1 IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY]; JUDGE MACT; NEW DELHI i). [CASE NUMBER] 1. [ENTITY] w/o [ENTITY] 2. [ENTITY] d/o [ENTITY] (age 6 months) 3. Smt.[ENTITY] w/oLate Jagan Singh All r/o V & P.O. Teekli, Distt.Gurgaon, Haryana. ii)Petition No.369/06 1) [ENTITY] w/o Late Sh.[ENTITY], 2) Master [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY], 3) [ENTITY] s/o Mangal Singh 4) [ENTITY] w/o[ENTITY] All r/o Village & Post Office Teekli, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana. iii) [CASE NUMBER] 1) Smt.[ENTITY] w/o Late Sh.Dayanad Sharma, 2) [ENTITY] s/o Late Sh.Dayanad Sharma, 3) [ENTITY] s/o Late Sh.Dayanad Sharma, 4) [ENTITY] d/o Late Sh.Dayanad Sharma, 5) [ENTITY] s/o Ram Charan 6) [ENTITY] w/o [ENTITY], All r/o V. & P.O. Chakarpur, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana. iv)Petition No.368/06 [ENTITY] s/o Shri Ramesh Chand, r/o 123, Janta Flats, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093 v)Petition No.365/06 2 [ENTITY] w/o Late Sh.[ENTITY], r/o Village & Post Office Teekli, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana. vi)Petition No.367/06 Smt.[ENTITY] w/o Late Sh.Dayanad Sharma, r/o V. & P.O. Chakarpur, Distt. Gurgaon, vii)Haryana. Petitioners versus ([ENTITY] s/o K.N.Pillai r/o 972 Transport Co. Army Service Corps, c/o 56 A PO Delhi Cantt., Delhi (driver) (2) [ENTITY] through The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi (also at 972 Transport Coy. Army Service Corps, c/o 56 A PO Delhi Cantt., Delhi. . Respondents.
Date of filing of petition: 8.6.2004 Date of assignment to this court:22.11.2007 Date of award: 16.03.07 AWARD On 6.5.2005 at around 1.50 p.m an accident took place at T point Simon Boulevard Marg. In the said accident three persons namely [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] lost their lives. The admitted facts are that accident was caused by R-1 while driving an Army bus No.^03P 015 314 K. The bus was coming from the side of Ridge Road and was going towards S.P.Marg. The petitioner alleged that the accident took place as R-1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The respondents have pleaded that accident took place as the brakes of the offending vehicle failed and therefore R 1 was not able to stop the bus at the time of accident. In the accident one Shri [ENTITY] also suffered bodily injuries and two vehicles on which deceased [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were travelling were badly damaged. The legal heirs of deceased persons and the injured filed separate petitions under [SECTION] [ACT]. Two separate petitions were also filed seeking compensation for the damages caused to the vehicles. In all six petitions were filed. [ENTITY] was impleaded as R-2.
2. Upon the petition being filed, the summons were sent to the respondents. The respondents in the separate written statements filed in all the claim petitions, took the similar defence of brake failure. As all the petitions had arisen out of the same road accident, all these petitions were consolidated vide order dated 23.12.2004 and petition titled as [ENTITY] Vs. Udhay Kumar was ordered to be treated as the leading case and the remaining claim petitions were ordered to be treated as connected cases. It was further directed that proceedings/evidence recorded in the above noted petition shall be read for disposal of all the six claim petitions. I propose to dispose of all these petitions by a common judgment.
3. Vide order dated 23.12.2004 an interim award u/[SECTION] [ACT] was passed in three petitions titled as [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY]. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether death of Sh.[ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] took place and scooter No.HR-26G-7331, motor cycle No.HR 26-N-0420 got damaged and [ENTITY] suffered injuries on 06.5.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of Army bus No.^ 03P 015 314 K on the part of R 1 [ENTITY]?
2. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners in these claim petitions entitled and from whom?
3. Relief
4. Entire petitioners evidence were recorded in the petition titled as [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY]. Shri [ENTITY] record clerk RML Hospital produced the entire record pertaining to injured [ENTITY] and proved the same as Ex.PW1/A. PW 2 Shri [ENTITY] record clerk Lady Harding Medical College has proved post mortem report of the deceased persons as Exs.PM1, PM2 and PM3. Petitioner [ENTITY] tendered her evidence by way of affidavit and proved the affidavit as Ex.PW3/A. Petitioner [ENTITY] tendered her evidence by way of affidavit and proved her affidavit as Ex.PW4/A Smt.[ENTITY] widow of deceased [ENTITY] tendered her affidavit Ex.PW5/A. Injured [ENTITY] proved his affidavit as Ex.PW6/A. Injured [ENTITY] being the only survivor in the accident also deposed regarding rash and negligent driving of R-1. Shri [ENTITY] (PW 7) is the employer of deceased [ENTITY] . He proved the salary certificate of [ENTITY] as Ex.PX and copy of his income tax return as Ex.PW7/1. PW 8 Sh.[ENTITY] Prop. of Shoe Style has stated on oath that deceased [ENTITY] was working as a Security Guard in his shop and he also proved the salary certificate Ex.PW8/1. The respondents did not lead any evidence.
5. I have heard Shri [ENTITY] counsel for petitioners, Shri [ENTITY] counsel for respondents and also perused the record carefully. My findings on the issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1
6. Petitioner [ENTITY] in his affidavit has deposed on oath that on 6.5.2004 at about 1.50 p.m he was going on his two wheeler scooter bearing No.HR 26G-7331 towards S.P.Marg, New Delhi. [ENTITY] was travelling as pillion rider on his scooter. He further deposed that when he reached at red light of [ENTITY] infront of [ENTITY] and was waiting for the red light to turn green, an Army vehicle No.^03P- 015 314 K came from backside i.e. Ridge Road side at a very high speed being in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter on account of which he along with the pillion rider fell down on the road and suffered multiple injuries. Petitioner [ENTITY] further stated on oath that after hitting his scooter, the offending vehicle further hit other two motor cycles standing on the red light which was ahead of the scooter of the petitioner and after hitting all the three vehicles the bus hit against the footpath. The petitioner stated that he suffered multiple injuries in this accident.
7. In the cross examination by respondents, PW 7 stated that he could assess that the speed of the bus was very fast as the bus after hitting against them stopped at a distance of about 30 to 35 ft. He further stated that he could not see the driver as he had suffered multiple injuries.
8. As I have discussed above, the respondents in their written statement have not denied the involvement of the vehicle and factum of accident. They have simply pleaded that accident took place as the brakes of the offending vehicle failed.
9. During arguments learned counsel for respondents has submitted that R 1 has pleaded guilty in the court martial proceedings. The respondents had taken the defence that accident took place on account of brake failure but they did not lead any evidence so as to substantiate their plea. I have perused the motor inspection report of the offending vehicle. It nowhere indicates that there was a brake failure of the offending vehicle. Even otherwise in a case where the plea of mechanical defect has been taken, the onus is upon the respondents to show that they had taken all reasonable care and despite such care the defects remained hidden. I am privileged to quote the observations made in [PRECEDENT] Supreme Court decided on 28.1.77 wherein it was held as under:-
" in order to sustain a plea that the accident was due to the mechanical defect the owners must raise a plea that the defect was latent and not discoverable by the use of reasonable care. The owner is not liable if the accident is due to a latent defect which is not discoverable by reasonable care. The law on this subject has been laid down in [PRECEDENT]. In that case its lorry driver applied the brakes of the lorry on a steep hill but they failed to operate. As a result the lorry struck and killed a man who was emerging from a parked vehicle. The defence was that brake failure was due to a latent defect not discoverable by reasonable care on drivers part. It was found that the lorry was five years old and had done at least 1,50,000 miles. The brakes were hydraulically operated. It was also found after the accident that the brake failure was due to a steel pipe bursting from 7 mm-to 1 mm. The corrosion had occurred where it could not be seen except by removing the pipe completely from the vehicle and this had never been done. Expert evidence showed that it was not a normal precaution to do this if, as was the case the visible parts of the pipe were not corroded. The corrosion was unusual and unexplained. An expert witness said it must have been due to chemical action of some kind such as exposure to salt from the roads in winter or on journeys near the sea. The House of Lords held that the burden of proof which lay on the defendants to show that they had taken all reasonable care had been discharged. The defect remained undiscovered despite due care. As the evidence had shown that something unusual had happened to cause this corrosion it was necessary for the defendants to show that they neither knew nor ought to have known of any unusual occurrence to cause the breakdown.
The burden of proving that the accident was due to a mechanical defect is on the owners and it is their duty to show that they had taken all reasonable care and that despite such care the defect remained hidden. In this case in the written statement all that is pleaded is that the axle-brake ring of the lorry came out and the driver lost control of the motor lorry and that the defect can develop in a running vehicle resulting in the driver's losing control of the steering wheel. Though it was stated that all precautions were taken to keep the lorry in a roadworthy condition it was not specifically pleaded that the defect i.e. the axle brake ring coming out, is a latent defect and could not have been discovered by the use of reasonable care. This lack of plea is in addition to the lack of evidence an d the fact that the defence set up has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal.
10. The respondents have not let any evidence that they had taken all care and caution while maintaining the vehicle. It has also been specifically stated by injured [ENTITY] that truck after hitting the scooter, hit the pavement, this fact itself shows the rashness and speed of the truck. The post mortem report of the deceased persons have also been proved on record. In the circumstances I consider that petitioners have successfully proved that the accident was caused by R-1 while driving Army vehicle No.^ 03P-015 314 K in a rash and negligent manner. Issue No.2
11. The petitioners herein are the legal representatives of the victim/deceased and injured himself. The petitioners have claimed compensation U/ [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The provisions of [ACT] are the piece of beneficial legislation and the superior courts from time to time have laid down that dependents of the deceased should not suffer on account of sudden death of the bread-winner. It has further been laid down in the catena of judgments that Tribunal should make an attempt to equate as far as possible the misery with the compensation awarded. Though no amount of compensation can be equated with the loss of life,however, by awarding the compensation, the Tribunal can ensure that dependents do not lead miserable life. [SECTION] of the [ACT] mandates award of just compensation . The assessment of just compensation depends upon several factors including the future contingencies and the possibility of likely increase in the income of the deceased, therefore, it is impossible to reach at a figure exactly representing the just compensation.
12. The precedents on the law indicate that there are two major factors for determining a just and fair compensation.
1. The approximate annual dependency of the legal heirs in terms of the annual loss ; and
2. Multiplier to be applied in quantifying any such cases.
13. There cannot be precise mathematical formula to arrive at just decision. It depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
'Just and Proper' denotes equatibility, fairness and reasonableness. Therefore, that compensation is just which is sufficient to provide to the claimants such pecuniary benefits as they would have enjoyed if the deceased had lived a normal span of life. Reference can be made to State of Punjab Vs. Brij [ENTITY] (1975) 77 PLR 431. The compensation awarded should neither be exhorbitant nor pittance.
13. The Superior Courts have laid down time and again the method for determining the amount of compensation. The Tribunal is required to be practical , reasonable and a liberal view. The Tribunal should also take into account the decreasing money value.
14. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that deceased persons lost their lives at a very young age and they were bound to rise high. It has been argued that even the minimum wages keep on increasing from time to time and therefore the future prospects may be taken into consideration.
15. Our own High Court in the case titled as [PRECEDENT] decided on 09.01.2007 bearing petition [CASE NUMBER], while deciding a petition in which the tribunal had taken into account the future prospects in a case where the income of the deceased was assessed on the basis of minimum wages, upheld the judgment of the tribunal and held as under:-
Futuristic vision has obviously to be taken in respect of the events of the past. The learned trial court has looked into the past and has noted that pertaining to unskilled labour, minimum wages rose from Rs.750/- per month as on 1.5.1989 to Rs.3044/- per month as on 1.2.2005. The percentage increase comes to nearly 360%. This 360% increase is in a span of less than 6 years. On a multiplier of 18, it could perfectly be held that over the next 18 years, minimum wages would rise, if not more, at least to double the figure.
16. Similarly in another petition on same proposition our own High Court in [PRECEDENT] decided on 15.1.2007 bearing petition MACT held as under:-
Suffice would it be to note that a futuristic vision can be taken only in respect of the events of the past. In the instant case, minimum wages as notified under the [ACT] been taken into account.
I have before me the minimum wages notified under the [ACT]
On 18.1.1994 minimum wages of matriculates was Rs.1868/- p.m On 1.2.2004 the same stood enhanced to
Rs.3310.90 p.m. Percentage of increase is nearly 85%.
The minimum wages as notified show a near doubling of the minimum wages over 10 years.
The deceased was aged between 35 to 40 years.
He had 20 years of gainful employment left.
Thus, the increase in minimum wages over the years and treating the income of the deceased as the average mean income under the award is perfectly fair and just."
17. For the purpose of convenience and clarity now I propose to compute the compensation in all these petitions separately.
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY]
18. In this case deceased [ENTITY] was aged 26 years. He left behind young widow , a minor daughter and aged mother. The petitioner [ENTITY] in her affidavit Ex.PW3/A deposed on oath that deceased was doing the job of security guard with M/s Shoe Style and was getting a salary of Rs.4500/- p.m Sh.[ENTITY], employer of the deceased appeared as PW-8 and stated on oath that the deceased was working as a security guard in his shop at a monthly salary of Rs.4500/-. The salary certificate has been proved on Ex.PW8/1. It is an admitted case that the employer of the deceased did not produce any record regarding the employment of the deceased. PW 3 [ENTITY] deposed on oath that deceased also used to earn Rs.2000/- p.m from his own shop. However no document in this regard has been placed on record. It is matter of record that no age proof of the deceased has been placed on record. I consider that there is nothing on the record to discredit the testimony of PW 8. In view of the testimony of of PW 8, I consider that monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4500/- p.m. As far as income of Rs.2000/- p.m besides Rs.4500/- p.m, as claimed by the petitioner, in absence of any document, cannot be believed. The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of accident. The bare perusal of the minimum wages chart indicate that the minimum wages for an unskilled worker which was Rs.1677 in February 1996 have risen to Rs.3312/- in 2006. Therefore the minimum wages almost doubled in around 10 years. Even in the above noted case [PRECEDENT] (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has observed that there is a huge increase in the minimum wages. Therefore , taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider that the future increase in the income of the deceased can be taken into consideration.
19. In [ENTITY] vs. Balwant Yadav 1996 ACJ 581, it was held that the proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. It was further held in [ENTITY]'s case (supra) that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand.
20. Therefore the principle applying therein the average income of the deceased can be taken as {Rs.4500 + 9000 divided by 2} Rs.6750/-. Out of this 1/3rd is to be deducted on account of the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs.4500/- p.m.or Rs.54,000/-per annum.
21. It is settled proposition that the multiplier is to be adopted according to the age of the deceased or the claimant which ever is higher. As per the post-mortem report the age of the deceased was 30 years. At the age of 30 years, I consider that proper multiplier would be of 15. Therefore the compensation comes to Rs.54,000/- x 15 = 8,10,000/-. Besides this this a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of funeral expenses shall meet the ends of justice. Therefore the total compensation comes to Rs.8,40,000/-.
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & anr.
22. In her affidavit petitioner [ENTITY] has deposed on oath that her husband [ENTITY] was around 21 years of age at the time of accident and was doing the job of Supervisor in M/s Mahalakshmi Trading Company and was drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/- p.m. The petitioner further stated on oath that deceased left behind herself, a minor son and aged parents. The petitioner also stated that her husband was the registered owner of motor cycle No.HR 26 N 0420 which was completely damaged in the accident. The petitioner also examined PW 7 Shri [ENTITY] Proprietor of Maha Laxmi Trading Company who deposed on oath that deceased [ENTITY] was employed with him as a Supervisor. PW 7 further deposed that deceased was getting monthly salary of R.4500/-. The salary certificate has been proved as Ex.PX. PW 7 also produced his income tax return and proved the same as Ex.PW7/1. The perusal of the income tax return indicate that a sum of Rs.6,24,000/- has been shown to have been paid as wages and labour expenses. PW 7 did not produce any other record regarding the employment of the deceased.
23. I consider that there is no reason for PW 7 to come and depose falsely for the petitioners. He has specifically stated on oath that deceased was employed at a monthly salary of Rs.4500/-. In the circumstances I consider that it can safely be taken that deceased was earning Rs.4500/- at the time of accident. The petitioner [ENTITY] has stated that the deceased was 21 years of age at the time of accident. As per post mortem report the age of the deceased is 20 years. I consider that taking the age to be 21 years the appropriate multiplier in this case also would be 15. Applying the same principle as discussed above, the monthly income of the deceased comes to {4500 + 9000 divided by 2} Rs.6750/- p.m. Out of Rs.6750/- 1/3rd is to be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore the monthly loss of dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.6750 - Rs.2250 = Rs.4500 p.m or Rs.54,000 p.a.
24. Therefore the compensation comes to Rs.54,000/- x 15 = 8,10,000/-. Besides this this a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of funeral expenses shall meet the ends of justice. Therefore the total compensation comes to Rs.8,40,000/-.
Smt.[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & anr.
25. Petitioner [ENTITY] in her affidavit has stated on oath that her husband was 28 years of age at the time of accident. She further stated that her husband was doing the job of Assistant at M/s Sethi Auto Service Station and was drawing a salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m. Petitioner further stated that the deceased left behind herself , three minor children and aged parents. The petitioner further stated that her husband was matriculate. It was further stated by the petitioner that deceased was the registered owner of scooter bearing No. No.HR 26 G 7331 which was completely damaged in the accident. It is a matter of record that petitioners have not examined the employer of the deceased. Though the certificate regarding income of the deceased Ex.PM has been placed on record however in the absence of the testimony of the employer , I consider that it would be unsafe to rely upon the same.
26. During arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has furnished the original matriculation certificate of the deceased. In my view in the absence of any documentary proof regarding income of the deceased, the minimum wages of matriculate at the relevant time can be taken into account for the purpose of determination of the award. In May 2004, the minimum wages of Matriculate was Rs.3342.90. Taking this into account I consider that it can be rounded of as Rs.3350/- p.m. Applying the same principle, the average monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.3350 + 6700 = Rs.10,050/- divided by 2 = Rs.5025/-. In this case the petitioner has left behind a large family and therefore taking into account the peculiar circumstances 1/4th of the income can be deducted as the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore after deducting Rs.1255/- the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs.3700/- or Rs.44,400/- p.a. As per matriculation certificate the date of birth of the deceased was 3.12.1975. Therefore the deceased was less than 30 years of age at the time of accident. At this age, I consider that proper multiplier would be of 16. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs.44,400 x 16 = 7,10,400/- Besides this this a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of funeral expenses shall meet the ends of justice. Therefore the total compensation comes to Rs.7,40,400/-.
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & anr.
27. Petitioner [ENTITY] in this case suffered fracture in left thigh and fracture in his left shaft fermer besides multiple injuries on his body. Petitioner [ENTITY] has deposed on oath that he remained hospitalized from 6.5.2004 to 25.5.2004. A surgery was conducted on his left thigh on 14.5.2004 and a nail was inserted. Another operation was also conducted in Madhu Nursing Home on 18.9.2004 and he remained admitted from 18.9.2004 to 22.9.2004. This time the old nail was removed and a new rod was inserted. The petitioner further stated that he is still under treatment and is spending Rs.100/- per day on special diet. He further stated that he has visited the hospital 18/20 times and on each time he used to spend Rs.800 to Rs.1000/- per visit. The petitioner further stated that at the time of accident he was employed as an Attendant in M/s Sethi Auto Service Station and was drawing a salary of Rs.4000/- p.m He further stated that after the accident he has not been able to do his daily routine work. The petitioner stated that he spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment. It was further stated by the petitioner that he had also engaged an attendant for six months at a monthly salary of Rs.1000/-. The petitioner stated that he suffered mental pain and agony besides financial loss.
28. It is matter of record that the petitioner has not placed on record any income proof. The total medical bills are of around Rs.8000/-. However, the petitioner placed on record the documents which indicate that the petitioner had suffered fracture in left shaft of femur. He remained admitted in the hospital from 5.5.2004 to 25.5.2005. Subsequently also the petitioner remained under treatment for a long time as indicated by the documents placed on the record. The perusal of the record transpires that the petitioner kept on taking treatment for the same injury.
29. The compensation in the injury case cannot be granted on the mathematical precision. Such compensation is granted taking into account the nature of injury, period of treatment, pain and sufferings and other surrounding circumstances. The humanitarian approach is required while determining the amount of compensation in such cases. However, the Tribunal is required to maintain a balanced approach while determining the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation should neither be a pittance nor a bonanza. The compensation in the injury cases are granted under the following heads:-
1. Compensation on account of pain and sufferings;
2. Compensation on account of medicines, medical treatment, special diet and conveyance;
3. Compensation for loss of income; and
4. Compensation for loss of enjoyment and amenity of life.
1. Compensation for pain and sufferings
30. Compensation under this head is granted taking into consideration the nature of injury, period of hospitalisation and period of treatment. The copy of the MLC placed on the record in this case shows that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries on his body. The petitioner are remained hospitalized from 5.5.2004 to 25.5.2005 and again from 18.9.2004 to 22.9.2004. I consider that taking on account nature of injuries, the period of hospitalisation and the period of treatment as stated by the petitioner in his testimony, a sum of Rs 15000/- under this head shall meet the end of the justice.
2. Compensation on account of medicines, medical treatment, special diet and conveyance
31. Compensation under this head is granted for actual expenses made by the petitioner on medicines, special diet and conveyance. The petitioner has placed on record the bills of around Rs.8000/-. I consider, that a sum of Rs. 8000/- be awarded to the petitioner on account of medicine and medical treatment. Besides a sum of Rs.8000/- on medicine and medical treatment, I consider that a sum of Rs.7500/- on special diet and a sum of Rs.7500/- on conveyance shall meet the ends of justice.
32. The petitioner has also stated that he had employed an attendant for six months. However, no document in this regard has been filed and therefore it would be unsafe to pass an award on this count.
3. Compensation for loss of income
33. The petitioner has stated on oath that he was employed at a monthly salary of Rs.4000/- p.m and on account of this accident he was not able to join the duties. The petitioner has not placed on record any document in this regard. However, taking into account the nature of injuries, I consider that on the basis of minimum wages, loss of three months salary can be awarded to the petitiner. Therefore a sum of Rs.9000/- is awarded to the petitioner on account of loss of income.
4. Compensation for loss of enjoyment and amenity.
34. Every human being is entitled to bodily integrity and any injury on the body takes away such right of enjoyment of the life. I consider that taking on account the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner a sum of Rs 5000/- under this head shall meet the ends of justice.
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY]
35. This petition was filed claiming damages to motor cycle No.HR 26 -N-0420. A compensation of Rs.15000/- has been claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner [ENTITY] in her affidavit has stated on oath that the deceased was the registered owner of the vehicle and it was completely damaged in the accident. The copy of the mechanical inspection report and registration certificate has also been placed on the record. However, no document in respect of expenditure incurred on the repair of the vehicle has been placed on record. I consider that in the absence of any documents regarding expenditure incurred on the repair, a sum of Rs.2500/-on this account shall meet the ends of justice.
Smt.[ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Anr.
36. This petition was filed claiming damages to scooter No.HR 26 G 7331. A compensation of Rs.25000/- has been claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner [ENTITY] in her affidavit has stated on oath that her husband was the registered owner of scooter No.HR 26 G 733. She further stated on oath that the scooter was completely damaged in the accident. The original repair estimate has also been placed on record which is Ex.PN. The copy of mechanical inspection report and photographs have also been placed on record. All these indicate that the vehicle was completely damaged. The repair estimate of the vehicle is of around Rs.17,000/-. on the basis of repair estimate, I consider that award cannot be passed. In the case of property damage the award is to be passed on the actual pecuniary loss of the petitioner. However, taking into account the damages to the vehicle, as visible from the photograph and mechanical inspection report, a sum of Rs.5000/- is awarded on this account.
i) Compensation awarded in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] Compensation adopting multiplier of 15 comes to : Rs.8,10,000/-
Compensation on account of consortium : Rs.20,000/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.10,000 Total : Rs.8,40,000/-
ii). Compensation awarded in Petition No.369/06 [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & Anr.
Compensation adopting multiplier of 15 comes to : Rs.8,10,000/- Compensation on account of consortium : Rs.20,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs.10,000 Total : Rs.8,40,000/-
iii) Compensation awarded in [CASE NUMBER] Smt.[ENTITY] bvs. [ENTITY] & anr.
Compensation adopting multiplier of 16 comes to : Rs.7,10,400/- Compensation on account of consortium : Rs.20,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs.10,000 Total : Rs.7,40,400/-
iv) Compensation awarded in Petition No.368/06 [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & Anr.
Medicines : 8,000/- Pain & sufferings : 15,000/- Special diet : 7,500/- Conveyance : 7,500/- Loss of income : 9,000/- Loss of enjoyment : 5,000/- Total :Rs.52,000/-
v) Compensation awarded in Petition No.365/06 [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & anr.
Compensation for damage of Motor cycle No.HR 26 N 0420 : Rs.2500/-
vi) Compensation awarded in Petition No.367/06 Smt.[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & anr.
Compensation for damage of scooter No.HR 26 G 7331 : Rs.5000/-
34. R-1 and R-2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However R-2 being employer is vicariously liable to pay the compensation.
RELIEF:
37. In view of the discussion made herein above, I consider that the award passed shall be just and fair. The petitioners are also entitled interest @ 7% p.a from the date of filing of petition till its realization. The apportionment in various petitioners be done as under:-
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] 50% of the awarded amount to Petitioner No.1. 30% of the awarded amount to Petitioner No.2 and 20% of the awarded amount to petitioner no.3 Out of the awarded amount in the share of petitioner No.1, 80% be kept in [ENTITY] in a Nationalized bank for a period of 5 years and the amount awarded to Petitioner No.2 be kept in [ENTITY] in a Nationalized Bank till she attains the age of majority.
ii). Compensation awarded in Petition No.369/06 [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & Anr.
60% of the awarded amount to Petitioner No.1. 10% of the awarded amount to Petitioner No.2, 15% of the awarded amount to petitioner No.3 and 15% of the awarded amount to petitioner no.4 Out of the awarded amount in the share of petitioner No.1, 80% be kept in [ENTITY] in a Nationalized bank for a period of 5 years and the amount awarded to Petitioner No.2 be kept in [ENTITY] in a Nationalized Bank till they attain the age of majority.
iii) Compensation awarded in [CASE NUMBER] Smt.[ENTITY] bvs. [ENTITY] & anr.
40% of the awarded amount to Petitioner No.1. 10% each of the awarded amount to Petitioner No.2 and 3, 20% of the awarded amount to petitioner no.4 and 10% each to petitioners no.5 and 6.
Out of the awarded amount in the share of petitioner No.1, 80% be kept in [ENTITY] in a Nationalized bank for a period of 5 years and the amount awarded to Petitioner No.2 to 4 be kept in [ENTITY] in a Nationalized Bank till they attain the age of majority.
R-2 is directed to deposit the award alongwith proportionate interest within 30 days. Copy of the award be supplied to the parties. File be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Dated on 16.03.2007 ([ENTITY]) JUDGE:MACT/NEW Delhi