IN THE COURT OF MS.[ENTITY], JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02, NEW DELHI Suit Number : 253/09. Unique Case ID Number : [CASE NUMBER]. 1. Mr.[ENTITY] son of late Mr.[ENTITY] Aged about 50 years 2. Ms.[ENTITY] daughter of Mr.[ENTITY] Aged about 24 years Both residents of Gali Number 21 C, House Number 29, Molar Band Extension,Badarpur, New Delhi-110044. Petitioners. versus 1. Mr.[ENTITY] (Driver of car number HR-51P 8717) Son of Mr.[ENTITY] Resident of 86-A, Shyam Colony, Ballabgarh,Faridabad. 2. [ENTITY] & [ENTITY] through Mr.[ENTITY] (Owner of car number HR-51P 8717) Son of Mr.[ENTITY] Resident of 926, Chawla Colony, Ballabgarh, Faridabad. 3. Bajaj Allianz(Insurer of car number HR-51P 8717) General Insurance Company Limited Regional Office at C-31/32, Ist Floor, Connaught Place, Delhi-110001. Respondents.
Date of institution : 25.02.2006. Arguments concluded on : 19.02.2011. Date of judgment and award : 19.02.2011.
Appearances: Ms.[ENTITY] and Mr.[ENTITY], counsel for the petitioners.
Respondent numbers 1 and 2 have been proceeded ex parte. Mr.[ENTITY], counsel for respondent number 3.
[CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 1 of 25 -
JUDGMENT AND AWARD
1. The present claim petition under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the [ACT]) has been filed by Mr.[ENTITY] and Ms.[ENTITY], both the petitioners, against Mr.[ENTITY], [ENTITY] & [ENTITY] through Mr.[ENTITY] and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, all the respondents, for grant of compensation regarding the death of late Ms.[ENTITY] (the wife of petitioner number 1 and mother of petitioner number 2), in a road traffic accident.
2. It is averred, in the petition, by the petitioners that the deceased was just trying for a better job opportunity and had got job of skilled tailor in an export house at a salary of Rs.4,500/- at Faridabad and had joined one such export company on just a day before she met with the fatal accident. On 24.11.2005, the deceased Ms.[ENTITY] left her residence at 9 am for her duty as skilled tailor and designer at the export house and did her duty at the export house, near Havell Company, Sector-31, Faridabad. It was only her second day and in the morning, she had asked her husband to pick her up in the evening. On 24.11.2005, in the evening time, the petitioner number 1 alongwith his neighbour one Mr.[ENTITY], son of Mr.[ENTITY] went on the motorbike of Mr.[ENTITY] to pick up his wife, the deceased Ms.[ENTITY], from Sector-31, near Havell Company, Faridabad.
Petitioner number 1 and Mr.[ENTITY] reached near the Havell Company and they saw the deceased Ms.[ENTITY] standing and [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 2 of 25 -
waiting for them at the road side corner. It is at this time only, petitioner number 1 and Mr.[ENTITY] saw one Maruti Silver Car being driven at a very high speed, very rashly, in a very reckless and negligent manner coming from Faridabad side and they also saw the same car hitting the deceased, who was standing at the road side corner. The deceased was badly hurt, suffered multiple injuries and was profusely bleeding. The driver Mr.[ENTITY] of the offending vehicle car, the respondent number 1 hereing, sped towards Delhi and the petitioner number 1 alongwith Mr.[ENTITY] followed the car on their motorbike and tried to stop the offending car and saw the registration number of the car being HR-51P 8717 but the respondent number 1, the driver of the offending car ran the car towards Delhi. Petitioner number 1 can recognize the driver of the offending car. When the petitioner number 1 and Mr.[ENTITY] came back to the accident spot, they came to know that police had already take the deceased from spot and had got her admitted in some hospital at Faridabad. On visits to various hospitals like B.K.Hospital etc., the petitioner number 1 came to know that his wife was got admitted by the police in Sarvodya Hospital situated at Sector 19, Faridabad. On enquiry from the concerned doctors, it was found by the petitioner number 1 that his wife had sustained serious head injuruies and her condition was very critical and she was in a state of coma. The deceased was admitted to the ICU of hospital and succumbed to her injuries and died on the next morning i.e. 25.11.2005 around 5 am. The deceased had worked as stiching operator and skilled tailor with various garment maufacturers/export houses. The deceased [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 3 of 25 -
was running her own private stitching work business from her residential premises and was doing her own private work/business like stitching ladies and children clothes and garments and embroidery work on sarees and suits and was also doing the finishing jobs of stitched clothes/ladies suits from the local tailors/boutiques and traders on contract basis. She also used to take private jobs, assigned to her by local tailors,boutiques and traders, of putting beads and embroidery on the suits/sarees and ready made garments and putting handles on the cloth bags on contract basis and by these private jobs, deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. She was earning around Rs.9,000/-per month from her job and private work/business. FIR number 233/2005 dated 25.11.2005 under sections [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the [ACT]) and [SECTION] of the [ACT] was lodged in Police Station Sector-31, Faridabad against respondent number 1. Respondent number 1 being the driver, respondent number 2 being the owner and respondent number 3 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Prayer for compensation of a sum of Rs.23,50,000/- has been made.
3. Summons of the case were served upon all the respondents and pursuant thereto all of them appeared and filed their respective written statements contesting the case. However, subsequently respondent number 1 and 2 failed to put in appearance and were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 18.12.2010. Respondent number 3 is [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 4 of 25 -
the only contesting respondent.
4. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent number 3, all the averments made in the petition are controverted and rebutted and prayer for the dismissal of the petition is made. All the pleas under
the [ACT] have been taken by respondent number 2. It is admitted that vehicle bearing registration number HR-51P-8717 was insured with respondent number 3 in the name of respondent number 2 M/s [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] vide policy number 0G-06-1101-1801-00007575 issued for the period 09.06.2005 to 08.06.2006. Prayer for the dismissal of the petition is made.
5. Vide order dated 31.07.2006, the learned predecessor of this Tribunal passed an interim award of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the petitioners.
6. Vide order dated 31.07.06 of the learned predecessor of this Triunal, the following issues were framed:-
1) Whether deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident on 24.11.05 involving maruti car number HR 51P 8717 due to negligent driving on the part of respondent number 1,owned by respondent number 2 and insured with respondent number 3? OPR.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?
3) Relief.
7. In order to prove their case, the petitioners have examined [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 5 of 25 -
Mr.[ENTITY], petitioner number 1, as PW1, Mr.[ENTITY], HR Head, L.M.Sagar Exports, Plot Number 5, Site 2 Lajwanti Complex, 14/3 Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana as PW2 and Mr.[ENTITY], Personal HR Assistant, [ENTITY], C-49, Okhla, Ph. 2, New Delhi as PW3. The respondent number 3 has preferred not to examine any witness.
8. PW1, Mr.[ENTITY], has filed his affidavit in his examination in chief reiterating and reasserting the averments made in the petition. He has proved the ESI card of the deceased showing PW1 as her husband as Ex.CW1/A; certificate of training is Ex.PW1/B; fee receipts are Ex.PW1/C1 to C2; statement of provident fund scheme for the period 2002-2003 as Ex.PW1/D; summary sheet as Ex.PW1/E;
clinical diagnosis as Ex.PW1/F; medical bills as Ex.PW1/G1 to G2; post mortem report as Ex.PW1/H; death certificate as Ex.PW1/I; papers of cremation ground and cremation expenses as Ex.PW1/J and K; certified copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/L; certified copy of the charge sheet as Ex.PW1/M; certified copy of the site plan as Ex.PW1/N; certified copy of seizure memo as Ex.PW1/O; certified copy of the driving licence of respondent number 1/driver of the offending vehicle as Ex.PW1/P; certified copy of insurance policy of the offending vehicle as Ex.PW1/Q; certified copy of registration of the offending vehicle as Ex.PW1/R; certified copy of application for release of the offending vehicle on superdari as Ex.PW1/S; salary slips and account slips as Ex.PW1/T1 to T25. In his cross examination, he has deposed that the distance between [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 6 of 25 -
Habell bus stop and Dayal Lunch Home was about 500 yards and they were living in Molarband Extension, Delhi. He did not inform the police after seeing the accident and did not remove the injured to the hospital. On the date of accident, he was working as a typist cum clerk in the Court premises and was earning about Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/-per month approximately. On the date of accident, petitioner number 2, his daughter, was unmarried and was not earning and she is still unmarried. His wife was 10th pass and he did not have any document in this regard. He was aware about the contents of Ex.PW1/1 and he had stated in his affidavit that his wife was working with M/s Target Fashion which was later on known by the name of LM Sagar Exports and no appointment letter was issued by M/s Target Fashion. Deceased had worked with Target Fashion only for two days prior to her death and he could not tell the name of the firm where she was working prior to joining Target Fashion but she had worked with number for firms and one of them is M/s Shahi Exports. Whatever document with regard to the employment of deceased were in his possession, the same had been placed on record. There was no footpath on the road where his wife was waiting for him on the date of accident. In fact, she was standing on the side of the road. When PW1 first saw the offending car, it was at a distance of 15 feet away from him and he immediately saw when the offending car hit his wife. He did not have any documentary proof to show that his wife was doing private job with number of local tailors.
9. PW2, Mr.[ENTITY], has deposed that he was [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 7 of 25 -
working as HR Head of L.M.Sagar Exports, Plot Number 5, Site 2, Lajwanti Complex, 14/3 Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana since 2008. Target Fashions where deceased was working was situated at the above address in the year 2005 and Target Fashion has vacated the premises and L.M.Sagar has taken the same premises on rental basis on 01.03.2006. The self attested copy of rent agreement is dated 01.03.2006 is mark A. PW2 deposed that he has no knowledge where Target Fashion has shifted. On the date 24.11.2005, when the deceased met with her fatal accident, the Target Fashions was situated at the above address. Target Fashion has not been taken over by L.M.Sagar Exports, where he was working presently. His firm M/s L.M.Sagar Exports was doing the business of manufacturer/exporter of readymade garments. He had no idea what was the business of Target Fashions but from the name it seems that they were in the fashion garments.
10. PW3, Mr.[ENTITY], Personal HR Assistant, [ENTITY], C-49, Okhla, Ph-2, New Delhi has deposed that he was working as Assistant HR at the above mentioned concern since 2009 and deceased Ms.[ENTITY] had worked in their above named concern in the year 2004. She worked at [ENTITY] Merchants Private Limited plot number 124, Sector 37, Pace City, Gurgaon, Haryana as LS Operator from 01.06.2004 to 23.08.2004. He had brought the certificates to this effect under the signatures of Mr.[ENTITY],Head HR Personal and the certificate dated 08.09.2010 issued by HR Head Personal is Ex.PW3/1. Deceased [ENTITY]'s salary slips and muster roll for [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 8 of 25 -
the month of June, July, August, 2004 attested by [ENTITY] Merchants P.Limited are Ex.PW3/2. The deceased Ms.[ENTITY] worked for three months in their unit as LS Operator and she was employed at the salary of Rs.2,800/- in the month of June,2004 and was given Rs.2,464/- for 29 days and her take home salary was Rs.2,464/- after deduction of [SECTION]. They always deduct PF and ESI from the gross salary every month as per rule and she would had become stitching operator within one year, if she continued to work on the post of LS Operator. She was a very good skilled worker and had very bright future ahead.
11. The respondents have preferred not to lead any evidence to substantiate their respective stands.
12. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent number 3 at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point. I have also carefully perused the written ar-
guments filed on behalf of the petitioners.
13. After hearing the arguments and on careful perusal of the record, my findings on the issues are as follows:
ISSUE NUMBER 1:
14. Issue number 1 is Whether deceased suffered fatal [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 9 of 25 -
injuries in an accident on 24.11.05 involving maruti car number HR 51P 8717 due to negligent driving on the part of respondent number 1, owned by respondent number 2 and insured with respondent number 3? OPR.
15. As the petition is under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the rashness and negligence of the offending driver is required to be proved by the petitioners.
16. I also find on perusal of the certified copies of the criminal case record of FIR number 233/2005 dated 25.11.2005 under sections [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] lodged in Po- lice Station Sector-31, Faridabad, i.e. certified copies of FIR- Ex.PW1/L; charge sheet-Ex.PW1/M; site plan-Ex.PW1/N; seizure memo-Ex.PW1/O; driving licence of respondent number 1/driver of the offending vehicle-Ex.PW1/P; insurance policy of the offending vehicle- Ex.PW1/Q; registration of the offending vehicle-Ex.PW1/R; application for release of the offending vehicle on superdari-Ex.PW1/S; etc. that in the final report under [SECTION] [ACT], the offending vehicle is mentioned as car bearing registration number HR-51P 8717; in the RC and in the insurance policy, it is mentioned as Maruti car bearing registration number HR-51P 8717.
17. Police investigation has concluded that the accident in this case has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing registration number HR-51P 8717 driven by [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 10 of 25 -
respondent number 1 and who is accused in the criminal case filed by the police. The medical report also reflects that the deceased had sustained fatal injuries which could have been caused due to injuries sustained in road traffic accident. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 considered along with the other documents i.e. challan/charge sheet as well as FIR registered in this case, medical records, I am of the opinion that deceased Ms.[ENTITY], has sustained fatal injuries in an accident which took place on 24.11.2005 because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle car bearing registration number HR-51P 8717 by respondent number 1.
18. It is therefore prima facie clear that the accident in the case had taken place with the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing registration number HR-51P 8717 driven by respondent number 1 due to his rash and negligent driving causing fatal injuries to the deceased.
19. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was driven by respondent number 1, owned and insured by respondent number 2 and insured with respondent number 3 on the date of accident.
20. I hereby hold that the deceased, Ms.[ENTITY], sustained grievous injuries on 24.11.2005 in the accident caused due rash and negligent driving of respondent number 1, Mr.[ENTITY], while he was driving car bearing registration number HR-51P 8717.
[CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 11 of 25 -
21. Issue number 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NUMBER 2:
22. Issue number 2 is Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?
23. The petitioners have claimed that they are the only legal representatives of the deceased Ms.[ENTITY]. PW1 has also similarly deposed in his affidavit and there is no cross examination regarding the same. It is clear that Mr.[ENTITY] (husband) and Ms.[ENTITY] (daughter), both the petitioners, are the only legal heirs of the deceased and are entitled to compensation under the [ACT].
24. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.[ENTITY] & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., in [CASE NUMBER], decided on April 15, 2009 (arising out of [CASE NUMBER]) Smt.[ENTITY] & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., of the Apex Court not only is available on the official website of the Apex Court i.e. supremecourtofIndia.nic.in and also is reported in as 2009 (6) Scale 129:
2009 ACJ 129: III (2009) ACC 708 (SC) and also relied upon in the Delhi High Court in its order dated 08.05.2009 in [CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER], in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v.
[CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 12 of 25 -
[ENTITY] & Ors. decided on 21.04.2009, the law of compensation, structured formula and appropriate multiplier have been changed, overruling the earlier law as well as giving a new clarification to the [SECTION].
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
25. The petitioner number 1, as PW1, has deposed in his affidavit filed as his examination in chief that the deceased, Ms.[ENTITY], who was aged about 40 years on the date of accident. There is nothing brought on the record which could show otherwise as there is nothing material in his cross examination by respondent number 3 which has also not led any evidence of its own.
26. Therefore, keeping in view the evidence of petitioner number 1, it is clear that the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of her demise.
27. Further, as regards, the income of the deceased, it is averred in the petition and deposed in the evidence of PW1 that the deceased was a skilled tailor, embroider and textile designer, finisher and was earning about Rs.9,000/- per month. It is claimed that the deceased had joined M/s Target Fashions two days prior to her accident and earlier she was working with [ENTITY].
28. It is not in dispute that the deceased had met with the acci- dent due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
[CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 13 of 25 -
However, the petitioners have failed to produce and prove any document on the record to indicate the earnings of the deceased. The income tax returns of the deceased have also not been filed. The educational testi- monials of the deceased and her qualifications have also not been brought on the record. I find that the respondents have failed to contro- vert the factum of the deceased being an expert skilled worker i.e a tailor.
29. The evidence of PW2 is of absolutely no help to the petitioners as he is an employee of a different concern which had taken the premises on rent on 01.03.2006 and he has never worked with the deceased and has no knowledge of her earnings or the business of the concern where the deceased was allegedly working. It is also clear from the evidence of PW2 that M/s Target Fashions and L.M.Sagar Exports are not the same but are two different concerns.
30. The evidence of PW3 only shows her salary records of the [ENTITY] i.e. the concern where she was working prior to joining another concern i.e. M/s Target Fashions. The salary records of the deceased also are of [ENTITY].
31. As the salary records of the deceased of M/s Target Fashions have not been proved by the deceased and only the last drawn salary records are of [ENTITY] are produced and proved, in such a situation, the salary proved on the record of [ENTITY] is being taken into [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 14 of 25 -
consideration i.e. Rs.2,800/- per month. The petitioners have failed to prove that the salary and earnings of the deceased was Rs.9,000/- per month.
32. Therefore, the income of the deceased at the time of her accident i.e. on 24.11.2005 is assessed to be Rs.2,800/- per month.
33. In the judgment reported as [PRECEDENT], it was held that the multiplier to be adopted is to be determined on the basis of the age of the claimant and the age of the deceased which ever is higher.
34. The age of the petitioner number 1, the husband of the deceased, as per the age mentioned in the petition filed on 25.02.2006 is about 50 years which makes his age as 50 years as on the date of the accident i.e. 24.11.2005.
35. In terms of [ENTITY]'s judgment, as the age of the husband of the deceased was 50 years at the time of her demise, the multiplier to be applied is 13 and the deduction of the personal and living expenses of the deceased would be taken as one-third (as there are two dependents).
36. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be the annual income into the appropriate multiplier into deduction of personal [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 15 of 25 -
expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.2,800/- x 12 (annual income) x 13 (multiplier) x 2/3 (personal expenses) which comes to Rs.2,91,200/-.
37. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.2,91,200/- for loss of financial dependency.
LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION:
38. The petitioner number 1 has lost his wife aged 40 years in the present accident and petitioner number 2 has lost her mother. The loss of love and affection and the emotional trauma that the family of the deceased have undergone cannot be assessed in monetary terms. Money cannot compensate the loss of love and affection of a wife and mother that petitioners had lost due to her death in the accident. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I award a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- each in terms of [ENTITY]'s judgment) to the petitioners towards loss of love and affection.
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
39. The petitioners have filed and proved the medical bills of Rs. 10,000/- as Ex.PW1/G1 and G2.
40. Therefore, Rs.10,000/- is hereby granted to the petitioners under the heading of medical expenses.
LOSS OF FUTURE PROSPECTS:
[CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 16 of 25 -
41. The petitioners have although claimed loss of future prospects, but in view of [ENTITY]'s case, since the deceased was self employed, I am not inclined to grant any amount under the heading of loss of future prospects.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
42. The petitioners have although claimed compensation for pain and suffering, but in view of [ENTITY]'s case, I am not inclined to grant any amount under this heading.
FUNERAL EXPENSES:
43. An amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded on account of funeral expenses.
LOSS TO ESTATE:
44. An amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of loss to estate to petitioners is also granted as the deceased, Ms.[ENTITY], had she remained alive, she would have made some property.
TOTAL COMPENSATION:
45. In the petition, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation in the present petition:
Loss of dependency : Rs.2,91,200/-. Loss of love and affection : Rs.20,000/-. Medical expenses : Rs.10,000/-. [CASE NUMBER]. [CASE NUMBER]. [ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 17 of 25 - Loss of future prospects : Nil. Pain and suffering : Nil. Funeral expenses : Rs.10,000/-. Loss to estate : Rs.10,000/-. Total compensation : Rs.3,41,200/-. LIABILITY OF RESPONDENT NUMBER 1:
46. It is clear from the certified copies of the criminal case record of FIR number 233/2005 dated 25.11.2005 under sections [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] lodged in Police Station Sector-31, Faridabad, especially the charge sheet against respondent number 1, Mr.[ENTITY] that he is being prosecuted as an accused driver of the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing registration number HR-51P 8717 which has caused the accident. There is nothing brought on the record to suggest that respondent number 1 was not the driver of the offending vehicle or that he was not at fault.
47. Respondent number 1 being the driver of the offending vehicle is liable jointly and severally to pay compensation to the petitioners and nothing is shown which could indicate that he is absolved of his liability.
LIABILITY OF RESPONDENT NUMBER 2:
48. Respondent number 2 being the owner/insured of the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing registration number HR-51P 8717 [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 18 of 25 -
is liable jointly and severally to pay compensation to the petitioners and nothing is shown which could indicate that he is absolved of his liability.
LIABILITY OF RESPONDENT NUMBER 3:
49. It may be mentioned here that the fact that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent number 3 by respondent number 2 and was valid on the date of accident is proved. The documents of the offending vehicle as well as the driving licence of the respondent number 1 who was the driver of the offending vehicle are also valid. The negligence of respondent number 1 has been successfully proved by the evidence of the petitioners and their documents including the criminal case record of the accident case against respondent number 1.
50. All these facts, in totality, indicate that the offending vehicle was not used in violation of the permit or the insurance policy and there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. All the documents of the offending vehicle as well its driver are in order and are not controverted by respondent number 3.
51. Therefore, respondent number 3, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, cannot avoided its liability as it is liable to make the payment of the compensation under the [ACT] in the claim petition.
52. There is no clause in the insurance policy which absolves respondent number 3 of its liability to pay compensation as it is clear [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 19 of 25 -
that no term or condition of the same is violated. Respondent number 3, in the circumstances, is liable to pay absolutely and is not entitled to any recovery rights.
LIABILITY OF THE RESPONDENT NUMBERS 1, 2 AND 3:
53. As discussed above, respondent number 1 being the driver, respondent number 2 being the owner cum insured and respondent number 3 being the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing reg- istration number HR-51P 8717 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation under the [ACT] to the petitioners.
RELIEF:
54. Petitioners entitled to Rs.3,41,200/- as compensation. Vide order dated 31.07.2006 of the learned predecessor of this Tribunal, the respondent number 3 was ordered to pay the interim award of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioners. This amount is required to be adjusted in the final award. The total compensation which now is to be given to the petitioners is Rs.3,41,200/- minus Rs.50,000/- which totals to Rs. 2,91,200/-. The amount is rounded off to Rs.2,92,000/-. The petitioners are also entitled to the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 25.02.2006 till its realization.
55. Out of the amount of Rs.2,92,000/-, which is to be given to petitioners, Rs.1,50,000/- be given to petitioner number 1 and Rs. 1,42,000/- be given to petitioner number 2.
[CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 20 of 25 -
56. Out of Rs.1,50,000/- which is to be given to petitioner number 1, in terms of the directions in the judgment in the case of [PRECEDENT], in [CASE NUMBER] decided on 20.01.2010 by his Lordship, Hon'ble Mr.Justice [ENTITY], as he needs to maintain himself and also take care of his family responsibilities, Rs.50,000/- be released immediately in favour of petitioner number 1 and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- be kept in 4 fixed deposits of Rs.25,000/- each for the periods of six months, one year, one and a half years and two years.
57. The FDRs shall be without the facility of advance / loan or withdrawal. However, the petitioner number 1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
58. The entire amount of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 25.02.2006 till its realization also be released to petitioner number 1 in cash
59. Out of Rs.1,42,000/- which is to be given to petitioner number 2, in terms of the directions in the judgment in the case of [PRECEDENT], in [CASE NUMBER] decided on 20.01.2010 by his Lordship, Hon'ble Mr.Justice [ENTITY], as she needs to maintain herself and also take care of her family responsibilities, Rs.42,000/- be released immediately in favour of [CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 21 of 25 -
petitioner number 2 and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- be kept in 4 fixed deposits of Rs.25,000/- each for the periods of six months, one year, one and a half years and two years.
60. The FDRs shall be without the facility of advance / loan or withdrawal. However, the petitioner number 2 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
61. Respondent number 3, Insurance Company is directed to directly deposit the award amount with the Nodal Officer of UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi within 30 days. Insurance Company/driver/owner of the offending vehicle are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, the notice of the deposit to the claimants and the calculation of interest in the Court within 30 days from today.
62. In case the Insurance Company fails to do so, General Manager of Insurance Company will file reasons for non-compliance. In case of further delay, the Insurance Company will deposit the cheque along with the cost of Rs.5,000/- without any further directions as per judgment of [PRECEDENT].
63. [ENTITY] will report to the undersigned if the cheque(s) in this case are not received within 30 days of passing of this judgment.
[CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 22 of 25 -
[ENTITY] to note the particulars of the award amount etc. in his register today.
64. The petitioners will file two sets of photographs along with their specimen signatures/ thumb impressions out of which one set be sent to the Nodal Officer of the Bank along with copy of the award by the [ENTITY] and the second set shall be retained in the Court for further reference. The photographs be got stamped and be sent to the Bank. The proof of residence and details of the bank account be also provided by the petitioners within seven days to the [ENTITY].
65. Aforesaid fixed deposits are to be made by UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi in the following manner:
(1) The UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch shall open separate Savings Accounts in the name of claimants and the entire interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits be credited in the said accounts. The fixed deposits shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the Court.
(2) The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving Accounts. (3) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the claimants after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card /Pass Books with attested photographs to claim to facilitate their identities.
(4) No cheque book be issued to the claimants without the permission of this Court.
(5) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(6) The original FDRs shall be retained by the Bank in the Safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants along with the photocopy of the FDRs.
[CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 23 of 25 -
(7) The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be handed over to the claimants at the end of the fixed deposit period. (8) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without the permission of this Court.
(9) On the request of the claimants, the Bank shall transfer the Saving Account to any other branch of UCO Bank according to the convenience of the claimants.
(10) In terms of directions contained in case of [PRECEDENT], in [CASE NUMBER], order dated 13.01.2010, of Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY], Respondent number 3 is directed to directly deposit the award sum with Manager UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch within 30 days through its nodal officer and the Manager concerned of UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch to keep the specified amount aforesaid in fixed deposits in terms of the award and release the balance amount by transferring the same to the Saving Bank Accounts of the petitioner/ claimant. Insurance Company to also file proof of deposit of award sum, also within said period. Manager UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch to also furnish compliance report within 15 days of deposit of award sum. Claimant to do the necessary formalities in respect of the bank account(s).
66. [ENTITY] to keep the copy of Award in a miscellaneous file for awaiting compliance report from all concerned, which be put up on 25.03.2011.
67. Copy of the judgment be given dasti to the counsel/retainer respondent number 3 for compliance and copy of the judgment and information be also sent to General Manager of Insurance Company.
68. One copy of the judgment also be given to the counsel for the petitioners, dasti, as requested.
[CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 24 of 25 -
69. The file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on ([ENTITY]) this 19th day of February, 2011. Judge, MACT-02, New Delhi.
[CASE NUMBER].
[CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY] and another v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 25 of 25 -