IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY] : PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT : DELHI SUIT NO : 75 OF 2013 UNIQUE CASE ID NO: 02402C0100852013 1. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Late Sh. [ENTITY] WIFE [ENTITY] D/o Late Sh. [ENTITY] DAUGHTER (Petitioner no.2 being minor represented by petitioner no.1/mother) 3.Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY] MOTHER 4.Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Late Sh. [ENTITY] FATHER All R/o E591, Gali No.10, West Vinod Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] C/o Yash Transport Company Rajesh Complex, 1st Floor, Near Happy Dhaba, Tatibandh, Raipur. DRIVER 2. [ENTITY] S/o Late [ENTITY], Najafgarh, New Delhi43. OWNER [CASE NUMBER]. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. D.O. 19, Pankaj Plaza, Plot No.4, Sector4, Dwarka, New Delhi75. INSURER RESPONDENTS [CASE NUMBER] UNIQUE I.D. NO. 02402C0299202012 Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o A457, Saraswati Marg, Mandawali, Delhi110 092. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] C/o Yash Transport Company Rajesh Complex, 1st Floor, Near Happy Dhaba, Tatibandh, Raipur. DRIVER 2. [ENTITY] S/o Late [ENTITY], Najafgarh, New Delhi43. OWNER 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. D.O. 19, Pankaj Plaza, Plot No.4, Sector4, Dwarka, New Delhi75. INSURER RESPONDENTS Represented by : Mr. [ENTITY], Counsel for Petitioners. Ms. [ENTITY], Counsel for Respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. [ENTITY], Counsel for Respondent no.3. [CASE NUMBER] PAGE : 2/25 Presented on : 15.10.2012 Reserved for Order on : 25.02.2015 Date of Award : 20.03.2015 J U D G M E N T
1. By a common judgment, I shall dispose off these two cases i.e. [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER] filed by the petitioners. In [CASE NUMBER], the Petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/ for the death of Shri [ENTITY], in the road accident which happened on 16.09.2012. In [CASE NUMBER], petitioner [ENTITY] has claimed compensation for the permanent disability suffered by him in the said accident.
2. The FIR No.345/12, Police Station Gazipur was registered on DD No. 20A, dated 16.09.2012 of ASI [ENTITY] who alongwith Ct. [ENTITY] reached the site of accident near Flyover NH24, where a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL7SBL5985 was found entangled under the rear right tyre of the [ENTITY] (14 wheeler) bearing registration no. HR63B5636 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) with the injured [ENTITY] lying there in an unconscious state. The other injured was taken to hospital. In petition, it is stated by the parents of deceased [ENTITY] that deceased was going on motorcycle with [ENTITY] as [CASE NUMBER] PAGE : 3/25 pillion rider towards Ghaziabad. Ahead of the motorcycle at some distance, was a [ENTITY] (14 wheeler) bearing registration No. HR63B5636, lying stationary on the road. It was heavily loaded with iron plates protruding outside without any light indicators on its rear side. The [ENTITY] driver without any horn or indication, drove the [ENTITY] in reverse gear at a speed and struck against the motorcycle coming from behind. Because of forceful impact, both motorcyclist and the pillion rider fell down behind the [ENTITY] and the motorcycle got entangled under the right rear wheel of the [ENTITY]. The deceased was taken to LBS Hospital where he was declared as "brought dead". The postmortem was conducted at LBS Hospital on 17.09.2012. A case FIR No. 345/12, u/[SECTION] IPC was registered at Police Station Gazipur against respondent no.1.
3. In [CASE NUMBER], the petitioner [ENTITY] suffered grievous injuries in the said accident and the resultant permanent disability.
4. The respondent no.1 is the driver, the respondent no.2 is the owner and the respondent no. 3 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle, they all are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the petitioners.
5. The respondents no.1 and 2 filed joint written statement in which it was stated that a false case was registered against respondent no.1;
[CASE NUMBER] that the vehicle was insured in the name of respondent no.2 with the respondent no.3.
6. The respondent no.3 in its Written Statement submitted that the offending vehicle i.e. [ENTITY] (14 wheeler) bearing registration No. HR63B5636 was insured from 09.01.2012 to 08.01.2013 in the name of the respondent no. 2; that the accident happened due to the negligence of the motorcyclist himself; that if the respondent no. 1 and 2 were found colluded with petitioners, respondent no. 3 was entitled to take all defences.
7. In both cases on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : In [CASE NUMBER] :
1.Whether petitioner has suffered injuries in road side accident on 16.09.12 involving vehicle bearing registration no. HR63B5636 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
2.To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?
3. Relief.
8. In [CASE NUMBER], Shri [ENTITY], father of deceased examined himself as PW2 and filed his affidavit Ex.PW2/A wherein all the facts which were stated in the petition were [CASE NUMBER] reiterated. PW2 relied upon the documents i.e. educational documents of the deceased as Ex.PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/3, Aadhar Card, birth certificate of petitioner no.2, Election I Cards of himself and his wife as Ex.PW2/4 to Ex. PW2/7 and Criminal Case Record/DAR as Ex.PW2/8 (colly.). Petitioners also examined the eye witness Sh. [ENTITY] as PW1.
9. In [CASE NUMBER], petitioner examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the documents i.e. Criminal Case Record as Ex.PW1/19, discharge summary as Ex.PW1/1, prescriptions as Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/8, hospital bills, receipts for consultation, advices, diagnostic test and procedure as Ex.PW1/9 to Ex.PW1/17 with medical bills of Rs.8,550/, 52 bills cum receipts of Rs.50,364/ as Ex.PW1/18, original chart regarding sittings and amount of Rs.47,100/ paid to physiotherapist as Ex.PW1/19, his school certificates as Ex.PW1/20 and Ex.PW1/21, his admit card of B.Tech. as Ex.PW1/22, Photocopy of Identity Card as Mark X, his PAN Card and Ration Card as Ex.PW1/23 and PW1/24, Salary Slip for September and October 2012 as Ex.PW1/25 and Ex.PW1/26 and the DAR along verified documents accompanying thereto as Ex.PW1/27 (colly.). He has also examined PW2 Dr. [ENTITY], Specialist (Neuro Surgeon) from GTB Hospital who has proved the disability certificate as [CASE NUMBER] PAGE : 6/25 Ex.PW2/A.
10.In both cases, the Respondents did not examine any witness nor have adduced any evidence in support of their plea.
11.I have heard Ld. Counsel for parties, gone through the written submissions filed by the parties and perused the entire material carefully in the light of relevant statutory provisions of law. My findings on the issues are as follows : ISSUE NO.1 (IN MAC NO.75/13) :
Whether deceased has suffered fatal injuries in road side accident on 16.09.12 involving vehicle bearing registration no. HR63B5636 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
12.For succeeding in a claim petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], it is for the petitioners to prove that the vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. This is sine qua non for getting the relief. In order to decide this issue, the testimony of PW1 [ENTITY] is relevant. He is the eyewitness to the occurrence and was a pillion rider. He testified that deceased [ENTITY] was riding the motorcycle with him as pillion rider. He testified that ahead of the motorcycle at some distance, was a [ENTITY] (14 wheeler) bearing registration No. HR63B5636, lying stationary on the road. It was heavily loaded [CASE NUMBER] with iron plates which were protruding outside without any light indicators on back. He testified that suddenly, the [ENTITY] driver without any indication, drove the trolla in reverse gear at a high speed and hit against their motorcycle coming from behind. He testified that because of the impact, both him and the motorcyclist were thrown with the motorcycle got stuck under the right rear wheel of the [ENTITY]. He suffered grievous injuries with 61% of permanent disability in relation to his whole body. The injuries upon the body of Sh. [ENTITY] however proved to be fatal.
13.I have looked into the statement of PW2, criminal case record, site plan, mechanical inspection report as well as the Chargesheet filed by IO. The circumstances itself speak about the rash and negligent manner in which the offending vehicle was lying and was reversed suddenly. PW2 is the eye witness of the case, who suffered serious injuries in the accident. His testimony is reliable and nothing otherwise could be elicited from him. The facts are supported and corroborated by IO of the case who had conducted the investigation in the matter and filed Chargesheet against the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 is facing trial in a criminal case FIR no.345/12, PS Gazipur before the court of Ld. M.M. No contra evidence has come up either on behalf of the driver or the [CASE NUMBER] owner. In [ENTITY] and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a petition under [SECTION] of the Act, the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities while dealing with the Claim Petition under the [ACT]. Para 15 of the Judgment is extracted hereunder :
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners. The petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
14.The report in [ENTITY] (Supra) was relied on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its subsequent judgments in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]."
15.In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held :
" On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in [CASE NUMBER] FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle; (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of chargesheet under [SECTION], [ACT] against the driver;
(iii) certified copy of F.I.R., wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the [ACT] are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver".
16.In the case of [PRECEDENT], an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioners had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case. The issue thus stands decided in favour of petitioners holding that the accident happened as a result of negligent driving by respondent no.1 in which Sh. [ENTITY] expired and [ENTITY] received grievous injuries.
[CASE NUMBER]IN [CASE NUMBER]) :
To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom?
17.Sh. [ENTITY], PW2/father of deceased stated that his son was taken to LBS Hospital where he was declared as brought dead. He testified that his son was a young man of 26 years of age and possessed sound health. He testified that his son was gainfully employed as Executive (Field) with M/s. Singh Housekeeping Services, Madhu Vihar and was drawing a salary of Rs.15,918/ per month. As per Postmortem Report, the cause of death was opined as "Polytrauma due to multiple injuries consequent upon blunt force impact with all injuries antemortem in nature and recent in duration".
18.As per educational documents, date of birth of deceased is shown as 04.10.1985. The age of deceased is thus taken as 28 years at the time of accident. PW2 in an affidavit though deposed that his son was earning Rs.15,918/ per month, being gainfully employed with M/s. Singh Housekeeping Services. However, no witness was examined from the Employer Company/Firm nor the Proprietor of the said firm was called upon in the evidence to prove the salary slip/appointment and the service record of deceased. The deceased had completed Senior Secondary Examination and was a diploma [CASE NUMBER] holder in Hardware and in Networking Computer. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the salary, the income of deceased can be taken as the one applicable to a skilled workman as per Minimum Wages. It was Rs.8,528/ per month at the relevant time. The annual salary comes to Rs.1,02,336/.
19.In a recent judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in [PRECEDENT]., (Decided on 12.1.2015), in which the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 and in [PRECEDENT] and further of [PRECEDENT] decided on 06.09.2013 were discussed and the three Judge Bench Decision in [ENTITY] & Ors. (Supra) was held to be taken as a binding precedent on the aspect of future prospects. Therefore, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [PRECEDENT]., I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to any addition towards the future prospects.
20.The deceased was married and aged 28 years at the time of accident. It is only the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 who would be considered to be the dependents in view of "[ENTITY] & Ors. [PRECEDENT]". Thus, 1/3rd from income of deceased has to be deducted towards his living expenses. After deduction, the contribution to the family (dependent) comes to Rs. 68,224/ (Rs.1,02,336/ - Rs.34,112/ i.e. 1/3rd). In view of judgments rendered in [PRECEDENT]. and in "[PRECEDENT]." (Both decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 24.03.2014 and 26.03.2014 respectively) and of Hon'ble Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], while assessing the dependency, the age of deceased is to be taken for selecting the correct multiplier. The multiplier applicable would be 17. Thus, the compensation under the head Loss of Dependency would be Rs. 11,59,808/ (Rs.68,224/ x 17).
21.In view of the judgments in [PRECEDENT]. (Supra) and another in [PRECEDENT], the petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/ towards loss of Consortium, Rs.10,000/ towards loss of Estate and Rs.25,000/ towards funeral expenses.
22.The petitioners are entitled for the total amount of compensation [CASE NUMBER] towards all the heads, which is as follows : S.No. On Account of Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency Rs.11,59,808.00 2 Loss of Love and affection Rs. 1,00,000.00 3 Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000.00 4 Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000.00 5 Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000.00 Total = Rs.13,94,808.00 I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs.13,94,808/ in favour of petitioners and against respondents. ISSUE NO.2 (IN DAR NO. 566FB/12) :
To what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to?
23.The petitioner [ENTITY] was taken to Pushpanjali Crosslay Hospital in an unconscious state, where he remained admitted from 16.09.2012 till 23.10.2012. As per Discharge Summary Ex.
PW1/1, he suffered severe head injuries, fractured nasal bone and was diagnosed as case of polytrauma and hemiplegia. Two operations were performed on 29.09.2012 by ORIF of Fracture maxilla with open reduction of fracture of nasal bone. The radiological investigations i.e. Xray Chest, C.T. Head, C.T. Cervical Spine, Xray Wrist, C.T. PNS Axial/Coronal and other [CASE NUMBER] PAGE : 14/25 investigations were done. He was discharged on 23.10.2012 and continued visiting the hospital till July 2013 as an out patient. He continued his physiotherapy treatment uptil March 2013 from Singh Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Center.
24.Dr. [ENTITY], Neuro Surgeon from GTB Hospital proved the permanent disability of petitioner which is to the extent of 61% in relation to the whole body. Ex.PW2/A showed the petitioner as a case of right sided moderate hemiparesis with mild ataxia.
25.Hon'ble Supreme Court has enumerated the principles for granting the compensation payable to road traffic accident victims. In the case of [PRECEDENT] [CASE NUMBER] decided on 18.10.2010, following principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for determining compensation payable to road traffic accident victims :
i) The compensation payable to the petitioner who is a victim of road accident should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the petitioner to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equatable manner.
ii) Compensation payable in injury cases is payable under two heads. They are pecuniary damages (special damages) [CASE NUMBER] and non pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages have three sub heads which are : (i) expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) (a) Loss of earning (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising of loss of earning during the period of treatment and (b) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (iii) Future medical expenses. Nonpecuniary damages (General Damage) are (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries (v) loss of amenities and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and (vi) loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
iii) In routine personal injury cases compensation is awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the petitioner, that compensation is granted under any of the heads (ii) (b),
(iii) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospectus of marriage) and loss of expectation of life".
26.The petitioner is entitled for the compensation on account of future loss due to disability. While assessing future loss, his functional disability has to be assessed, which is to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by him.
27.In "[PRECEDENT]", Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that while [CASE NUMBER] fixing compensation for pain and sufferings, as also for loss of amenities of life, the features like the age and unusual deprivation undertaken by a person in his life are to be reckoned. Reliance can also be placed on the judgments in [PRECEDENT] and in another judgment in [ENTITY] Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., II (2012) ACC 519 (SC). From the overall assessment of nature of injuries sustained by [ENTITY] in the accident and the fact that he underwent substantial pain and suffering due to the accident which rendered his overall weakness of the body and instability in gait, I assess Rs.80,000/ as compensation towards Pain, Shock and Suffering to him.
28.The court has personally examined the petitioner. He stated that he had to engage an attendant for a considerable period and had to incur physiotherapy expenses of Rs. 47,100/. This court received medical report dated 03.05.2014 from [ENTITY] as per which the patient was founded to have multiple disabilities including Orthorpaedics and was referred to Lok Nayak Hospital for his further assessment. The letter dated 10.05.2014 from G.B. Pant Hospital shows the patient was referred to LBS Hospital. As per another letter dated 22.05.2014 from [ENTITY], he after [CASE NUMBER] examination was found to have multiple disabilities. There is another letter dated 26.07.2014 received from GTB Hospital pursuant to the directions of the court. Ultimately, the patient was referred to GTB Hospital, which issued disability certificate dated 13.10.2014 showing 61% permanent disability in terms of the right sided moderate hemiparesis and mild ataxia and this disability was also in relation to his whole body. PW2 deposed that this resulted into the weakness of the entire right side of his body, making his routine activities difficult besides, instability in gait (standing and walking). PW2 testified that the petitioner required assistance in performing complex activities relating to locomotive functions of the body.
29.I assess that due to the disabilities sustained, petitioner's capacity has been considerably reduced, restricting him from carrying any avocation and even doing his normal daily chores. The injuries have resulted in rendering his body disfunctional largely. He is finding immense difficulty in walking and is completely unable to squat. His educational career has been marred. No amount of compensation can restore his physical frame. Considering all the facts & circumstances, I accept his functional disability qua the entire body visavis his earning capacity as 61% in relation to the [CASE NUMBER] whole body, in view of dictum of [PRECEDENT].
30.The petitioner's date of birth is 26.09.1987. Thus his age is taken as 25 years as on the date of accident. He has not placed on record the certificates of B.Tech. Course except one Admit Card Mark X. He testified that he was undergoing course of B. Tech from Greater Noida. In the absence of any such evidence, he is entitled to the minimum wages as were applicable to a skilled worker. These were Rs.8,528/ per month. As stated above, this court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any future prospects. Thus, he is awarded an amount of Rs.11,23,649/ (Rs.8,528/ x 12 x 18 x 0.61) under the head Future Loss of Income.
31.It can be safely assumed that he would have suffered loss of earning capacity for at least ten months. I grant Rs.85,280/ (Rs. 8,528.00 X 10) as Loss of Wages to the petitioner.
32.Petitioner has suffered loss of expectation of life i.e., his normal life span is shortened due to the injuries, which has caused him disappointment and stress. This further has reduced the scope of his future prospects including his marriage prospects substantially. For the purpose of walking, running, squatting and also studying throughout his life and particularly at the advance age, he will be [CASE NUMBER] requiring an attendant and the pain shall remain throughout his life. He will not be able to live life of a normal human being and will not be able to enjoy life. Therefore, keeping in mind this fact, he is awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ towards Loss of Amenities & Enjoyment of Life and Rs.1,00,000/ towards Loss of marital prospects.
33.The Medical Bills worth Rs.10,84,423/ approx. have been proved on record out of which an amount of Rs.2,44,000/ was reimbursed to the petitioner in Mediclaim. The same is not disputed one. Petitioner is entitled for the remaining amount of Rs.8,40,423/. Besides the bills of physiotherapy treatment Ex.PW1/19 of approx. Rs.47,000/ are placed on record which are not disputed by respondents as no contra evidence has come up. The petitioner thus is awarded a compensation of Rs.8,87,423/ for Cost of Treatment.
34.In view of the law in [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that there cannot be any deduction if domestic help is obtained from a family member. This judgment was again relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [PRECEDENT] 04.07.12. [CASE NUMBER] Therefore, on a lumpsum basis, the petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/ for ten months as Attendant's Charges.
35.The petitioner is also awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/ towards Special Diet and Rs.20,000/ for Conveyance Charges. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider the following amount to be the just compensation to him :
1 Future Loss of Income Rs.11,23,649.00 2 Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 80,000.00 3 Towards servant/attendant charges Rs. 30,000.00 4 Loss of Amenities and enjoyment of life Rs. 1,00,000.00 5 Loss of Marital Prospects Rs. 1,00,000.00 5 Towards conveyance and special diet Rs. 40,000.00 (without bills) 6 Towards medical bills Rs. 8,87,423.00 7 Towards loss of Wages Rs. 85,280.00 Total = Rs.24,46,352.00 I accordingly award an compensation amount of Rs.24,46,352/ in favour of petitioner [ENTITY] and against respondents.
LIABILITY
36.Since Insurance company has not denied the policy as on date of accident, therefore it is liable to pay the compensation amount. [CASE NUMBER] There being no evidence of violation of the policy conditions and there being nothing to support the permitted defence U/[SECTION] of the [ACT], I am unable to grant the recovery rights. It is the insurance company/respondent no.3, which shall make good the compensation in terms of the accepted policy.
RELIEF
37.It is pertinent to state that the accident took place on 16.09.2012 and the insurance company attempted to drag the matters knowing fully well that it had no statutory defence. In the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in [ENTITY] (Supra), it was observed that the insurance companies contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections just to get completely absolved. Contrary to the repeated directions of Hon'ble Apex Court, the insurance companies have failed to amend their attitude and failed to file legal offer at the earliest possible instance, which amounts to dereliction of duty on part of Insurer. It was observed in judgment titled [PRECEDENT]. decided on 12.04.2010 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that in case the Insurer fails to discharge its obligations or acts capriciously, arbitrarily or for negligent or non exercise of powers, resulting in harassment and mental sufferings to the claimants, the tribunals may pass higher [CASE NUMBER] rate of interest and costs. The petitioners are fighting the matters since 2012. I consider that in both cases, they are rightfully entitled to the interest @ 12% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners. (The [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]).
38.The petitioners are also entitled to the costs of litigation as per the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] and relied upon later in [PRECEDENT]. Therefore, I award a sum of Rs.25,000/ each under the head Cost of Litigation in both cases.
39.In [CASE NUMBER], the respondent No.3/Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.13,94,808/ to the petitioners alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners.
40.Out of total amount of award, Rs.50,000/ shall be released to the petitioner no.1 (wife of deceased) forthwith and remaining [CASE NUMBER] amount of Rs.4,50,000/ shall be kept in the form of Five FDRs of equal amount, for a period of five years with the release of monthly periodical interest to her.
41.Out of remaining amount of award, Rs.44,808/ shall be released to the petitioner no.3 (mother of deceased) forthwith and Rs. 3,00,000/ amount shall be kept in her name in the form of Three FDRs of equal amount, for a period of three years with the release of monthly periodical interest to her.
42.The remaining balance amount shall be kept in the form of One FDR in the name of petitioner no.2 (daughter of deceased) till she attains the age of majority.
43.In [CASE NUMBER], the respondent No.3/Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.24,46,352/ to the petitioner [ENTITY] alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to him.
44.Out of this amount, Rs.4,46,352/ shall be released to the petitioner [ENTITY] forthwith and the remaining amount shall be kept in the form of Two FDRs of equal amount for a period of ten years each with the release of monthly periodical interest to him.
45.Respondent no.3 is hereby directed to deposit the award amount [CASE NUMBER] PAGE : 24/25 alongwith Cost of Litigation of Rs.25,000/ each in both cases with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi in the name of the Petitioners, as directed above, within 30 days from the date of award. The Bank would wait for the further directions as to the disbursement of the same till the compliance is reported.
46.On request of petitioners, Bank shall transfer the amount to the Savings Account of petitioners.
47.The award amount alongwith interest and cost of litigation be deposited by respondent no.3/Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, even after passage of 90 days from today, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [PRECEDENT], this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the Insurance Company with a cost of Rs.10,000/.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court Dated : 20th March, 2015 (MS. [ENTITY]) PRESIDING OFFICER MACT (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI [CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] 20.03.2015 Present : Ld. Counsel for parties.
Vide separate common judgment, both the cases are allowed.
In [CASE NUMBER], the respondent No.3/Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.13,94,808/ to the petitioners alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners.
Out of total amount of award, Rs.50,000/ shall be released to the petitioner no.1 (wife of deceased) forthwith and remaining amount of Rs.4,50,000/ shall be kept in the form of Five FDRs of equal amount, for a period of five years with the release of monthly periodical interest to her.
Out of remaining amount of award, Rs.44,808/ shall be released to the petitioner no.3 (mother of deceased) forthwith and Rs.3,00,000/ amount shall be kept in her name in the form of Three FDRs of equal amount, for a period of three years with the release of monthly periodical interest to her.
The remaining balance amount shall be kept in the form of One FDR in the name of petitioner no.2 (daughter of deceased) till she attains the age of majority.
In [CASE NUMBER], the respondent No.3/Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.24,46,352/ to the petitioner [ENTITY] alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to him.
Out of this amount, Rs.4,46,352/ shall be released to the petitioner [ENTITY] forthwith and the remaining amount shall be kept in the form of Two FDRs of equal amount for a period of ten [CASE NUMBER] each with the release of monthly periodical interest to him.
Respondent no.3 is hereby directed to deposit the award amount alongwith Cost of Litigation of Rs.25,000/ each in both cases with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi in the name of the Petitioners, as directed above, within 30 days from the date of award. The Bank would wait for the further directions as to the disbursement of the same till the compliance is reported.
On request of petitioners, Bank shall transfer the amount to the Savings Account of petitioners.
The award amount alongwith interest and cost of litigation be deposited by respondent no.3/Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, even after passage of 90 days from today, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [PRECEDENT], this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the Insurance Company with a cost of Rs.10,000/.
List for reporting compliance on 07.05.2015.
(MS. [ENTITY]) PO MACT (EAST)/KKD./DELHI/20.03.2015 [CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER]