IN THE COURT OF SH [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL : EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI [CASE NUMBER] Unique Case I.D. No.: MACT/43016/2015 Ms. [ENTITY] D/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o Vill. Khadoi, PS Narsaina, Distt. Bulandshahr, U.P. [CASE NUMBER] Unique Case I.D. No.: MACT/43017/2015 Ms. [ENTITY] D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Tomar R/o 18/465, Kailash Puri, Distt. Bulandshahr, U.P. [CASE NUMBER] Unique Case I.D. No.: MACT/43018/2015 1. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY] 2. Mr. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Ram Charan Sharma Residents of: H. No. 547, Amar Maya Colony, Tehsil & Distt. Bulandshahr, U.P. [CASE NUMBER] Unique Case I.D. No.: MACT/43019/2015 1. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY] 2. Mr. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Veerpal Singh Residents of: H. No. 426/15, Kailashpuri, near Kamal Public School, Distt. Bulandshahr, U.P. Petitioners D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.1of27 VERSUS 1. Mr. [ENTITY] S/o. Sh. Parshu Ram R/o J-56, Nehru Camp, I.P. Extension, Delhi-110092 Also at: 11/67, 2nd Floor, Dhawal Giri Apartment, Sector-34, Noida, U.P. Also at: VPO Lachipur, PS Khero, Distt. Raibareily, U.P. Driver-Owner 2. [ENTITY] C-31/32, 1st Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Insurer Respondents Date of Institution : 07.12.2015 Date of Reserving : 20.09.2018 Date of Judgment : 30.10.2018 JUDGMENT
1. On 19.09.2015 at about 9.30 p.m., Ms. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were moving in car described as Honda Civic bearing registration No. DL-3C BE 1550 (the car), on way to Laxmi Nagar from Spice Mall, Noida, U.P., allegedly driven by the respondent No. 1 in high speed despite repeated warnings. When the car reached at Patparganj Flyover, NH-24, Delhi, the respondent No. 1 started indulging in molesting Ms. [ENTITY] and in that process, he lost control over the car and rammed it into rear portion of TATA Eicher bearing registration No. UP-16BT 5538 (the truck). Consequently, Ms. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] suffered 'grievous' injuries and Ms. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] suffered 'fatal' injuries.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.2of27
2. The above noted accident claim cases were instituted by Ms. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], and parents of Ms. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] (collectively, the petitioners) in context of detailed accident reports (DAR) instituted by ASI [ENTITY], Investigating Officer, under [SECTION] of the [ACT] on the basis of evidence collected during investigation of corresponding criminal case vide FIR No. 659/15, initially, registered under [SECTION] of [ACT] at PS Pandav Nagar impleading, inter alia, the respondent No. 1 and 2 being the driver-owner and insurer of the car. Subsequently, the petitioners filed petitions under [SECTION] [ACT].
3. The respondent No. 1, in his written statement, denied rash and negligent driving of the car and attributed negligence to some other vehicle.
4. The respondent No. 2 / insurer, in its reply, contended that the truck which was stationary on road contributed to the accident and owner, driver and insurer of the truck are necessary parties. It contended that the car was being driven when the respondent No. 1 was indulging in molestation and therefore, other occupants of the car were party to the said crime and contributed to the accident. It contended that 'no one is entitled to claim compensation for his own wrongs'. It contended that the doctrine of 'volenti non fit injuria' would apply as the commuters had full knowledge of nature and extent of risk voluntarily undertaken by them. It contended that there were six persons in the car beyond sitting capacity of the car including the driver.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.3of27 ISSUES:
5. On the pleadings, in [CASE NUMBER], following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road side accident on 19.09.2015 involving vehicle i.e. Honda Civic Car bearing registration No. DL-3C BE 1550 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Relief.
6. On the pleadings, in [CASE NUMBER], following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road side accident on 19.09.2015 involving vehicle i.e. Honda Civic Car bearing registration No. DL-3C BE 1550 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Relief.
7. On the pleadings, in [CASE NUMBER], following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a road side accident on 19.09.2015 involving vehicle i.e. Honda Civic Car bearing registration No. DL-3C BE 1550 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Relief.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.4of27
8. On the pleadings, in [CASE NUMBER], following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a road side accident on 19.09.2015 involving vehicle i.e. Honda Civic Car bearing registration No. DL-3C BE 1550 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE [CASE NUMBER]
9. Ms. [ENTITY] appeared as PW-1. She deposed, on strength of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, about manner of the accident. She relied on treatment record Ex.PW1/1, medical bills Ex.PW1/2, academic certificates Ex.PW1/3, identity card issued by Vedanga Institute for Civil Services Ex.PW1/4, fee receipts issued by Vedanga Institute for Civil Services Ex.PW1/5, fee receipts issued by Glovin Computer Education Ex.PW1/6, aadhaar card Ex.PW1/7, voter I-card Ex.PW1/8 and detailed accident report (DAR) Ex.PW1/9.
10. TW-1 [ENTITY], Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi- 110092 brought a letter issued by Director alongwith application form and identity card of [ENTITY] Ex.TW1/1.
11. TW-2 [ENTITY] was caretaker of H. No. 4/156, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.5of27 [CASE NUMBER]
12. Ms. [ENTITY] appeared as PW-1. She deposed, on strength of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, about mode of accident. She relied on treatment record Ex.PW1/1, medical bills Ex.PW1/2, academic certificates Ex.PW1/3, fee receipt issued by Vedanga Institute Ex.PW1/4, PAN card Ex.PW1/5, aadhaar card Ex.PW1/6 and detailed accident report (DAR) Ex.PW1/7.
13. TW-1 [ENTITY], Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi- 110092 brought a letter issued by Director alongwith application form and identity card of [ENTITY] Ex.TW1/A.
14. TW-2 [ENTITY] was caretaker of H. No. 4/156, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
[CASE NUMBER]
15. PW-1 [ENTITY], father of the deceased [ENTITY] filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied on medical bills of Rs. 79,000/- Ex.PW1/1, death certificate of deceased Ex.PW1/2, academic certificates of the deceased Ex.PW1/3, identity card of the deceased issued by Vedanga Institute for Civil Services Ex.PW1/4, fee receipt issued by Vedanga Institute for Civil Services Ex.PW1/4A, aadhaar card of the deceased Ex.PW1/5, aadhaar card of the petitioners Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 respectively, and detailed accident report (DAR) Ex.PW1/8.
16. PW-2 [ENTITY] filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. She described the sequence of events leading to the accident. She relied on her aadhaar card Ex.PW2/1.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.6of27
17. TW-1 [ENTITY], Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi- 110092 brought a letter issued by Director alongwith application form and identity card of [ENTITY] Ex.TW1/A.
18. TW-2 [ENTITY] was caretaker of H. No. 4/156, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
[CASE NUMBER]
19. PW-1 [ENTITY], father of the deceased [ENTITY] filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied on academic certificates of the deceased Ex.PW1/1, identity card of the deceased issued by Vedanga Institute for Civil Services Ex.PW1/2, fee receipt issued by Vedanga Institute for Civil Services Ex.PW1/2A, aadhaar card of the deceased Ex.PW1/3, aadhaar card of the petitioners Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5 respectively, and detailed accident report (DAR) Ex.PW1/6.
20. PW-2 [ENTITY] filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. She described the sequence of events leading to the accident. She relied on her aadhaar card Ex.PW2/1.
21. TW-1 [ENTITY], Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi- 110092 brought a letter issued by Director alongwith I-card, payment slip and aadhaar card of [ENTITY] Ex.TW1/A.
22. TW-2 [ENTITY] was caretaker of H. No. 4/156, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.7of27 Final arguments:
23. I have heard arguments of Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioners, Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate for the respondent No. 2 / insurer and examined the evidence, oral and documentary.
[CASE NUMBER], 10827/16, 10828/16 and 10829/16
24. In an action instituted on the principle of fault liability under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the petitioners must prove involvement of the offending vehicle, and rash and negligent driving thereof. Standard of proof is not that stringent as that applied in criminal cases that is proof beyond reasonable doubts. In claims founded on tort liability, the principle of preponderance of probabilities applies.
25. In order to prove rash and negligent driving of the car, Ms. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] appeared as PW-1 in accident claim cases. Ms. [ENTITY] deposed, on strength of affidavit, sequence of events leading to occurrence. She categorically stated that on 19.09.2015, she alongwith her friends namely Ms. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were moving to Laxmi Nagar from Spice Mall, Noida in car bearing registration No. DL-3C BE 1550 (Honda Civic). She categorically deposed that the respondent No. 1 was driving the car in high speed with high volume of music. She deposed that the respondent No. 1 was warned by her several times and other passengers but he had not paid any heed.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.8of27
26. Ms. [ENTITY] categorically deposed that at about 09.30 p.m., when the car reached at Patparganj Flyover, NH-24, Delhi, the respondent No. 1 was molesting Ms. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] was molesting her and for that reason, the respondent No. 1 lost control over the car and rammed it into TATA Eicher bearing registration No. UP-16BT 5538 which was moving ahead of the car. She was cross-examined by counsel for the respondent No. 1. However, he could not elicit anything from her cross-examination. In her cross-examination conducted by counsel for the respondent No. 2 / insurer, she deposed that the respondent No. 1 was driving without taking care and concentrating on [ENTITY] and molesting her. It is evident that there is nothing in her cross-examination which can render her version on the aspect of rash and negligent driving of the car not worthy of credit.
27. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of evidence of Ms. [ENTITY]. She described manner of accident in her affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She materially corroborated evidence of Ms. [ENTITY]. There is nothing in her cross- examination which can throw any doubt on mode of accident.
28. It may be noted that the respondent No. 1 neither stated nor deposed his account of accident. The respondent No. 2 / insurer did not examine him to elicit anything to contrary. Evidence of Ms. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] remained unchallenged. The respondent No. 1 neither stated nor deposed as to why he could not avoid the accident.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.9of27
29. The accident was reported to the police at 9.30 p.m. on 19.09.2015 vide DD No. 43A. [ENTITY] reached at the place of the accident. He found that the car in rammed condition into rear portion of the truck. The car and the truck were seized in accidental condition from the place of the accident. Mechanical Inspection Report (MIR) of the car and the truck would show that the car mangled due to the impact of the collision against rear portion of the truck. The truck also suffered considerable damage on its rear portion.
30. From evidence of Ms. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and contemporary documents, as noted above, and photographs of the car and the truck, it is evident that the car had rammed into rear portion of the truck with considerable force leading to fatal injuries to Ms. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], and grievous injuries to Ms. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. The rash and negligent driving of the car is inherent in sequence of events brought on file of the tribunal.
31. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 / insurer submitted that the accident had not arisen from rash and negligent driving of the car but it was caused due to criminal act committed by the respondent No. 1 and his accomplice [ENTITY]. He submitted that insurance policy was issued to indemnify liability arising out of use of motor vehicle and not to criminal acts. He submitted that the word 'accident' cannot be equated to deliberate culpable negligence unexpected from a prudent person. He submitted that claim of the petitioners is beyond scope of contract of insurance. He submitted that the insurance company deserves exoneration.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.10of27
32. The tribunal does not find any merit in the contention of the respondent No. 2 / insurer that the accident was caused not due to rash and negligent driving but due to criminal act committed by the respondent No. 1 and his accomplice [ENTITY]. The petitioners are not seeking compensation for molestation or the criminal acts committed by the respondent No. 1 and his accomplice [ENTITY] while they were traveling in the car. It is evident that the deceased, [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and the injured, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], did not suffer injuries due to act of molestation but in motor vehicular accident. It is evident that the accident was not caused as the respondent No. 1 was indulging in molestation but it was caused due to high speed of the car. The fact that the respondent No. 1 and his accomplice [ENTITY] started molesting other passengers of the car would not take accident claim cases out of ambit of motor vehicular accident.
33. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 / insurer contended that there were 6 persons traveling in the car beyond sanctioned strength of 5 persons. This fact is of no help as the cause of the accident was not the presence of 6 th person in the car but high speed of the car.
34. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 / insurer made an attempt to argue that the deceased and the injured had contributed to the accident as the respondent No. 1 was driving the car while molesting one of the passengers. The tribunal is not able to understand logic and reasoning of such contention. If a woman is subjected to a criminal act by his known person, then she cannot be labelled as party to the crime.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.11of27
35. According to MLC, Ms. [ENTITY] was admitted at 9.40 p.m. on 19.09.2015 in LBS Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi-110091 as a case of road traffic accident (RTA). She was examined to have suffered injuries on her cheek, chin and left ear. The nature of injury is 'grievous'.
36. According to MLC, Ms. [ENTITY] was admitted at 9.55 p.m. on 19.09.2015 in LBS Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi- 110091 as a case of road traffic accident (RTA). She was examined to have suffered injuries over left temporal area and abrasions below clavicle. The nature of injury is 'grievous'.
37. According to post-mortem report, Ms. [ENTITY] died due to 'cranio-cerebral injuries' subsequent to road traffic accident.
38. According to post-mortem report, Ms. [ENTITY] died due to 'hemorrhagic shock' consequent upon blunt force impact.
39. It is, therefore, proved that Ms. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] died, and Ms. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] suffered grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the respondent No. 1.
40. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. [CASE NUMBER] titled as '[ENTITY] versus Ajay Kumar & Anr.' ISSUE NO. 2:
41. Ms. [ENTITY] suffered grievous injury in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the car by the respondent No. 1. She is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for the injuries.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.12of27 PAIN AND SUFFERING:
42. According to MLC, Ms. [ENTITY] was admitted at 9.40 p.m. on 19.09.2015 in LBS Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi-110091 as a case of road traffic accident (RTA). She was examined to have suffered injuries on her cheek, chin and left ear. As noted in treatment record Ex.PW1/1, she received treatment as an indoor patient from 20.09.2015 to 21.09.2015 in MAX Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi. She received further treatment from 21.09.2015 to 23.09.2015 in ESI Hospital, Jhilmil, Delhi. She received further treatment as an outdoor patient from GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. The nature of injury is 'grievous'. In view of nature of injuries, surgical procedures and prolonged treatment, she is awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of 'pain and suffering'.
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
43. Ms. [ENTITY] proved medical expenses in the sum of Rs.
40,644/- vide medical bills Ex.PW1/2. Accordingly, she is awarded an amount of Rs. 41,000/- under the head of 'medical expenses'.
LOSS OF INCOME:
44. Ms. [ENTITY], in her affidavit Ex.PW1/A, claimed that she was running a tuition centre under the name and style of '[ENTITY] Tuition Centre' and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month to 20,000/-
per month. She has not led any evidence to prove that she was running tuition centre. TW-2 [ENTITY], Caretaker of the rented accommodation stated that no such tuition centre was running at the said address.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.13of27
45. Besides word of Ms. [ENTITY], there is no evidence that she was earning any income from any avocation and therefore, she is not entitled to loss of income.
46. However, Ms. [ENTITY] was preparing for competitive examination at 'Vedanga Institute for Civil Services' in Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. TW-1 [ENTITY], Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services proved application form. Ms. [ENTITY] was pursuing course for taking up Banking and SSC examination since 14.07.2015. The course duration was of 3 / 4 months. She discontinued her course due to the accident. She is awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of education. SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE:
47. Ms. [ENTITY] claimed Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance. However, she has not led any evidence to prove that she was prescribed any special diet. She has not led any evidence that she purchased protein rich or nutritious diet. She has not led any evidence that she engaged any conveyance and incurred expenses thereon. However, in view of the nature of injury and period of treatment in various hospitals, she is awarded Rs. 10,000/- each under the head of 'special diet and conveyance'. ATTENDANT CHARGES:
48. Ms. [ENTITY] claimed an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards attendant charges. She has not led any evidence to prove that she engaged any attendant or incurred any expense thereon. She will not be entitled to attendant charges. (See: [PRECEDENT] decided on 26.04.2016).
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.14of27
49. The compensation awarded to Ms. [ENTITY] is computed, as under:
Sl. No Head of compensation Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs. 41,000/- 3. Loss of education Rs. 25,000/- 4. Special diet and conveyance Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 1,36,000/-
[CASE NUMBER] titled as '[ENTITY] vs Ajay Kumar & Anr.' ISSUE NO. 2:
50. Ms. [ENTITY] suffered grievous injury in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the car by the respondent No. 1. She is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for the injuries.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
51. According to MLC, Ms. [ENTITY] was admitted at 9.55 p.m. on 19.09.2015 in LBS Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi- 110091 as a case of road traffic accident (RTA). She was examined to have suffered injuries over left temporal area and abrasions below clavicle. As noted in treatment record Ex.PW1/1, she suffered 'bilateral fracture pars intra-arteauloris C2 vertebra'. She received treatment as an indoor patient on 20.09.2015 in Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi. The nature of injury is 'grievous'. In view of nature of injuries and prolonged treatment, she is awarded an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under the head of 'pain and suffering'.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.15of27 MEDICAL EXPENSES:
52. Ms. [ENTITY] proved medical expenses in the sum of Rs. 36,435/- vide medical bills Ex.PW1/2. Accordingly, she is awarded an amount of Rs. 37,000/- under the head of 'medical expenses'.
LOSS OF INCOME:
53. Ms. [ENTITY], in her affidavit Ex.PW1/A, claimed that she was running a tuition centre under the name and style of '[ENTITY] Tuition Centre' and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month to 20,000/- per month. She has not led any evidence to prove that she was running tuition centre. TW-2 [ENTITY], Caretaker of the rented accommodation stated that no such tuition centre was running at the said address. Besides word of Ms. [ENTITY], there is no evidence that she was earning any income from any avocation and therefore, she is not entitled to loss of income. However, Ms. [ENTITY] was preparing for competitive examination at 'Vedanga Institute for Civil Services' in Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. TW-1 [ENTITY], Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services proved application form. Ms. [ENTITY] was pursuing course for taking up Banking and SSC examination since 14.07.2015. The course duration was of 3 / 4 months. She discontinued her course due to the accident. She is awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of education.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE:
54. Ms. [ENTITY] claimed Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.16of27
55. However, Ms. [ENTITY] has not led any evidence to prove that she was prescribed any special diet. She has not led any evidence that she purchased protein rich or nutritious diet. She has not led any evidence that she engaged any conveyance and incurred expenses thereon. However, in view of the nature of injury and period of treatment in various hospitals, she is awarded Rs. 5,000/- each under the head of 'special diet and conveyance'.
ATTENDANT CHARGES:
56. Ms. [ENTITY] claimed an amount of Rs. 30,000/-
towards attendant charges. She has not led any evidence to prove that she engaged any attendant or incurred any expense thereon. She will not be entitled to attendant charges. (See: [PRECEDENT] decided on 26.04.2016).
57. The compensation awarded to Ms. [ENTITY] is computed, as under:
Sl. No Head of compensation Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs. 37,000/- 3. Loss of education Rs. 25,000/- 4. Special diet and conveyance Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 97,000/-
[CASE NUMBER] titled as '[ENTITY] & Anr vs Ajay Kumar & Anr' ISSUE NO. 2:
58. The petitioners being parents of the deceased / [ENTITY] are entitled to seek compensation.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.17of27 ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:
59. First step towards computation of loss of dependency is ascertainment of income of the deceased.
60. The case of the petitioners, as pleaded in the petition, was that the deceased was pursuing course for Bank PO and SSC examination in 'Vedanga Institute for Civil Services', Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 and was running tuition centre in the name of '[ENTITY] Tuition Centre' and earning Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- per month. The petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that the deceased was running tuition centre and earning Rs. 15,000 to 20,000/- per month. TW-2 [ENTITY], Caretaker of the rented accommodation deposed that no such tuition centre was functioning at the said premises. TW-1 [ENTITY], Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 proved application form and payment receipt. The deceased taken admission in the said institute on 14.07.2015 and course duration was of 3 / 4 months. The deceased did graduation in B.com. The deceased was ordinarily residing in State of Uttar Pradesh. However, considering her academic status, her potential income is assessed as Rs. 10,000/- per month.
DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES:
61. The deceased was a bachelor. The petitioners are parents of the deceased. Therefore, 50% of the deceased is deducted towards her personal living expenses in accord with the ruling in [PRECEDENT].
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.18of27 APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:
62. The deceased was 20 years old. According to academic certificate Ex.PW1/3, the date of birth of the deceased is 28.12.1995. Therefore, multiplier of 18 as applicable to age group between 15 to 20 years would apply. FUTURE PROSPECTS:
63. The case of the deceased would fall under the category of 'self-employed'. He was below 40 years. Following the ruling of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered on 31.10.2017 in [CASE NUMBER], National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. [ENTITY] and Ors., there will be addition of income to the extent of 40%. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
64. Applying the multiplier of 18 after making deduction to the extent of 50% towards personal living expenses and addition of 40% of future prospects, the loss of dependency is computed as (10,000 / 2 x 140 / 100 x 12 x 18) = 15,12,000/-. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
65. As per dispensation in [ENTITY] (supra), Rs. 15,000/- each on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses are added.
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
66. PW-1 [ENTITY] proved medical expenses in the sum of Rs. 79,000/- vide medical bills Ex.PW1/1. Accordingly, petitioners are awarded an amount of Rs. 80,000/- under the head of 'medical expenses'.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.19of27
67. The compensation awarded to the petitioners is computed, as under:
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 15,12,000/- 2. Non-pecuniary (in view of [ENTITY] (supra) Rs. 30,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs. 80,000/- TOTAL Rs. 16,22,000/-
[CASE NUMBER] titled as '[ENTITY] & Anr. vs Ajay Kumar & Anr.' ISSUE NO. 2:
68. The petitioners being parents of the deceased / [ENTITY] are entitled to seek compensation. ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:
69. First step towards computation of loss of dependency is ascertainment of income of the deceased.
70. The case of the petitioners, as pleaded in the petition, was that the deceased was pursuing course for Bank PO and SSC examination in 'Vedanga Institute for Civil Services', Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 and was running tuition centre in the name of '[ENTITY] Tuition Centre' and earning Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- per month. The petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that the deceased was running tuition centre and earning Rs. 15,000 to 20,000/- per month. TW-2 [ENTITY], Caretaker of the rented accommodation deposed that no such tuition centre was functioning at the said premises. TW-1 [ENTITY], Manager, Vedanga Institute for Civil Services, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 proved application form and payment receipt. The deceased taken admission in the said institute on 21.07.2015 and course duration was of 3 / 4 months. The deceased did graduation in B.com.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.20of27
71. The deceased was ordinarily residing in State of Uttar Pradesh. However, considering her academic status, her potential income is assessed as Rs. 10,000/- per month. DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES:
72. The deceased was a bachelor. The petitioners are parents of the deceased. Therefore, 50% of the deceased is deducted towards her personal living expenses in accord with the ruling in [PRECEDENT].
APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:
73. The deceased was 21 years old. According to academic certificate Ex.PW1/3, the date of birth of the deceased is 02.05.1994. Therefore, multiplier of 18 as applicable to age group between 21 to 25 years would apply. FUTURE PROSPECTS:
74. The case of the deceased would fall under the category of 'self-employed'. He was below 40 years. Following the ruling of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered on 31.10.2017 in [CASE NUMBER], National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. [ENTITY] and Ors., there will be addition of income to the extent of 40%. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
75. Applying the multiplier of 18 after making deduction to the extent of 50% towards personal living expenses and addition of 40% of future prospects, the loss of dependency is computed as (10,000 / 2 x 140 / 100 x 12 x 18) = 15,12,000/-.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.21of27 NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
76. As per dispensation in [ENTITY] (supra), Rs. 15,000/- each on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses are added.
77. The compensation awarded to the petitioners is computed, as under:
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 15,12,000/- 2. Non-pecuniary (in view of [ENTITY] (supra) Rs. 30,000/- TOTAL Rs. 15,42,000/- LIABILITY:
78. The respondent No. 2 / insurer has not proved breach of any term and condition of insurance policy. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 / insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
AWARD [CASE NUMBER]:
79. Accordingly, the petitioner / [ENTITY] is awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,36,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award. The respondent No. 2 / insurer shall deposit the award amount with the tribunal within 30 days and otherwise, the award amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. [See: judgment dated 22.02.2016 in [PRECEDENT].] D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.22of27 [CASE NUMBER]:
80. Accordingly, the petitioner / [ENTITY] is awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 97,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award. The respondent No. 2 / insurer shall deposit the award amount with the tribunal within 30 days and otherwise, the award amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. [CASE NUMBER]:
81. The petitioners are awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 16,22,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award. The respondent No. 2 / insurer shall deposit the award amount with the tribunal within 30 days and otherwise, the award amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
APPORTIONMENT AND MODE OF DISBURSAL:
82. The petitioner No. 1 / Smt. [ENTITY] and the petitioner No. 2 / Mr. [ENTITY] shall be entitled to the award amount alongwith corresponding interest in the ratio of 60:40.
83. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 9,73,200/- alongwith corresponding interest would fall to the share of the petitioner No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 6,48,800/- alongwith corresponding interest would come to the share of the petitioner No. 2.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.23of27
84. An amount of Rs. 73,200, out of Rs. 9,73,200, will be released to Smt. [ENTITY] and balance amount of Rs.
9,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest, will be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipts for the period, as under:
Sl. No. Amount Period of [ENTITY] 1. Rs. 1,00,000/- 1 year 2. Rs. 2,00,000/- 2 years 3. Rs. 2,00,000/- 3 years 4. Rs. 2,00,000/- 4 years 5. Rs. 2,00,000/- 5 years 6. Interest component 6 years
85. An amount of Rs. 48,800, out of Rs. 6,48,800, will be released to Mr. [ENTITY] and balance amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest, will be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipts for the period, as under:
Sl. No. Amount Period of [ENTITY] 1. Rs. 2,00,000/- 1 year 2. Rs. 2,00,000/- 2 years 3. Rs. 2,00,000/- 3 years 4. Interest component 4 years [CASE NUMBER]:
86. The petitioners are awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 15,42,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award. The respondent No. 2 / insurer shall deposit the award amount with the tribunal within 30 days and otherwise, the award amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.24of27 APPORTIONMENT AND MODE OF DISBURSAL:
87. The petitioner No. 1 / Smt. [ENTITY] and the petitioner No. 2 / Mr. [ENTITY] shall be entitled to the award amount alongwith corresponding interest in the ratio of 60:40.
88. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 9,25,200/- alongwith corresponding interest would fall to the share of the petitioner No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 6,16,800/- alongwith corresponding interest would come to the share of the petitioner No. 2.
89. An amount of Rs. 1,25,200, out of Rs. 9,25,200, will be released to Smt. [ENTITY] and balance amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest, will be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipts for the period, as under:
Sl. No. Amount Period of [ENTITY] 1. Rs. 2,00,000/- 1 year 2. Rs. 2,00,000/- 2 years 3. Rs. 2,00,000/- 3 years 4. Rs. 2,00,000/- 4 years 5. Interest component 5 years
90. An amount of Rs. 1,16,800, out of Rs. 6,16,800, will be released to Mr. [ENTITY] and balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest, will be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipts for the period, as under:
Sl. No. Amount Period of [ENTITY] 1. Rs. 1,00,000/- 1 year 2. Rs. 2,00,000/- 2 years 3. Rs. 2,00,000/- 3 years 4. Interest component 4 years D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.25of27
Copy of award be supplied to the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 / insurer for compliance. File be consigned to record room.
[ENTITY] signed by [ENTITY] Location: East District, SHARMA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2018.11.01 16:20:25 +0530 Announced in the open Court Sh. [ENTITY] Dated: 30th October, 2018 Presiding Officer MACT (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.26of27 30.10.2018
Present: Sh.[ENTITY],Advocateforthepetitioners.
Sh.[ENTITY],AdvocateforR1/driverowner. Sh.[ENTITY],AdvocateforR2/InsuranceCo.
Itis4.45p.m. Videseparatejudgment,awardispassed.Tocomeupfor complianceon29.11.2018.
SanjaySharma POMACT(East)/KKD Delhi/30.10.2018.
D10829/16UshaRana&Anr.vsAjayKumar&Anr.27of27