1 IN THE COURT OF SH.HARISH DUDANI JUDGE:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL 1 NEW DELHI SUIT NO.:39/14 DATE OF INSTITUTION:16.1.2014 1. Smt.[ENTITY] W/o Late Sh. [ENTITY] 2. Sh.[ENTITY] S/o Late Sh.[ENTITY] 3. Ms.[ENTITY] D/o Late Sh. [ENTITY] All R/o A 196, Moti Bagh, New Delhi110021 PETITIONERS Versus 1. Sh.[ENTITY] S/o Sh. Ram Singh R/o 133A, Ali Ganj, K.M.Pur, New Delhi 2. [ENTITY] R/o Shop No.13, Suvidha Market Kaka Nagar, Delhi 3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Having its Divisional office at XXVII, C06, Krishna Plaza Nayay khand1, Indrapuram Ghaziabad. RESPONDENTS
Final Arguments heard on : 02.02.2015 Award reserved for : 12.02.2015 Date of Award : 12.02.2015 AWARD
1. Vide this judgment cum award I proceed to decide the petition filed by the petitioners U/[SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT], as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of compensation in a road accident.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the petition are that on 05.10.2013 Sh. [ENTITY] was riding his bicycle and at about 9.15 AM he reached in front of U.S.Embassy, Shanti Path, New Delhi and in the meantime the vehicle bearing no.DL1ZZ1490 being driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the bicycle of Sh.[ENTITY] as a result of which Sh.[ENTITY] fell down and sustained injuries. Sh.[ENTITY] was taken to Primus hospital where he expired during course of treatment on 07.10.2013.
3. It is stated that Sh.[ENTITY] was 52 years of age at the time of accident and he was employed with CPWD and was earning a sum of Rs.24000/ per month. It is stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3 and as such all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. It is prayed that Rs.Thirty Three Lacs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum be awarded as compensation in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
4. Respondents no.1 and 2 the driver and owner have filed joint written statement and have contested the petition. It is stated that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident and the petitioners with the collusion of police official has falsely implicated the driver and owner of vehicle. It is stated that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 vide policy no.361600/31/12/6300006124 valid till 21.02.2014.
5. Respondent no.3 has filed reply and has offered a sum of Rs.14,18,824/ as compensation to the petitioners.
6. From the pleadings of parties following issues were framed on 4.2.2014:
1. Whether Sh.[ENTITY] sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 5.10.2013 at about 12.20 PM at Shanti Path in front of U.S.Embassy, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle no.DL1ZZ1490 being driven by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3?OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
7. In support of their claim the petitioners examined Smt.[ENTITY] wife of deceased as PW1. She tendered in examination in chief her affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A and proved the copy of her Aadhar card Ex.PW1/1, salary slip Ex.PW1/2, medical bills Ex.PW1/3(colly).
8. Petitioners examined petitioner no.3 Smt. [ENTITY] as PW2. PW2 tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.PW2/A and proved the copy of her Aadhar card Ex.PW2/1, copy of school identity card of her son Ex.PW2/2, fee receipt of her son Ex.PW2/3.
9. Petitioners examined Sh.[ENTITY], Office Superintendent, Office of Executive Engineer, CPWD as PW3. PW3 proved the service record of Sh.[ENTITY] as PW3/1(colly), authorization in his favour Ex.PW3/2 and stated that Sh.[ENTITY] had taken government accommodation and on that account he was not in receipt of HRA and he was paying licence fee of Rs.260/ per month for the said government accommodation.
10. Petitioners examined Sh.[ENTITY] an eyewitness of the accident as PW4. PW4 stated that on 5.10.2013 at he was going towards Malcha Marg via Shanti Path on his motorcycle and heard noise from behind and he stopped his motorcycle and found that an accident had taken place between one cycle and Innova car bearing no.DL1ZZ1490 and the cyclist was lying on the road and was bleeding and in the meantime PCR arrived at the spot. PW4 further stated that the Innova vehicle had hit the cycle of Sh.[ENTITY] from behind and the accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of Innova vehicle as he had hit the cycle from behind.
11.Petitioners examined Sh.[ENTITY], Manager(Accounts), Primus Super Speciality Hospital as PW5. PW5 proved the bills and receipts Ex.PW5/1(colly).
12.On the other hand respondents did not examine any witness despite opportunities and RE was closed on 22.09.2014.
13.I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused record. My findings on various issues are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1 :
14.As the petitions have been filed U/[SECTION] [ACT] it was incumbent upon the petitioners to prove that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle no.DL1ZZ1490 by respondent no.1.
15.To determine the negligence of driver of offending vehicle it has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s [ENTITY] Rana & Another 2009 Accident Claims Journal 287 as follows:
"The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondentsclaimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in [PRECEDENT]). 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 FIR no. 955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of offending vehicle (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under [SECTION] , [ACT] against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of 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 part of the driver."
16. The case of the petitioners is that on 05.10.2013 Sh.[ENTITY] was riding his bicycle and at about 9.15 AM he reached in front of U.S.Embassy, Shanti Path, New Delhi and in the meantime the vehicle bearing no.DL1ZZ1490 being driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the bicycle of Sh.[ENTITY] as a result of which Sh.[ENTITY] fell down and sustained injuries. Sh.[ENTITY] was taken to Primus hospital where he expired during course of treatment on 07.10.2013. It is stated that the case vide FIR no.180/13, under [SECTION] [ACT] was registered at PS Chanakya Puri. The petitioner no. 1/wife of deceased appeared in witness box as PW1 and adduced evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. In her affidavit PW1 has reiterated the manner of accident as stated in claim petition. The petitioner no.1/PW1 stated in the crossexamination that she is not an eyewitness of the accident. In para 3 of their reply respondents no.1 and 2 have stated that the vehicle of respondents was not involved in the accident and the petitioners with the collusion of police official have falsely implicated the respondent/driver and owner of the vehicle in the present case. The petitioners examined an eyewitness of accident Sh.[ENTITY] as PW4 who stated that on 05.10.2013 at about 9.00 AM he was going towards Malcha Marg via Shanti Path on his motorcycle and he heard a noise from behind and he stopped his motorcycle and found that the accident had taken place between one cyclist and innova car no.DL1ZZ1490 and the accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of innova car. In the crossexamination of PW4 the respondents no.1 and 2 have given suggestion to the effect that the accident was not caused due to negligence of driver of innova car which was denied by PW4. Apart from giving suggestion to PW4 in the crossexamination to the effect that the accident was not caused due to negligence of respondent no.1, the respondents no.1 and 2 have not adduced any evidence to corroborate their contention.
17. The police has filed Detailed Accident Information Report(DAR) in this case and alongwith DAR police has filed copy of final report u/[SECTION] [ACT], copy of FIR No.180/13, u/[SECTION] [ACT], PS Chanakya Puri, copy of site plan, copy of seizure memo of documents of offending vehicle, copy of seizure memo of driving license of respondent no.1, copy of mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle,copy of arrest memo of respondent no.1, copy of MLC of Sh.[ENTITY] prepared at Primus Super Speciality Hospital, copy of postmortem report of deceased prepared at Lady Hardinge Medical College and Smt. S.K.Hospital, copy of driving licence of respondent no.1, copy of verification report of driving licence of respondent no.1, copy of verification report of RC and fitness of offending vehicle, copy of insurance policy of offending vehicle. As per postmortem report the cause of death is "cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force/surface impact to head and all injuries are antemortem in nature". In the final report u/[SECTION] [ACT] it has been mentioned that the statement of one Sh.[ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] was recorded and Sh.[ENTITY] S/o Sh.[ENTITY] has been cited as witness in the said charge sheet under [SECTION] [ACT]. Thus in view of testimony of PWs and documents on record the negligence of driver of offending vehicle has been prima facie proved. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
18.As issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners, they are entitled to compensation.
COMPENSATION
19.It is stated in the claim petition that Sh.[ENTITY] was 52 years of age at the time of accident. In order to prove the age of deceased, the petitioners have filed on record the service record of deceased Ex.PW3/1(colly) as per which the date of birth of deceased was 14.08.1962. Hence Sh.[ENTITY] was 51 years and 2 months of age at the time of accident and the appropriate multiplier applicable as per [PRECEDENT] shall be of 11.
20. It is stated in the claim petition that Sh.[ENTITY] was employed in CPWD and was earning a sum of Rs.24000/ per month. In order to prove the employment and income of deceased the petitioners have examined Sh.[ENTITY], Office Superintendent, CPWD as PW3 who proved the service record of deceased as Ex.PW3/1(colly). As per Ex.PW3/1(colly) the salary of deceased for the month of September 2013 consisted of Rs.9310/ Basic Pay, Rs.2000/ Grade Pay, Rs.10179/ DA. As per salary slip for the month of September 2013 the deceased was also in receipt of Rs.1600/ TA, Rs.1440/ DA on TA, Rs.210/ FPA and washing allowance of Rs.75/ but the same will not form part of wages for the computation of compensation as the same were to be paid to the deceased for attending duties. The contention of counsel for petitioners is that the deceased was in possession of government accommodation and on that account he was not in receipt of HRA and if he had not opted for government accommodation he would be entitled to 30% of his pay as HRA and has relied on decision in [PRECEDENT]. As per salary certificate Ex.PW3/1 a sum of Rs.260/ per month was deducted from the salary of deceased on account of licence fee for the government accommodation alloted to him. PW3 stated in his examination that Sh.[ENTITY] had taken government accommodation and on that account he was not in receipt of HRA and was paying licence fee of Rs.260/ per month for the government accommodation alloted to him. Thus in view of decision in [PRECEDENT] the income of the deceased also include HRA as the house which was alloted to deceased was the benefit which was being enjoyed by the dependents of deceased. In the circumstances the income of the deceased the purposes of calculation of dependency shall include 30% of basic pay+grade pay which comes to Rs.3393/ per month. In the circumstance the income of the deceased shall be taken as Rs.24,882/(Rs.9310/ Basic Pay+Rs.2000/ Grade Pay+Rs.10179/ DA+Rs.3393/ HRA).
21.Petition has been filed by petitioner no. 1/ wife of deceased, petitioner no.2/major son of deceased and petitioner no.3/major married daughter of deceased. PW1 Smt. [ENTITY] stated in the crossexamination that petitioner no.2 Sh.[ENTITY] is 31 years of age and he is married and petitioner no.1/PW1 further stated in crossexamination that PW3 Ms.[ENTITY] is 29 years of age and she is married. Petitioner no.3 Ms.[ENTITY] appeared in witness box as PW2 and filed her affidavit in the form of evidence as Ex.PW2/A wherein she stated that she was married to Sh.[ENTITY] but on account of matrimonial dispute she is residing with her parents since 2011. In the crossexamination petitioner no. 3/PW2 stated that she was married to Sh.[ENTITY] on 29.10.2006. The contention of counsel for petitioners is that since petitioner no.3 was residing with deceased on account of matrimonial dispute with her husband, hence she was also dependent on deceased. It is to be noted that petitioner no.3/PW2 stated in crossexamination that she has not filed any case for maintenance for herself and her minor child against her husband. PW2 further stated in the crossexamination that she knows that she can claim maintenance from her husband for herself and her minor child. The petitioners have not proved that on the first instance that some matrimonial dispute is going on between petitioner no.3 and her husband and moreover the petitioner no. 3 is entitled to maintenance from her husband as per law and she can not be considered financially dependent on deceased. Petitioner no.2 the married son of deceased also cannot be considered as dependent on the income of deceased in view of [PRECEDENT] (supra) and petitioner no.1 was the only dependent on the income of deceased.
22.The contention of counsel for respondent no.3 is that since the deceased was survived by only one dependent hence 50% of the income shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
23.In [PRECEDENT] (supra) it has been held:
"30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in [ENTITY], the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be onethird(1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, onefourth(1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and onefifth(1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six."
"31.Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father."
24.In view of the above judgment, 50% deduction is to be made only in cases where deceased is bachelor but in this case deceased is survived by his wife and moreover the deceased also had a married son and a married daughter. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that deceased rd would be spending 50% on himself. Accordingly, 1/3 is to be deducted rd for personal and living expenses of the deceased. After deduction of 1/3 , the income of deceased would be Rs.16588/(Rs.2488224882/3).
25. As far as addition towards future prospects is concerned, Hon'ble High Court in [PRECEDENT] decided on 12.01.2015 held:
"9. The learned counsel for the Claimants has referred to a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in [ENTITY] & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 to contend that the future prospects have to be added in all cases where a person is getting fixed wages or is a seasonal employee or is a student.
10. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Claimants that the law laid down in [PRECEDENT] was extended in [ENTITY] & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 to hold that future prospects ought to be extended in all cases.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company refers to a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in [ENTITY] & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 wherein while approving the ratio with regard to future prospects in [PRECEDENT] &Ors. (supra) and relying on [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court held as under: "38. With regard to the addition to income for future prospects, in [PRECEDENT] , this Court has noted the earlier decisions in Susamma Thomas [Kerala SRTC v.
Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] and in para 24 of the Report held as under: (Sarla Verma case [[PRECEDENT] , SCC p.134) "24. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was selfemployed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
39. The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was selfemployed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases."
12. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company relies upon a Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; and Union of India & Ors. v. [ENTITY], (2011) 4 SCC 589 to contend that in case of divergence of opinion in judgments of benches of coequal strength, earlier judgment will be taken as a binding precedent.
13. It may be noted that in [ENTITY] & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65; the three Judge Bench was dealing with a reference made by a two Judge Bench ([ENTITY] and [ENTITY], J.J.). The two Honble Judges wanted an authoritative pronouncement from a Larger Bench on the question of applicability of the multiplier and whether the inflation was built in the multiplier. The three Judge Bench approved the two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] with regard to the selection of multiplier. It further laid down that addition towards future prospects to the extent of 50% of the actual salary shall be made towards future prospects when the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and addition of 30% should be made if the age of the deceased was between 4050 years. No addition towards future prospects shall be made where the deceased was self employed or was getting a fixed salary without any provision of annual increment.
14. Of course, three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its later judgment in [ENTITY] relying on [PRECEDENT] observed that there would be addition of 30% and 50%, depending upon the age of the deceased, towards future prospects even in the case of self employed persons. It may, however, be noted that in [ENTITY], the three Judge Bench decision in [ENTITY] (supra) was not brought to the notice of their Lordships.
15. The divergence of opinion was noted by another three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. In paras 14 and 15, the Supreme Court observed as under: "14. Certain parallel developments will now have to be taken note of. In [ENTITY] v. Madan Mohan [(2009) 13 SCC 422 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 143 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1044] , a twoJudge Bench of this Court while considering the following questions took the view that the issue(s) needed resolution by a larger Bench: (SCC p. 425, para 10) "(1) Whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Act should be scrupulously applied in all the cases?
(2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospects?"
15. Answering the above reference a threeJudge Bench of this Court in [ENTITY] v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] (SCC p. 88, para 36) reiterated the view taken in [PRECEDENT] to the effect that in respect of a person who was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments or who was selfemployed the actual income at the time of death should be taken into account for determining the loss of income unless there are extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. Though the expression "exceptional and extraordinary circumstances" is not capable of any precise definition, in [PRECEDENT] there is a practical application of the aforesaid principle. The near certainty of the regular employment of the deceased in a government department following the retirement of his father was held to be a valid ground to compute the loss of income by taking into account the possible future earnings. The said loss of income, accordingly, was quantified at double the amount that the deceased was earning at the time of his death."
16. Further, the divergence of opinion in [ENTITY] & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 and [ENTITY] & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 was noticed by the Supreme Court in another latest judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. [ENTITY] & Ors., CC No. 8058/2014, decided on 02.07.2014 and in concluding paragraph while making reference to the Larger Bench, the Supreme Court held as under: "Be it noted, though the decision in Reshma(supra) was rendered at earlier point of time, as is clear, the same has not been noticed in [ENTITY] (supra) and that is why divergent opinions have been expressed. We are of the considered opinion that as regards the manner of addition of income of future prospects there should be an authoritative pronouncement. Therefore, we think it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench."
17. Now, the question is which of the judgments ought to be followed awaiting answer to the reference made by the Supreme Court in [ENTITY] & Ors. (supra).
18. In [PRECEDENT] in para 12, the Supreme Court observed as under: "12. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the abovesaid decisions, we would like to sum up the legal position in the following terms:
(1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength. (2) [Ed.: Para 12(2) corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.F.3/Ed.B.J./21/2005 dated 332005.] A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration.
It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.
(3) [Ed.: Para 12(3) corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.F.3/Ed.B.J./7/2005 dated 1712005.] The above rules are subject to two exceptions: (i) the abovesaid rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength; and (ii) in spite of the rules laid down hereinabove, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons given by it, it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of the Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]."
19. Similarly, in [PRECEDENT] in para 27, the Supreme Court observed as under: "27. However, even assuming that the decision in [CASE NUMBER] did not operate as res judicata, we are constrained to observe that even if the learned Judges who decided [CASE NUMBER] did not agree with the view taken by a coordinate Bench of equal strength in the earlier [CASE NUMBER] regarding the interpretation of [SECTION] of the Act and its application to the petition schedule property, judicial discipline and practice required them to refer the issue to a larger Bench. The learned Judges were not right in overruling the statement of the law by a coordinate Bench of equal strength. It is an accepted rule or principle that the statement of the law by a Bench is considered binding on a Bench of the same or lesser number of Judges. In case of doubt or disagreement about the decision of the earlier Bench, the wellaccepted and desirable practice is that the later Bench would refer the case to a larger Bench."
20. In Union of India & Ors. v. [ENTITY], (2011) 4 SCC 589 while holding that the decision of the Coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength, held that the Bench of Coordinate strength can only make a reference to a larger Bench. In para 9 of the report, the Supreme Court held as under: "9.It may be noted that the decision in [ENTITY] case [CASE NUMBER] was prior to the decision in [ENTITY] case [PRECEDENT] . It is well settled that if a subsequent coordinate Bench of equal strength wants to take a different view, it can only refer the matter to a larger Bench, otherwise the prior decision of a coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength. Since, the decision in [ENTITY] case [CASE NUMBER] was not noticed in [ENTITY] case [PRECEDENT] , the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. The decision in [ENTITY] case [CASE NUMBER] was binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this Court."
21.This Court in [PRECEDENT], decided on 06.09.2013, went into this question and held that in view of the report in [ENTITY] (supra), the three Judge Bench decision in [ENTITY] & Ors. (surpa) shall be taken as a binding precedent."
26. In the circumstances in view of judgment of [PRECEDENT]) the petitioners shall not be entitled to any addition towards future prospects. After applying the multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency is computed to be as Rs.16588x12x11=Rs.21,89,616/. In [ENTITY] and others [ENTITY] and others, 2013 ACJ [SECTION]3, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that loss of consortium should be Rs.1,00,000/, Rs.25000/ each towards funeral expenses and loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/ towards loss of Estate.
MEDICAL BILLS
27.The contention of petitioners is that after the accident on 05.10.2013 the petitioner was admitted in Primus Super Speciality Hospital where he expired during the course of treatment on 07.10.2013. The petitioners have examined Sh.[ENTITY], Manager(Accounts) of Primus Super Speciality Hospital as PW5 in order to prove the bills. PW5 stated that he has brought the original bill no.19110 dated 7.10.2013. Alongwith DAR police has also filed the copy of bill no.19110 dated 07.10.2013 and receipts and death summary prepared at Primus Super Speciality Hospital. As per the death summary Sh.[ENTITY] was admitted in the said hospital on 05.10.2013 and he expired on 07.10.2013 at about 11.50 AM and the cause of death is mentioned as "RTA with severe head injury with polytrauma with cardiopulmonary arrest". The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,536/ towards bill no. 19110 dated 7.10.2013. The total compensation is determined as under:
Loss of dependency : Rs.21,89,616/ Loss of Consortium : Rs.1,00,000/ Funeral Expenses : Rs.25,000/ Loss of love and affection : Rs.25,000/ Loss of Estate : Rs.10,000/ Medical bills : Rs.2,00,536/ TOTAL : Rs.25,50,152/ RELIEF
28.The petitioners are thus awarded Rs.25,50,152/(Rs.Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Thousand One Hundred Fifty Two only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] and others [ENTITY] and others(supra), from the date of filing of petition till its realisation including, interim award, if any already passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. The liability of all the respondents being joint and several. The entire award amount is given to petitioner no.1/wife of deceased.
29.For safeguarding the compensation amount from being frittered away by the claimants, directions have been given by Hon'ble Supreme Court for preserving the award amount in the case of [PRECEDENT]. In view of the directions contained in the above judgments the award amount is to be disbursed as follows:
30. 10% of share of petitioner no.1 be released to her by transferring it into her savings account and remaining amount be kept in FDR in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in following manner:
1. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of one year.
2. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of two years.
3. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of three years.
4. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of four years.
5. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of five years.
6. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of six years.
7. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of seven years.
8. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of eight years.
9. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of nine years.
31.The cheque be deposited in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the name of UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi A/c Smt.[ENTITY].
32.The interest on the fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit in the saving accounts of the claimants/beneficiary.
33.Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR. Upon the expiry of period of FDR the bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in the saving account of beneficiary.
34.The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period and shall automatically credit the maturity amount in the savings account of the beneficiary.
35.No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the court. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the court.
36.Withdrawal from the aforesaid accounts shall be permitted to the beneficiary after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity card to the beneficiary to facilitate identity.
37. Bank shall transfer Savings Account to any other Bank/Branch according to her convenience.
38.The beneficiary shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit to Senior Manager of UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
[ENTITY] to report in case the cheque is not deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award/judgment. [ENTITY] is directed to note the particulars of the award amount in the register today itself.
40.The Insurance company shall deposit the award amount directly in bank account of the claimants at UCO Bank,Patiala House Court,New Delhi within 30 days of the passing of the award failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
41.The petitioner shall file two sets of photographs along with her specimen signatures, out of which one set to be sent to the Nodal Officer, UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi along with copy of the award by [ENTITY] and the second set be retained to the court for further reference. The photographs be stamped and sent to the bank. The petitioner shall also file the proof of residence and furnish the details of the bank account with the [ENTITY] within a week. The petitioner shall file her complete address as well as address of her counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount.
42.The insurance company shall deposit the award amount alongwith interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant with a copy to her counsel and the compliance report shall be filed in the court alongwith proof of deposit of award amount, the notice of deposit and the calculation of interest on 06.5.2015.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
43.Respondents have not led evidence despite opportunities, thus respondent no. 1 being the driver, respondent no.2 being the owner and respondent no.3 being the insurer are held jointly and severally liable. Respondent No.3 being the insurer is directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realisation. In case of any delay, it is liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay. [ENTITY] to report in case the cheque is not deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award/judgment. [ENTITY] is directed to note the particulars of the award amount in the register today itself.
44. An attested copy of award be given to the parties(free of cost). File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court ([ENTITY]) on 12.02.2015 Judge: [CASE NUMBER]