Narayan Aggarwal sustained fatal injuries on account of composite rashness and negligence of drivers of Santro car No. DL-6C-J-4466 and Truck No. UP-80H-9410 on 10.09.2005 in the area of PS Vrindaban?

(ii) To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom?

(iii) Relief.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 19 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

In MACT No. 357214/16:

(i) Whether Sh. Smarath Aggarwal sustained fatal injuries on account of composite rashness and negligence of drivers of Santro car No. DL-6C-J-4466 and Truck No. UP-80H-9410 on 10.09.2005 in the area of PS Vrindaban?

(ii) To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom?

(iii) Relief.

In MACT No. 356934/16:

(i) Whether Sh. Aniket Aggarwal sustained fatal injuries on account of composite rashness and negligence of drivers of Santro car No. DL-6C-J-4466 and Truck No. UP-80H-9410 on 10.09.2005 in the area of PS Vrindaban?

(ii) To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom?

(iii) Relief.

In MACT No. 357147/16:

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 20 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

(i) Whether Smt. Kusum Lata Aggarwal, Sh.

(ii) To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom?

(iii) Relief.

5. Vide order dated January 16, 2008, three cases bearing Suit No. 178/06 (MACT Suit No. 357081/16); Suit No. 181/06 (MACT Suit No. 356940/16) and Suit No. 213/06 (MACT Suit No. 357147/16) were consolidated.

(i) From the order dated October 7, 2015, it appears that the remaining two cases were also considered to be consolidated.

6. In support of their claim suits, petitioners examined the following witnesses:

PW1 Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, son of deceased MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 21 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

                                             Sri Narayan Aggarwal                               & Kusum Lata
                                             Aggarwal
                     PW2                     Rani          Aggarwal,                 wife         of       deceased
                                             Bhagwan Swaroop
                     PW3                     Mrs.          Madhu              Aggarwal,                 mother             of
                                             deceased Samrath Aggarwal
                     PW4                     Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, eye witness

7. In rebuttal, respondent No.2 examined Mr. H. K. Soni, Dy. Manager of National Insurance Company Ltd.) as R2W1 whereas respondent No.3 (Bachhu Singh) examined himself as R3W1 and Sh. Gulab Singh, owner of alleged dhaba as R3W2. Respondent no.4 (Pappu) examined himself as R4W1

8. On completion of evidence led by both the parties, on October 28, 2017, statement of claimants were recorded in their respective cases regarding financial status in terms of Clause 26 of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaiveer Singh FAO No. 842/03 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.12.2014.

9. I have heard submissions advanced by counsel for petitioners and respondent No.1, 2 & 4 and LR No.2 of respondent No. 3, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 22 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

10. My issue-wise findings are as under:-

Issue No. 1 in all the matters:

FINDING:-

11. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the offending truck was going ahead to the Santro Car, which was being driven by Samarth Aggarwal (since deceased). It was argued that since driver of the truck i.e. Pappu (R4) applied the brake all of sudden without any indication, Santro Car which was coming from behind, rammed into the rear portion of the truck resulting death of all occupants of the Santro Car. To support his contention, Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the deposition of PW4 Rajesh Aggarwal.

(i) It was contended that assuming for the sake of arguments that there was some contributory negligence on the part of Samarth Aggarwal (since deceased), but it was urged that there was no contributory negligence on the part of other deceased persons who were travelling in the said Santro Car. It was argued that since the santro car was being driven at the speed between 70 to 80 kilometer per hour, there was some negligence on the part of Samarth Aggarwal, accordingly, insurer of the car is also liable in respect of death of other occupants.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 23 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

(ii) It was further contended that from the testimony of witnesses examined by petitioners and respondents, it can safely be concluded that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of truck driver as well as driver of Santro Car. In other words, it was urged that it was a case of composite negligence and in such cases, it is the discretion of the petitioners from whom they intend to claim damages. In support of his contention, counsel placed reliance on the judgment titled Khenyei Vs. New India Insurance Company & ors. 2015 ACJ (volume 3), 1441 (SC). Reliance is also placed on the judgment Raj Rani and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and ors. IV (2009) ACC 910 (SC).

12. Learned counsel appearing for owner and driver of the truck contended that the accident had taken place due to the sole rash and negligence of driver of Santro Car as he was driving the car at excessive speed and rammed the car in the stationary truck. Counsel appearing for owner of the truck contended that on September 10, 2005, his truck was stolen by someone, accordingly he lodged an FIR bearing No. 265/05 under Section 379 IPC. It was further contended that the truck had broken down at the 'Dhaba' of Gulab Singh and though the truck was stationary but despite that Samarth Aggarwal (since deceased) rammed his santro car in the rear portion of the truck as he was driving the car at very excessive speed.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 24 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

13. Per contra counsel appearing for insurance company submitted that the accident had taken place due to the sole negligence of the truck driver as he parked his truck on the highway without any indication. Since the truck was not insured, facts are twisted to show that the accident had taken place due to contributory negligence of the driver of the Santro Car or due to composite negligence. It was contended that since there was no rashness and negligence on the part of driver of Santro Car, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

14. To adjudicate issue no. 1, testimony of PW4 Rajesh Aggarwal, R3W1 Bachhu Singh (registered owner of the truck), R3W2 Gulab Singh, Owner of the Dhaba and R4W1 Pappu Singh (Driver of the truck) are relevant.

(i). PW4 Rajesh Aggarwal is the relative of deceased persons and testified that deceased persons were going to Mathura for Darshan in their Santro Car and he joined them at Kosi. He was in his maruti van and following the Santro Car. He further testified that when they reached near Jaith Chowki, he saw that one truck was moving ahead to Santro Car towards Mathura, but all of sudden driver of the said truck applied the brake, consequently santro car rammed into the rear portion of the truck, resulting death all of the occupants of the car. In his cross-examination, he deposed that MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 25 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

the speed of Santro Car was between 70 to 80 kilometer per hour and his speed was lesser than the speed of santro car and the distance between his car and santro car was about 70 to 80 feet. He further testified that since the truck was going ahead, speed of the truck was higher than the speed of Santro Car. This shows that PW4 intends to establish that the accident had taken place as the truck was being driven more than the speed of 70 to 80 kilometer per hour, but all of sudden, he applied the brake, consequently santro car, which was coming from behind, collided with the truck, which resulted the death of all the occupants of the santro car. But the said version does not inspire confidence because PW4 also testified that he did not know whether the truck was already parked or was in stationary position at the Dhaba when the accident took place. As per the testimony of PW4, he was behind the Santro Car and the distance between two car was about 80 feet. Since the truck was going ahead to the Santro Car, it means that the distance between his maruti van and truck was more than 100 feet. In such a position, it was quite difficult for PW4 in night to ascertain whether truck was moving or in a stationary position.

(ii). Further, the version of PW4 that truck was moving also does not inspire any confidence because if the truck would be in moving condition, impact of accident would not be so severe because if one moving vehicle is hit by another moving vehicle in same direction from behind, impact would be much less, but if the moving vehicle hits in a MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 26 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

stationary vehicle, impact would be much severe. Further, PW4 testified that he had not seen any tyre marks on the road which also falsifies the story of applying brake all of sudden.

15. Further, from the testimony of Gulab Singh and Pappu, it becomes clear that at the time of accident, truck was in a stationary position at the Dhaba. R4W1 Pappu testified that he was driver of the said truck and in order to have food, he parked his truck at the Dhaba of Gulab Singh. Since the Santro Car was being driven at very high speed, it hit in the stationary truck. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Santro Car intended to overtake him but he created obstruction and in that process Santro Car struck in the rear portion of the truck.

(i) R3W2 Gulab Singh is the owner of the Dhaba and he testified that he knew Pappu i.e. driver of the truck. He further deposed that on September 10, 2005, Pappu came alongwith offending truck at his Dhaba and his truck broke down there. Consequently, after parking the truck in front of his Dhaba on extreme left side of the road, he went to call mechanic for repair but in the night at about 11:30 pm, accident had taken place. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Pappu had parked his truck at 04:00 pm. If it was so, version of Gulab Singh that Pappu left from the Dhaba to call the mechanic does not inspire any confidence because it is undisputed fact that accident had taken place at about 11:30 MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 27 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

pm and it is quite unbelievable that Pappu would not have found any mechanic during seven hours i.e. from 04:00 pm to 11:30 pm. Similarly, I also do not find any substance in the deposition of Gulab Singh that when Pappu left from the Dhaba, he had put the parking light on. It is quite unbelievable that parking light would continue to work from 04:00 pm to 11:30 pm. Moreover, it is not the case of Pappu that he left from the Dhaba to call mechanic or that his truck had broken down.

16. Now coming to the testimony of Bachhu Singh, Owner of the offending truck. He set up a new case that his truck was stolen by someone on 10.09.2005. He testified that lastly he saw his truck on 10.09.2005 at about between 05:00 pm to 06:00 pm and when on the next morning at 05:00 am, he saw that his truck was missing, he reported the matter to the police and lodged an FIR no. 265/05 u/s 379 IPC. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Pappu Singh was his driver but took the plea that he had already left the job and Pappu had not taken the truck with his consent. However, Pappu denied all these facts in his deposition. Bachhu Singh further testified that the truck was parked in his residential complex. If it was so, it is quite unbelievable that Bachhu Singh or his family members would not have noticed prior to 05:00 am that the truck was missing. This itself shows that Bachhu Singh tried to concoct a false story just to avoid his liability. Further, there is a material contradiction between testimony of MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 28 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Bachhu Singh and Gulab Singh as Gulab Singh testified that the truck was parked in front of his Dhaba since 04:00 pm whereas Bachhu Singh testified that he had lastly seen the truck between 05:00 pm to 06:00 pm. This contradiction further raises doubt over the version of Bachhu Singh. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged after occurrence of the accident. In these circumstances, it appears that the FIR had been lodged just to avoid the liability.

17. Though from the deposition of witnesses examined by petitioners and respondents, two versions are surfaced; firstly that the santro car hit in the truck when driver of the truck applied the brake all of sudden and secondly that the santro car hit in the stationary truck, yet after considering the deposition of all the witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the Santro Car hit in the stationary truck.

(i) Since the truck was parked on Highway without any indicator. Samarth Aggarwal who was driving the Santro Car could not assess that truck was stationed on the road and since he was driving the car between 70 to 80 kilometer per hour, he could not control the car after seeing the offending truck on the road all of sudden, consequently, his car rammed in the rear portion of the truck.

(ii) It is pertinent to state that at the time of parking a vehicle particularly heavy vehicle on highway, it is MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 29 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

the duty of driver of the vehicle to make necessary indication to vehicles which are coming from behind, so that they can see that the vehicle is not in moving condition. But in instant case, driver of the truck failed to take any such precaution. Thus, there was negligence on the part of truck driver also.

18. Similarly, there was negligence on the part of the Samarth Aggarwal also as he was driving the Santro Car at excessive speed. Since the truck was parked towards left side, it means that Samarth Aggarwal was driving his car at the left side of road at the excessive speed. Needless to say that left side lane is not meant for high speed traffic. If one is driving the vehicle on the left side of road, one should be careful and should drive the vehicle at reasonable speed. But deceased Samarth Aggarwal was driving the car at excessive speed in left lane, thus there was a contributory negligence on the part of Samarth Aggarwal in the accident.

19. Now, question arises whether the contributory negligence is applicable to all the deceased or restricted to the case of Samarth Aggarwal?

(i) On the point of contributory negligence, observations of the Hon`ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, 2004 ACJ 53 (SC) are apt to be noted:

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 30 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

(6)...... Where an accident is due to the negligence of both parties, substantially there would be contributory negligence and both would be blamed. In a case of contributory negligence, the crucial question on which the liability depends would be whether either party could, by exercise of reasonable care, have avoided the consequence of other's negligence.

Whichever party could have avoided the consequence of other's negligence would be liable for the accident. If a person's negligent act or omission was the proximate and immediate cause of death, the fact that the person suffering injury was himself negligent and also contributed to the accident or other circumstances by which the injury was caused would not afford a defence to the other. Contributory negligence is applicable solely to the conduct of a plaintiff. It means that there has been an act or omission on the part of the plaintiff which has materially contributed to the damage, the act or omission being of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence, although negligence is not given its usual meaning. {See Charlesworth on Negligence, 3rd Edn. Para 328}. It is now well settled that in case of contributory negligence, courts have power to apportion the loss between the parties as seems just and equitable. Apportionment in that context means that damages are reduced to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claim shared in the responsibility for the damage. But in a case where there has been no contributory negligence on the part of the part of victim, the question of apportionment does not arise."

(emphasis supplied) MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 31 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

(ii) Further in case of Rajrani & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. IV (2009) ACC 910(SC) Apex Court dealt with the issue of contributory negligence in detail. Relevant paragraphs are 16 to 18 and same are reproduced as under:-

16. So for as the issue of "contributory negligence" is concerned, we may notice that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3 rd from the total compensation on the ground that deceased had contributed to the accident.

The same, we find, has been upheld by the High Court. This court in Usha Rajkhowa and Ors. v. Paramount Industries and Ors. II (2009) ACC 281 (SC), (Civil Appeal No. 1088 of 2009 arising out of SLP (C.No. 16647 of 2008), discussed the issue of contributory negligence noticing, inter alia, earlier decisions on the same topic. It was held that:

"10. The question of contributory negligence on the part of the driver in case of collision was considered by this Court in Pramod kumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Ors. reported in (2002) 6 SCC 455. That was also a case of collusion in between a Car and a truck. It was observed in Para 8:

'The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence'.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 32 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression "contributory negligence", it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an author of his own wrong."

17. The principle of 50:50 in cases of contributory negligence has been discussed and applied in many cases before this court. In Sri Krishna Vishweshwar Hede V/s. The General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. 2008 ACJ 1617, this Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal assessing the ratio of liability at 50:50 in view of the fact that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and fixed the responsibility for the accident in the ratio of 50:50 on the driver of the bus and the appellant. In this case, the truck was stationary. Some amount of negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be ruled out.

18. Hence in the insistent case, we find that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and accordingly the claimant was entitled to only 50% of the total amount of loss of dependency.

(emphasis supplied)

20. From the abovesaid judgments, it becomes crystal clear that principle of contributory negligence is applicable only in those cases where victim himself or herself is negligent and failed to take reasonable care for his/her MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 33 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

safety or property. As earlier discussed that there was negligence on the part of Samrath Aggarwal also as he was driving the car at excessive speed, accordingly, he could not control his car after finding that the truck was parked in left lane, consequently, he rammed his car in the rear portion of the truck. This establishes that there was contributory negligence on the part of Samrath Aggarwal which also resulted in his death. Besides that, all other occupants of the car also sustained fatal injuries.

(i) From the ongoing discussion, I am of considered opinion that Samrath Aggarwal as well as driver of the truck were equally responsible in causing the accident as Samrath Aggarwal was driving the santro car at excessive speed in the left lane whereas respondent no. 4 (Pappu) had parked his truck on the highway in night without taking any precaution and without making any arrangement to give signal to the vehicles coming from behind that truck was parked there. Accordingly, I am of view that 50% compensation is liable to be deducted in the case relating to the death of Samrath Aggarwal.

(ii) Since the contributory negligence is applicable only where petitioners/victims themselves failed to take reasonable care for their safety and property, I am of the view that no deduction is liable to be deducted in other cases as in other cases deceased were simply travelling in the car MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 34 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

and there is no evidence that they asked the driver i.e. Samrath Aggarwal to drive car at excessive speed in the left lane. Accordingly, I am of considered opinion that principle of contributory negligence is not applicable in the cases filed by the legal heirs of other deceased persons.

21. Composite negligence is defined by Apex Court in case T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan, 2008 ACJ 1165 (SC), relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand, where a person suffers injury, partly due to negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 35 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence."

(emphasis supplied)

22. In case Khenyei Vs .New Indian Insurance Company Ltd. 2015ACJ1414(SC) Apex Court laid down principles of the composite negligence and the manner in which liability is to be fixed between the wrongdoers/tortfeasors.

(i) The principle are:-

(i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several.

(ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis a vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them.

(iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 36 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.

(iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.

(emphasis supplied)

23. As already held that accident had taken place due to the negligence of Respondent no. 4 (Pappu) i.e. driver of truck as well as Samrath Aggarwal, accordingly owners of both the vehicles and drivers of truck shall be equally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Since the santro car was duly insured with the respondent no. 2, National Insurance company Ltd. shall be liable to indemnify the liability of owner of the santro car.

24. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, Issue no. 1 in all the matters is decided accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 2 In all the matters:

25. Before proceeding further, I deem it appropriate to refer the judgment titled National Insurance MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 37 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 decided by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court on October 30, 2017. Hon`ble Bench reconsidered all the previous judgments relating to just compensation under Motor Vehicle Act including Sarla Verma & ors. vs. DTC & another, 2009 (6) SCC 121; Reshma Kumari & others vs. Madan Mohan & anr (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh Tyagi & others vs. Rajbir Singh & ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54.

(i) After analyzing all the precedents, Hon`ble Bench held as under:-

61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 38 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.

The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein-before.

(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

                              (vii)       The age of the deceased
                              should be the basis for applying the
                              multiplier.

                              (viii)    Reasonable      figures   on
                              conventional heads, namely, loss of

estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be ` 15,000/-, ` 40,000/- and ` 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 39 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

(i) Now, I proceed to examine the facts of the cases at hand.

In MACT Suit No.357081/16:

Income of deceased (Kusum Lata):

(i) As per claim suit, deceased Kusum Lata was running a Photocopy Center. In order to prove her income, petitioners have placed on record her income tax return for the assessment year 2003-2004 to 2005-2006. The ITR for the assessment year 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 are exhibited as Ex.

A5 & A4 respectively. Indisputably, no exhibit had been given to the ITR for the assessment year 2005-2006. But the copy of the same is available on record. Since, the ITR is a government document, same is considered for the purpose of assessing the annual income of deceased Kusum Lata.

(ii) As per ITR for the assessment year 2005- 2006, her gross income was ` 76,717/- and she had paid a tax of ` 612/-. It means that after deducting income tax, her actual annual income was ` 76,105/- during the assessment year 2005-2006.

(iii) Perusal of the ITR for the assessment year MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 40 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

2003-2004 reveals that her annual income was ` 66,104/- whereas during the assessment years 2004-2005, her income was ` 64,753/-.

(iv) No doubt, during the assessment year 2005- 2006, her gross annual income is mentioned as ` 76,717/-, but it is not so exorbitant that it may cast any doubt over the genuineness of the income of deceased. Since, deceased was running business, it is quite possible that her income was increased to that extent during the assessment year 2005- 2006. Accordingly, annual income of deceased is assessed at ` 76,105/- for the computation of just compensation.

Addition towards Future Prospects:-

(i) PW1 in her examination-in-chief testified that deceased Kusum Lata was graduate and she was running photocopy center. This establishes that she was self employed.

His testimony is duly corroborated by the income tax return of by the deceased. Since, deceased was a self employed lady, in view of law laid down in Praney Sethi case (supra), petitioners are entitled for addition towards future prospects.

(ii) As per High School certificate Ex. A1, her date of birth was April 2, 1951. It means that she was 54 years 5 months and 8 days old at the time of accident. Since, she was above 50 years but less than 60 years, in view of the law laid MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 41 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

down in Praney Sethi case (supra), petitioners are entitled for 10% addition towards future prospects. Accordingly, a sum of ` 7,610/- is added in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:-

(i). As per claim petition, petitioner no. 2 to 4 are married daughters of the deceased, accordingly, they can not be considered dependent on the income of deceased.

However, petitioner No.1 was dependent on the income of the deceased.

(ii). In view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses where deceased is married and number of dependent is upto 3. Since in the instant case, only one person was dependent on the income of deceased, 1/3rd of income of deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Accordingly, a sum of ` 27,905/- is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

Selection of multiplier:

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 42 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

(i) Since the deceased was about 54 years 5 months and 8 days old at the time of her death, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), multiplier of 11 shall be apply in this matter.

Loss of income:-

(i) In view of the above, loss of income is calculated as under:

                    NAME OF THE HEAD                                                              AMOUNT
                                                                                                   (IN `)
Annual Income of deceased                                                                      76,105
10% addition of towards future prospects                                                          7,610
                                                          Total                                 83,715
Less 1/3th deduction towards personal                                                           27,905
and living expenses
                                                              Total                             55,810
Selection of multiplier                                                                            11
Total loss of income (55,810 X 11)                                                         6,13,910

26. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-

(i) In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of ` 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 43 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

estate and ` 15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.

(ii) Since the husband of deceased Kusam Lata had also died in the alleged accident, no loss of consortium is awarded to the petitioners, accordingly, a sum of ` 30,000/- is awarded to the petitioners towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.

(iii) Accordingly, claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased as under:

                     NAME OF THE HEAD                                                               AMOUNT
                                                                                                     (IN `)
Loss of Income                                                                                6,13,910
Loss of estate                                                                                     15,000
Funeral expenses                                                                                   15,000
                                         Total                                                  6,43,910


                                     Rounded off ` 6,44,000/-

(Rupees Six Lac Forty Four Thousands Only)

(iv) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. September 28, 2006 till realization of the MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 44 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

amount.

Apportionment of the Award:-

27. Since all the petitioners are son and daughters of the deceased, they shall be entitled for equal amount of award.

(i) The individual share of claimants is tabulated as under, which is subject to adjustment of interim compensation, if any:-

Name of the Relation Percentage of Actual amount claimant with award amount (In `) deceased Ankit Aggarwal son 25% 1,61,000 Meenu Aggarwal daughter 25% 1,61,000 Bhawana Gupta daughter 25% 1,61,000 Anu Bansal daughter 25% 1,61,000 DISBURSEMENT:

28. In their statement recorded on October 28, 2017 in compliance of Clause 26 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014, petitioners testified that their monthly household expenses are between ` 60,000/- to ` 1,00,000/-.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 45 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

(i) On realization, from the share of petitioner No.1 (Ankit Aggarwal), a sum of ` 61,000/- plus entire interest shall be released to him and the balance amount of his share i.e.` 1 lac shall be put in 4 fixed deposits of equal amount i.e. ` 25,000/- each for period of 1 month to 4 months in a nationalized bank in his name.

(ii) From the share of petitioner No.2 (Meenu Aggarwal), on realization, a sum of ` 61,000/- plus entire interest shall be released to her and the balance amount of her share i.e.` 1 lac shall be put in 4 fixed deposits of equal amount i.e. ` 25,000/- each for period of 1 month to 4 months in a nationalized bank in her name.

(iii) From the share of petitioner No.3 (Bhawna Aggarwal), on realization, a sum of ` 61,000/- plus entire interest shall be released to her and the balance amount of her share i.e.` 1 lac shall be put in 4 fixed deposits of equal amount i.e. ` 25,000/- each for period of 1 month to 4 months in a nationalized bank in her name.

(iv) From the share of petitioner No.4 (Anu Bansal), on realization, a sum of ` 61,000/- plus entire interest shall be released to her and the balance amount of her share i.e.` 1 lac shall be put in 04 fixed deposits of equal amount i.e. ` 10,000/- each for period of 1 month to 04 months in a nationalized bank in her name. MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 46 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

In MACT Suit No. 356940/16:

Income of deceased (Sri Narayan Aggarwal):

(i) As per claim suit, deceased Sri Narayan Aggarwal was running his business in the name and style of M/s Vikas Batteries as proprietor and was earning about ` 15,000/- per month. PW1 Ankit reiterated the same in his deposition. He further testified that deceased Sri Narayan Aggarwal was income tax assessee and filed his ITRs for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2005-2006, same are Ex. A8 to A10 respectively. As per ITR for the assessment year 2003-

2004 (Ex. A8), his total income was ` 92,121/- whereas during the assessment year 2004-2005 (Ex. A9), his gross income was ` 96,723/- whereas during the assessment year 2005- 2006 (Ex. A10), his gross income was ` 97,774/-.

(ii) On his income, deceased had paid a tax of ` 8,635/- during the assessment year 2005-2006. After deducting the income tax, his actual income comes to ` 89,139/-. Accordingly, his annual income is assessed at ` 89,139/- for computation of just compensation.

Addition towards Future Prospects:-

(i) As already stated that deceased was running MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 47 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

a proprietorship firm at Darya Ganj and this fact is also testified by PW1 in his deposition. Moreover, this fact is also corroborated from his income tax return placed on record. This establishes that deceased was self employed. Accordingly, in view of law laid down in Praney Sethi case (supra), peti- tioners are entitled for addition towards future prospects.

(ii) As per High School certificate, his date of birth was May 3, 1947. His date of birth is also mentioned in his ITR. It means that he was 58 years 4 months and 7 days old at the time of his death. Since, he was above 50 years but less than 60 years, in view of the law laid down in Praney Sethi case (supra), petitioners are entitled for 10% addition towards future prospects. Accordingly, a sum of ` 8,914/- is added in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:-

(i). Petitioner No.2 to 4 are married daughters of the deceased whereas petitioner No.1 was unmarried son of the deceased. As per petition, petitioner no.1 was financially dependent on the income of deceased. Since petitioner no. 2 to 4 were married prior to the accident, they can not be considered financially dependent on the income of deceased.

However, petitioner No.1 was financially dependent on the income of the deceased.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 48 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

(ii). In view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses where deceased is married and number of dependent is upto 3. Since in the in- stant case, only one person was dependent on the income of deceased, 1/3rd of income of deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Accordingly, a sum of is ` 32,685/- liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

Selection of multiplier:

(i) Since the deceased was 58 years 4 months and 7 days old at the time of his death, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), multiplier of 9 shall be apply in this matter.

Loss of income:-

(i) In view of the above, loss of income is calculated as under:

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 49 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

                    NAME OF THE HEAD                                                              AMOUNT
                                                                                                   (IN `)
Annual Income of deceased                                                                      89,139
10% addition of towards future prospects                                                          8,914
                                                          Total                                98,053
Less 1/3th deduction towards personal                                                          32,685
and living expenses
                                                         Actual Total                           65,368
Selection of multiplier                                                                            9
Total loss of income (` 65,368 X 9)                                                          5,88,312

29. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-

(i) In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of ` 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and ` 15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.

(ii) Since the wife of Sri Narayan Aggarwal had also died in the alleged accident, no loss of consortium is awarded to the petitioners, accordingly, a sum of ` 30,000/- is awarded to the petitioners towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.

(iii) Accordingly, claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased as under:

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 50 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

                     NAME OF THE HEAD                                                               AMOUNT
                                                                                                     (IN `)
Loss of Income                                                                                5,88,312
Loss of estate                                                                                     15,000
Funeral expenses                                                                                   15,000
                                         Total                                                  6,18,312


                                     Rounded off ` 6,19,000/-

(Rupees Six Lac Nineteen Thousands Only)

(iv) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. September 28, 2006 till realization of the amount.

Apportionment of the Award:-

30. Since all the petitioners are son and married daughters of the deceased, they shall be entitled for equal amount of award.

(i) The individual share of claimants is tabulated as under, which is subject to adjustment of interim compensation, if any:-

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 51 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.





Name     of                     the Relation                     Percentage of Actual amount
claimant                            with                        award amount         (In `)
                                    deceased
Ankit Aggarwal                          son                                25%                          1,54,750
Meenu Aggarwal                          daughter                           25%                          1,54,750
Bhawana Gupta                           daughter                           25%                          1,54,750
Anu Bansal                              daughter                           25%                          1,54,750


DISBURSEMENT:

31. In their statement recorded on October 28, 2017 in compliance of Clause 26 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014, petitioners testified that their monthly household expenses are between ` 60,000/- to ` 1,00,000/-.

(i). On realization, from the share of petitioner No.1 (Ankit Aggarwal), a sum of ` 54,750 plus entire interest shall be released to him and the balance amount of his share i.e.` 1 lac shall be put in 4 fixed deposits of equal amount i.e. ` 25,000/- each for period of 1 month to 4 months in a nationalized bank in his name.

(ii) From the share of petitioner No.2 (Meenu Aggarwal), on realization, a sum of ` 54,750/- plus entire interest shall be released to her and the balance amount of her share i.e.` 1 lac shall be put in 4 fixed deposits of MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 52 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

equal amount i.e. ` 25,000/- each for period of 1 month to 4 months in a nationalized bank in her name.

(iii) From the share of petitioner No.3 (Bhawna Aggarwal), on realization, a sum of ` 54,750/- plus entire interest shall be released to her and the balance amount of her share i.e.` 1 lac shall be put in 4 fixed deposits of equal amount i.e. ` 25,000/- each for period of 1 month to 4 months in a nationalized bank in her name.

(iv) From the share of petitioner No.4 (Anu Bansal), on realization, a sum of ` 54,750/- plus entire interest shall be released to her and the balance amount of her share i.e.` 1 lac shall be put in 4 fixed deposits of equal amount i.e. ` 25,000/- each for period of 1 month to 4 months in a nationalized bank in her name.

In MACT Suit No. 357147/16:

Income of deceased (Bhagwan Swarup):

(i) PW1 Rani Aggarwal, wife of deceased testified that her husband was Director in seven companies. Besides that he was also working as Manager with M/s Devta Sarees, Nai Sarak, Delhi and also engaged in the trading of stocks and shares, immovable properties and he was also running a tuition Center in the name and style of M/s Professionals and he was MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 53 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

also Karta of M/s B. S. Aggarwal & Sons (HUF). She further testified that her husband was income tax assessee and filed ITRs for the assessment year 2003-2004 to 2005-2006 and same are Ex. P1 to P3 respectively. As per ITR Ex. P1, his gross income was ` 2,08,827/-; during assessment year 2004- 2005, his gross income ` 2,49,016/- and during assessment year 2005-2006 his gross income was ` 2,33,492/-. During the assessment year 2005-2006, he had paid total tax of ` 31,144/-. Since, actual income means minus tax, it means that his actual income was ` 2,02,348/- . Accordingly, his annual income is assessed at ` 2,02,348/- for the computation of just compensation.

Addition towards Future Prospects:-

(i) From the testimony of PW1, it becomes clear that deceased was working as a Manager with M/s Devta Sarees, New Sarak, Delhi. From his ITR for the assessment year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, it becomes clear that his total income from salary is mentioned as ` 90,000/-. This shows that he was working on fixed salary. No doubt, that during the assessment year 2005-2006, his income from salary is mentioned as ` 1 lac. But this only shows that after the gap of two years, his salary was increased from ` 90,000/- to ` 1 lac.

There is no evidence on record that he was a permanent employee or he was getting annual increment. From his ITR, it is also clear that he had some income from property also but MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 54 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

same was not fixed.

(ii) Though there is no cogent evidence that he was a permanent employee and he was getting increment periodically, but from the ITR, it can safely be culled out that he was working on fixed salary. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down in Praney Sethi case (supra), petitioners are entitled for addition towards future prospects.

(iii) As per ITR, his date of birth was December 25, 1959. It means that he was 45 years 8 months and 15 days old at the time of his death. Since, he was above 40 years but less than 50 years, in view of the law laid down in Praney Sethi case (supra), petitioners are entitled for 25% addition towards future prospects. Accordingly, a sum of ` 50,587/- is added in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:-

(i). As per claim suit, all four petitioners were dependent on the income of deceased and this fact is proved by PW1 in her testimony.

(ii). In view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 55 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

1/4th of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Accordingly, a sum of is ` 63,234/- is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

Selection of multiplier:

(i) Since the deceased was above 45 years but less than 46 years old at the time of his death, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), multiplier of 14 shall be apply in this matter.

Loss of income:-

(i) In view of the above, loss of income is calculated as under:

                    NAME OF THE HEAD                                                              AMOUNT
                                                                                                   (IN `)
Annual Income of deceased                                                                    2,02,348
25% addition of towards future prospects                                                        50,587
                                                          Total                                2,52,935
Less 1/4th deduction towards personal                                                              63,234
and living expenses
                                                         Actual Total                           1,89,701
Selection of multiplier                                                                            14
Total loss of income (` 1,89,701/- x 14)                                                     26,55,814/-

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 56 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

32. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-

(i) In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of ` 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate; ` 40,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and ` 15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. Accordingly, in total a sum of `70,000/- is awarded under these three heads.

(ii) Accordingly, claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased as under:

                     NAME OF THE HEAD                                                               AMOUNT
                                                                                                     (IN `)
Loss of Income                                                                                      26,55,814/-
Loss of estate                                                                                             15,000/-
Loss of consortium                                                                                         40,000/-
Funeral expenses                                                                                           15,000/-
                                         Total                                                     27,25,814/-


                                     Rounded off ` 27,26,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Seven Lac & Twenty Six Thousands Only`)

(ii) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimants shall be entitled to MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 57 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. November 13, 2006 till realization of the amount.

Apportionment of the Award:-

33. Since petitioner No.1 is wife of deceased, 40% of the award shall go to her whereas petitioner No. 2 to 4 being the children of deceased shall be entitled for 20% each of the award amount.

(i) The individual share of claimants is tabulated as under, which is subject to adjustment of interim compensation, if any:-

Name of the Relation Percentage of Actual amount claimant with award amount (In `) deceased Rani Aggarwal Wife 40% 10,90,400 Vivek Aggarwal son 20% 5,45,200 Master Madhav son 20% 5,45,200 Aggarwal Ms. Ridhi Aggarwal daughter 20% 5,45,200 DISBURSEMENT:

34. In their statement recorded on October 28, 2017 in compliance of Clause 26 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 58 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

2014, petitioners testified that their monthly household expenses are between ` 70,000/- to ` 80,000/-.

(i) In view of statement of petitioner No.1 (Smt. Rita Aggarwal), on realization of the award amount, a sum of ` 2,90,400/- plus entire interest shall be released to her and the balance amount of ` 8 lac shall be put in 40 fixed deposits of ` 20,000/- each for period of 1 month to 40 months in a nationalized bank in her name.

(ii) From the share of petitioner No.2 (Vivek Aggawal), on realization of the award amount, a sum of ` 1,45,200/- plus entire interest shall be released to him and the balance amount of ` 4 lac shall be put in 20 fixed deposits of ` 20,000/- each for period of 1 month to 20 months in a nationalized bank in his name.

(iii) Since petitioner No. 2 & 3 (Master Madhav Aggarwal & Ms. Ridhi Aggarwal) are minor son and daughter of deceased, their entire share with interest upto date shall be kept in FDR in their name till they attain the age of majority in a nationalized bank. However, petitioner No.1 being the natural guardian/mother/next friend, shall be entitled to draw interest monthly or quarterly as she desires to meet educational expenses of both the petitioners. However after attaining the age of majority, 25% of their FDR amount shall be released to them automatically MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 59 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

and balance 75 % of their share shall be kept in 20 fixed deposits of equal amount for period of 1 month to 20 months in a nationalized bank in their name.

In MACT No. 356934/16:

Income of petitioner (Aniket Aggarwal):

(i) Indisputably, Aniket was 18 years, 5 days old at the time of his death and he was pursuing his B.Com (Honors) from Zakir Hussain College. Accordingly, he was not earning at the time of his death. Since, the deceased was pursing his graduation, his income is liable to be assessed as per minimum wages applicable to matriculates. Since, at the relevant time, the minimum wages of matriculates was ` 3,613.90p, his income is assessed at ` 3,613.90p.

Accordingly, his annual income is assessed at ` 43,366/- for the computation of just compensation.

Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:-

(i). Since deceased was unmarried, 50% of the income of deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses.

Selection of multiplier:

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 60 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

(i) As per record, date of birth of deceased was September 5, 1987 and since the accident had taken place on September 10, 2005, it means that he was 18 years 5 days old at the time of his death. Accordingly, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), multiplier of 18 shall be apply in this matter.

Loss of income:-

(i) In view of the above, loss of income is calculated as under:

                    NAME OF THE HEAD                                                              AMOUNT
                                                                                                   (IN `)
Annual Income of deceased                                                                         43,366
Less 50% of deduction towards personal                                                            21,683
and living expenses
Selection of multiplier                                                                              18
Total loss of income (` 21,678X 18 )                                                          3,90,294

35. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-

(i) In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of ` 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and ` 15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 61 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

(ii) Since the deceased was unmarried, no loss of consortium is awarded to the petitioner, accordingly, a sum of ` 30,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards loss of es- tate and funeral expenses.

(iii) Accordingly, claimant is entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased as under:

                     NAME OF THE HEAD                                                               AMOUNT
                                                                                                     (IN `)
Loss of Income                                                                                     3,90,294
Loss of estate                                                                                         15,000
Funeral expenses                                                                                       15,000
                                         Total                                                      4,20,294


                                     Rounded off ` 4,21,000/-

(Rupees Four Lac Twenty One Thousands only)

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 62 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

DISBURSEMENT:

36. In her statement recorded on October 28, 2017 in compliance of Clause 26 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014, petitioner testified that her monthly household expenses is about ` 60,000/-.

(ii). In view of her statement, on realization, a sum of ` 1,21,000/- plus entire interest shall be released to petitioner Madhu Aggarwal and balance amount of ` 3 lac shall be put in 10 fixed deposits of ` 30,000/- each for period of 1 month to 10 months in a nationalized bank in her name.

MACT Suit No.:357214/16:

Income of deceased (Samrath Aggarwal):

(i) As per claim petition, deceased Samrath Aggarwal was a partner of M/s Matushree Investments and one of the Directors of M/s Admirable Financial Services Ltd.

Petitioner has filed his ITR for the assessment year 2003-2004 to 2005-2006 to same are Ex. PW3/4 to Ex. PW3/6 respectively. As per ITR for the assessment year 2003-2004 (Ex.PW3/4), his gross income was ` 1,29,561/-. However, during the assessment years 2004-2005 (Ex. PW3/5), his gross MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 63 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

salary was ` 1,50,354/- and during the assessment year 2005-2006 (Ex. PW3/6), his gross salary was ` 1,08,284/-. During the assessment year 2005-2006, he had paid tax of ` 2,507/-. It means his actual income was ` 1,05,777/-. Accordingly, his annual income is assessed at ` 1,05,777/- for the computation of just compensation.

Addition towards Future Prospects:-

(i) Since deceased was self-employed, in view of law laid down in Praney Sethi case (supra), petitioner is entitled for addition towards future prospects.

(ii) As per ITR and education certificate, his date of birth was August 10, 1984. It means that he was 21 years 1 month old at the time of his death. Since, he was below 40 years, in view of the law laid down in Praney Sethi case (supra), petitioner is entitled for 40% addition towards future prospects. Accordingly, a sum of ` 42,311/- is added in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:-

(i). Since deceased was unmarried, 50% of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Accordingly, a sum of MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 64 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

` 74,044/- is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

Selection of multiplier:

(i) Since the deceased was 21 years 1 month old at the time of his death, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), multiplier of 18 shall be apply in this matter.

Loss of income:-

(i) In view of the above, loss of income is calculated as under:

                    NAME OF THE HEAD                                                              AMOUNT
                                                                                                   (IN `)
Annual Income of deceased                                                                    1,05,777
40% addition of towards future prospects                                                        42,311
                                                          Total                               1,48,088
Less 50% deduction towards personal                                                               74,044
and living expenses
                                                             Total                              74,044
Selection of multiplier                                                                                  18
Total loss of income (` 74,044/- X 18)                                                       13,32,792

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 65 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

37. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-

(i) In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of ` 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and ` 15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.

(ii) Since the deceased was unmarried, no loss of consortium is awarded to the petitioner, accordingly, a sum of ` 30,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.

(iii) Accordingly, claimant is entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased Samarth Aggarwal as under:

                     NAME OF THE HEAD                                                              AMOUNT
                                                                                                    (IN `)
Loss of Income                                                                                        13,32,792
Loss of estate                                                                                              15,000
Funeral expenses                                                                                          15,000/-
                                         Total                                                      13,62,792
Less 50% towards contributory negligence                                                             6,81,396
TOTAL AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION                                                                         6,81,396


                                     Rounded off ` 6,82,000/-

(Rupees Six Lac & Eighty Two Thousands Only`)

(iv) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 66 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

awarded by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. September 28, 2006 till realization of the amount.

DISBURSEMENT:

38. In her statement recorded on October 28, 2017 in compliance of Clause 26 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014, petitioner testified that her monthly household expenses is about ` 60,000/-.

(ii). In view of her statement, on realization, a sum of ` 82,000/- plus entire interest shall be released to petitioner Madhu Aggarwal and balance amount of ` 6 lac shall be put in 30 fixed deposits of ` 20,000/- each for pe- riod of 1 month to 30 months in a nationalized bank in her name.

39. The above FDRs in all the matters shall be prepared with the following conditions:-

(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 67 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

maturity of FDR and maturity amount of the FDRs be given to the claimants.

(ii)The maturity amount of the FDR be credited in the saving account of the claimants near the place of their residence.

(iii) No cheque book be issued to the claimants in the savings bank account without permission of the court.

(iv) No loan, advance or premature withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.

(v) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victims/claimants.

40. LIABILITY TO PAY:-

(i) Learned counsel for the insurance company contended that since in MACT Suit No. 357214/16 Mr. Samrath Aggarwal was the son of registered owner of car, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the liability of insured. It was further contended that since the accident had taken place due to the sole negligence of truck driver, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

(ii) As already discussed that in case of death of Samrath Aggarwal, compensation payable to the petitioner is liable to be deducted by 50% as there was a contributory negligence on the part of Samrath Aggarwal in occurrence of MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11);

356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 68 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

the accident. Mere fact that Samrath Aggarwal was the son of owner of the vehicle is not sufficient to deprive the petitioner i.e. mother of the deceased from the lawful claim.

(iii) Admittedly, Samrath Aggarwal was a third party to the Policy as the contract was between the insurance company and respondent No.1 Vishnu Aggarwal (owner of the car). Further, the car had a comprehensive/ package Policy and it is settled law that the occupants of the car are considered third party as held by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Bala Krishnana & anr. 2013 ACJ 199. Since the insured had paid premium qua the occupants and driver of the car, insurance company can not escape from its liability merely by saying that since the driver was son of the registered owner of the car, insurance company has no liability to pay compensation.

(iv) In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that insurance company is liable to pay compensation as assessed above to the petitioner i.e. mother of the deceased Samrath Aggarwal.

(v) Indisputably, besides Samrath Aggarwal, four other persons namely Kusum Lata, Sri Narayan Aggarwal, Bhagwan Swarup and Aniket were also travelling in the car and they also died in the said accident. Since, they were occupants of the car, they were third party to the insurance company of MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 69 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

the car. Mere fact that they were relatives of the owner of the car is not sufficient to deprive the petitioners from the lawful compensation. Accordingly, I am of the view that insurance company is liable to indemnify the liability of the insured qua the death of aforesaid persons also.

(vi) Since, the truck was not insured, its registered owner Bachhu Singh through his Lrs and driver Pappu shall also be liable to pay compensation of the petitioners.

(vii) As already held that in respect of the death of Samrath Aggarwal, 50% of compensation is liable to be deducted on account of contributory negligence on the part of deceased Samrath Aggarwal. The balance amount shall be payable by all the respondents jointly or severally being the registered owner of car, insurer of the car, driver of the truck and owner of the truck.

(viii) In respect of death of other occupants of the car, registered owner of the car (Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal), insurer of the car (The National Insurance Company Ltd.), registered owner of the truck (Bachhu Singh, through his LRs) and driver of the truck (Pappu) are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as the accident had taken place due to the composite negligence of drivers of car and truck.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 70 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

(ix) Since the accident in question had taken place due to the composite negligence of Samrath Aggarwal (driver) of the santro car and Pappu, driver of the truck, both the parties i.e. owner of the car and insurer of the car on the one hand and registered owner of the truck and driver of the truck on the another hand shall be liable to pay 50% each of the compensation amount in the said matters.

(x) In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Khenyei case (supra), it is made clear that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and after satisfying the award, the respondent(s) who shall satisfy the award shall be entitled to recover the amount paid beyond their liability from the other parties without filing a separate suit.

(ix) Accordingly, Issue No.2 in all the cases is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.

41. RELIEF:

(i) Since, the car is insured with The National Insurance Company, in MACT Suit No. 357214/16, insurance company is directed to deposit compensation of ` 6,82,000/-

with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e September 28, 2006 till realization of the amount MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 71 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

with the Nazir of this Tribunal failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay 12% interest of the delayed period.

(ii) Since, it has been held that in respect of other matters, accident had taken place due to the composite negligence of drivers of car and truck, insurance company is directed to deposit:

(a) In MACT Suit No. 357081/16, a sum of ` 6,44,000/-;

(b) In MACT Suit No. 356940/16, a sum of ` 6,19,000/-;

(c) In MACT Suit No. 357147/16, a sum of ` 27,26,000/-;

(d) In MACT Suit No. 356934/16, a sum of ` 4,21,000/-;

with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions i.e. September 28, 2006 in respect of the claim petitions (MACT Suits Nos. 357081/16, 356940/16 AND 356934/16) and w.e.f. November 13, 2006 in MACT Suit No. 357147/16, till realization of the amount with the Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days from today failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum of the delayed period. However, it is made clear once again that after satisfying the award, insurance company shall be entitled to recover 50% of the award amount from the owner and driver of the truck without filing separate civil suit.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 72 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

42. Insurer and owner of offending santro car & owner and driver of offending truck are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioners/claimants and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days from today.

(i) A copy of this judgment be sent to The National Insurance company for compliance within the time granted.

(ii) Nazir is directed to place a report on record on January 30, 2018 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.

(iii) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court on December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.

(iv) Original award is signed and placed in MACT No. 357081/16, copy of thereof be placed in other claim suits.

MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 73 of 74 Ankit Aggarwal & ors. vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors.

(iv) File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open court on this 22nd day of December, 2017 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) Judge, MACT-1 (Central), THC, Delhi/sv MACT No. 357081/16 (401/11); 356940/16 (Suit No. 395/11); 357214/16 (400/11); 356934/16 (Suit No. 396/2011) & 357147/16 (Suit No. 398/11) Page No. 74 of 74

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Ankit Aggarwal & Ors. vs . Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. on 22 December, 2017