[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Amit vs Sunny Goel on 9 May, 2025
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5443/16
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-001345-2014
1. Smt. Asha,
W/o Late Sh. Anand @ Monu,
(Widow of deceased)
2. Ms. Jannvi,
D/o Late Sh. Anand @ Monu,
(Minor Daughter of deceased)
3. Smt. Santra Devi,
W/o Sh. Dharamvir Saini,
(Mother of deceased)
4. Sh. Dharamvir Saini,
S/o Late Sh. Bhuru Ram,
(Father of deceased)
All R/o House no. 41,
Village Nahar Pur, Sector 7,
Rohini, Delhi ..........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sunny Goel
S/o Sh.Hari Om Goyal,
R/o Flat No. 111,
Veer Apartments,
Sector 13,
Rohini, Delhi
(Driver -cum-owner)
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 1 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(Insurer)
........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 5445/16
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-001347-2014
Sh. Amit Saini
S/o Sh. Dalip Singh Saini
R/o House no. 64/1,
Village Naharpur,
Sector 7, Delhi.
(Injured)
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sunny Goel
S/o Sh.Hari Om Goyal,
R/o Flat No. 111,
Veer Apartments,
Sector 13,
Rohini, Delhi
(Driver -cum-owner)
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(Insurer)
........Respondents
Date of Institution : 03.04.2014
Date of Arguments : 09.05.2025
Date of Decision : 09.05.2025
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 2 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
APPEARENCES
Sh. U.C. Rai, Ld. Counsel for petitioner no. 1/widow of deceased.
Sh. B.S. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for remaining petitioners.
Sh. Manish Bansal, Ld. Counsel for driver-cum-owner.
Sh. M. Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD:-
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of both the Detailed
Accident Reports (DARs) with regard to fatal injuries sustained by Sh. Anand
@ Monu (deceased in MACP No.5443/16) and injuries sustained by Sh.Amit
Saini(injured in MACP No. 5445/16) in a Motor Vehicular Accident which
occurred on 11.12.2013 at about 12:35 am, near Prashant Vihar, Sector 13 &
9, Bharat Chowk, Rohini, Delhi, involving Car bearing registration no.
DL8CW-0926 (offending vehicle) being driven in a rash and negligent
manner by its driver/respondent no.1.
2. Both the DARs were consolidated for the purpose of recording
of evidence vide order dated 10.10.2014, passed by Ld. Predecessor and
MACP No. 5443/16 titled as " Asha Vs. Sunny Goel" was treated as the
leading case. Accordingly, the evidence was led on behalf of the parties in the
leading case.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. According to DAR filed in both the cases, on 11.12.2013 at
about 12:35 am, the respondent no.1 while driving his car had hit the scooter
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 3 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
of the victim bearing registration no. DL11-SC-0863 due to which both the
victims fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The scooter was driven
by Sh. Amit Saini and deceased Anand @ Monu was a pillion rider and they
were going home after attending a marriage when the offending vehicle
driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner had hit the victim’s
scooter. Injured Amit sustained grievous injuries and Anand @ Monu
expired on 18.12.2013 during treatment in Jaipur Golden Hospital. FIR No.
704/13 u/s. 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Prashant Vihar with regard to
the said accident. It is claimed that offending vehicle was owned by
respondent no.1 and was insured with respondent no.2 during the period in
question.
4. In their identical but separate Written Statements filed in both
the cases, the respondent no.1 i.e. driver-cum-registered owner has claimed
that the accident in question did not occur due to his rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle and rather due to the negligence of driver of
scooter of victim as he was in a drunken state and both the riders were not
wearing helmets at the time of accident. He further claimed that the scooter
of victim came from the right side and suddenly hit the offending vehicle. It
has been further claimed that he was having valid driving licence and
insurance policy at the time of accident. He further claimed that the accident
was not caused due to his negligence and thus, he is not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioners. On the basis of these averments, he has
prayed for dismissal of both the DARs.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 4 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
5. In both cases respondent no.2/insurance company in its WS has
admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it at the time of accident.
However, it has been claimed that the alleged offending vehicle was being
driven by the deceased under the influence of alcohol. Hence, insurance
company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
6. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were
framed in MACP No. 5443/16 by Ld.Predecessor vide order dated
10.10.2014:-
1) Whether the deceased Anand @ Monu,
suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on
11.12.2013 at about 12:35 AM near Prashant Vihar,
Sector 13 & 9, Bharat Chowk, Rohini, Delhi, within
the jurisdiction of PS Prashant Vihar due to rashness
and negligence on the part of driver Sunny Goel
/R-1, who was driving Car bearing registration no.
DL 8C W926, owned by Shri Sunny Goel and
insured with Bharti Axa General Insurance Co.(now
merged with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd)/R-2? OPP.
2) Whether there was contributory negligence on
part of deceased ? If so, its effect?
3) Whether the Lrs of deceased are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
4) Relief.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 5 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
7. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were
framed in MACP No. 5445/2016 by Ld.Predecessor vide order dated
10.10.2014 :-
1) Whether the injured Amit, suffered injuries in
road traffic accident on 11.12.2013 at about 12:35
AM near Prashant Vihar, Sector 13 & 9, Bharat
Chowk, Rohini, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS
Prashant Vihar due to rashness and negligence on
the part of driver Sunny Goel /R-1, who was driving
Car bearing registration no. DL 8C W926, owned by
Shri Sunny Goel and insured with Bharti Axa
General Insurance Co.(now merged with ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd)/R-2? OPP.
2) Whether there was contributory negligence on
part of petitioner? If so, its effect?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
4) Relief.
8. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined
three witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Asha (Widow of deceased in MACP No.
5443/16), PW2 Dharamvir (Father of deceased in MACP No.5443/16), PW 3
Amit Saini(injured as well as eyewitness) and their evidence was closed vide
order dated 23.12.2022. The respondent no. 1 has examined himself as
R1W1 and thereafter RE was closed vide order dated 03.08.2024.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 6 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
9. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR and evidence led by
parties has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon
perused and considered. Arguments addressed by respective counsels heard
and considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable
precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 and 2 ( IN ALL THE CASES)
10. The onus to prove, the aforesaid said issues were placed on the
petitioner(s)/injured. To prove the said issues, petitioner(s) have examined
PW3 Sh. Amit Saini (injured in the accident in question) by way of his
affidavit in evidence Ex. PW3/A. In his evidence, PW3 has deposed on the
lines of averments made in the DAR(s). He has relied upon the following
documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. His pay slip for month of Ex PW3/1
December 2013
2. Copy of his driving license Ex. PW3/2(OSR)
3. His original Medical bills Ex. PW3/3(Colly)
4. DAR Ex. PW1/3
11. In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for driver-cum-owner,
PW3/injured has denied the suggestion that at the time of accident, he and
deceased were drunk. He further denied the suggestion that he and deceased
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 7 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
were not wearing helmets at the time of accident. He volunteered that
deceased Anand was wearing his helmet whereas he was without helmet. He
denied the suggestion that deceased Anand was not wearing helmet at the
time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that the accident had taken
place because deceased Anand was driving the scooter under the influence of
liquor in a zigzag manner or that he had rammed into at the right side of the
offending car. He further denied the suggestion that deceased Anand had so
vigorously hit the offending car that after hitting it, he and deceased fell over
the car first and then on the road. He further denied the suggestion that the
driver of the offending car had not hit the scooter from behind as stated by
him in para no. 4 of his affidavit. He further denied the suggestion that the
accident had not taken place because of rashness and negligence of driver-
cum-owner. He further deposed that the accident had taken place between
12:15 AM to 12:30 AM. He further deposed that at the time of accident
besides them, his brother Naveen was also there at the spot. He deposed that
he did not remember complete name of Naveen as well as of his father. He
volunteered that Naveen and his father were expired.
12. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company,
he deposed that his brother Anand was driving the scooter at the time of
accident and he was sitting as pillion rider on it. He further deposed that they
were returning back after attending marriage party. He denied the suggestion
that he or his brother Anand had consumed liquor in the marriage party or
that they were under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. He further
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 8 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
denied the suggestion that his brother Anand was driving the scooter under
the influence of liquor or in zigzag manner or that accident took place due to
sole negligence on the part of his brother Anand. He further denied the
suggestion that there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of deiver of
Car No. DL8CW-0923 or that no such accident was caused by said car.
13. The careful perusal of testimony of aforesaid witness i.e. PW3
would go to show that the respondents have not been able to impeach his
testimony through litmus test of cross-examination despite the fact that he
was cross-examined at length. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No.
704/13 u/s 279/337 IPC was registered at PS. Prashant Vihar with regard to
accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/3
colly), would show that same was registered on 11.12.2013 i.e. on the date of
accident itself on the statement of complainant Sh. Naveen Kumar. The
presence of said witness at the spot of accident at the time of accident can be
substantiated by seeing the list of witnesses annexed alongwith the
chargesheet filed in the criminal case wherein name of complainant/Sh.
Naveen Kumar is mentioned at S.No. 1. Hence, there is no reason to
disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question
being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving the offending vehicle. The
contents of said FIR would show that the complainant has disclosed therein
the same sequence of facts leading to the accident as deposed by PW3 in his
evidence. Hence, there is no possibility of any false implication of driver of
offending vehicle or false involvement of the said vehicle in this case.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 9 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
Furthermore, said FIR is shown to have been registered on the date of
accident itself i.e. 11.12.2013. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered
promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false
implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of offending vehicle
at the instance of petitioners herein.
14. On the other hand, the respondent no. 1 has examined one
witness i.e., himself as R1W1 during the course of trial. He deposed in his
evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. R1W1/A) that he was neither negligent nor
driving rashly. He further deposed that since both i.e., deceased and injured
were travelling on their two wheeler under the influence of liquor and that
too without wearing the helmets, they themselves were solely negligent for
the occurrence of the alleged accident. He has relied upon copy of his driving
licence Ex. R1W1/1 and copy of insurance policy of his vehicle Ex.
R1W1/2(colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of petitioner no. 1,
he admitted that IO caused his arrest in the present FIR case. He volunteered
that the said case was a false case. He admitted that his vehicle was seized by
the IO during investigation. On being asked by the counsel for the petitioner
no. 1 as to who told him about the consumption of liquor by the deceased and
the injured as stated by him in his affidavit, he deposed that when he came
out from his car after the accident then he found foul smell of liquor from the
mouth of both the riders of scooter i.e., deceased and injured. He denied the
suggestion that deceased and injured had not consumed liquor at the time of
accident. He further deposed that he did not lodge any complaint against the
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 10 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
IO regarding his false implication in the present FIR. He further deposed that
he did not file any protest petition regarding his false implication before the
court of Ld. MM where the trial of present FIR was going on. He further
deposed that he did not file any quashing petition before Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi. He denied the suggestion that accident in question had taken place
due to his rash and negligent driving of his vehicle. He further deposed that
he had not made any complaint regarding scooter driver driving the vehicle in
a drunken condition and in a rash and negligent manner. He denied the
suggestion that he had not made any complaint regarding scooter driver
driving the vehicle in a drunken condition as no such facts ever occurred. He
deposed that he had orally told the IO regarding the same. He further deposed
that he did not remember whether his statement was recorded by the IO. He
denied the suggestion that he did not remember the aforesaid fact as he had
not told any such fact to the IO. He further deposed that he had told the IO
that both deceased and injured were not wearing helmet at the time of
accident. He deposed that he had not given the said fact in writing to the IO.
He further deposed that he had not made any complaint to any authority in
respect of his false implication by the IO as well as complainant in the
present case. He denied the suggestion that both i.e., deceased and Amit were
wearing helmet at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that
the accident took place due to his negligent and rash driving of offending
vehicle.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 11 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
15. Ld. Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the
petitioners had failed to prove negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 in
causing the accident. For this purpose, he has heavily relied upon the
testimony of R1W1 as discussed above. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for
petitioners argued that the testimony of R1W1 should not be believed as he is
an interested witness. He further submitted that FIR was registered against
respondent no. 1. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 has not filed any complaint
before any authority regarding his false implication in the criminal case.
Ld. Counsel for petitioner(s) further argued that accident had taken place due
to sole negligence of respondent no. 1 as he had hit the scooter of victim(s) in
the middle when they had almost crossed their side. He further argued that
the accident could have been avoided had the respondent no. 1 been careful
and vigilant before causing the accident.
16. The petitioner(s) have examined three witnesses, out of whom
PW3 Sh. Amit Saini is the injured/petitioner who has proved the documents
like FIR and Chargesheet filed in the present case to the effect that accident
was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by
respondent no. 1. There was no reason for him to depose falsely against the
respondent no. 1 in this case. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 (R1W1)
admitted that IO caused his arrest in the FIR case. Admittedly, respondent no.
1 was arrested in the criminal case related to the accident in question by the
IO. It is not the case of respondent no. 1 himself that he was not the driver of
the alleged offending vehicle, at the relevant time.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 12 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
17. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence,
material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have
been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Sh.
Sunny Goel has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s.
279/338/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the
conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in
question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
18. Even otherwise, perusal of the mechanical inspection report
dated 14.12.2013 (which is the part of DAR) of the offending vehicle would
show fresh damages i.e. its front bumper and body damaged from right side;
its front number plate was damaged and dislocated (missing); its right side
headlight and fender were damaged; its bonnet and grill were damaged from
right side; its front windscreen glass was broken and its roof front side
portion was damaged. Likewise, copy of mechanical inspection report dated
14.12.2013 (which is also part of DAR) of scooter of victims would show
that its left side body and side corner were damaged; its right side body was
scratched and damaged; its headlight and handle system were damaged; its
front wheel mudguard was bended and its rider seat bracket was damaged
and seat was dislocated. Both these reports would also corroborate the
testimony of PW3 to the effect that their scooter was being hit by the
offending vehicle.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 13 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
19. Copy of MLCs (which are also part of DAR) of deceased as well
as injured filed would show that they both were taken to Dr. BSA Hospital,
Rohini, Delhi with alleged history of RTA on 11.12.2013 at 12:55 AM. They
are shown to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. Not only
this, postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased Monu @
Anand. The copy of PM Report (which is also part of DAR) of deceased,
would show that cause of death of deceased was head injury. All the injuries
were ante-mortem, caused by blunt force/surface impact and may be
sustained in a road traffic accident. The external injuries as mentioned in the
relevant column correspond with the injuries which occur in Motor Vehicular
Accident. Said documents have not been disputed from the side of
respondents.
20. Now, let us discuss on the aspect of contributory negligence
attributable to deceased Anand for the purpose of deciding the issue no. 2.
The insurance company has denied the entitlement of compensation of
petitioner(s) on the ground that they both were under the influence of liquor
at the time of accident and as a result of which, accident had occurred. It is
contended that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of
deceased, adding to persuasive defence that petitioners are disentitle to make
any claim. As regard the other injured Amit Saini who was pillion rider, he
was aware of the risk and danger involve in riding a scooter driven by an
alcoholic driver in violation of traffic rules.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 14 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
21. The law with regard to “contributory negligence” is well settled
now. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as, “2008 (3)
SCC 748”, titled as, “T.O Anthony V/s Karvarnan & Ors.”, has been pleased
to lay down that in case of contributory negligence, injured need not establish
the extent of responsibility of each wrong doer separately, nor is it necessary
for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong doer
separately. It is only in the case of contributory negligence that the injured
himself has contributed by his negligence in the accident. Extent of his
negligence is required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in
respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportion to his contributory
negligence. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
xxxxx
“6. ‘Composite negligence’ refers to the
negligence on the part of two or more persons.
Where a person is injured as a result of
negligence on the part of two or more wrong
doers, it is said that the person was injured on
account of the composite negligence of those
wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer,
is jointly and severally liable to the injured for
payment of the entire damages and the injured
person has the choice of proceeding against all
or any of them. In such a case, the injured need
not establish the extent of responsibility of each
wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for
the court to determine the extent of liability of
each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand
where a person suffers injury, partly due to the
negligence on the part of another person or
persons, and partly as a result of his own
negligence, then the negligence of the part of
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 15 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
the injured which contributed to the accident is
referred to as his contributory negligence.
Where the injured is guilty of some negligence,
his claim for damages is not defeated merely by
reason of the negligence on his part but the
damages recoverable by him in respect of the
injuries stands reduced in proportion to his
contributory negligence.
7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in
an accident, and one of the drivers claims
compensation from the other driver alleging
negligence, and the other driver denies
negligence or claims that the injured claimant
himself was negligent, then it becomes
necessary to consider whether the injured
claimant was negligent and if so, whether he
was solely or partly responsible for the accident
and the extent of his responsibility, that is his
contributory negligence. Therefore, where the
injured is himself partly liable, the principle of
‘composite negligence’ will not apply nor can
there be an automatic inference that the
negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in
this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined
the extent of contributory negligence of the
appellant and thereby avoided confusion
between composite negligence and contributory
negligence. The High Court has failed to correct
the said error.”
xxxxx
22. The decision in T.O. Anthony V/s Karvarnan & Ors. (supra) has
been further discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case reported as,
“[2008 (6) SCC 767], titled as, “Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 16 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
& Anr. V/s K Hemlatha & Ors.”, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has been
pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
To determine the question as to who contributed
to the happening of the accident, it becomes
relevant to ascertain who was driving his
vehicle negligently and rashly and in case both
were so doing who were more responsible for
the accident and who of the two had the last
opportunity to avoid the accident. In case the
damages are to be apportioned, it must also be
found that the plaintiff’s fault was one of the
causes of the damage and once that condition is
fulfilled the damages have to be apportioned
according to the apportioned share of the
responsibility. If the negligence on the
plaintiff’s part has also contributed to damage
this cannot be ignored in assessing the damages.
He can be found guilty of contributory
negligence if he ought to have foreseen that if
he did not act as a reasonable, reasoned man, he
might be hit himself and he must take into
account the possibility of others being careless.
xxxxx
(emphasis supplied)
23. Now, reverting back to the facts of the case in hand. It is evident
that deceased as well as injured were under the influence of liquor at the time
of accident. It is true that the extent of contribution in causing the accident by
any person is not possible to be ascertained. Nevertheless, it has been
established by preponderance of probabilities that the accident was caused
when the offending vehicle i.e., car bearing no. DL8CW-0926 being driven
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 17 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
rashly and negligently by its driver/respondent no. 1, caused to hit against the
scooter driven by deceased Anand with one pillion rider, thereby, causing
them to fall and sustained multiple injuries. Therefore, the respondent no. 1,
being driver of a four wheeler which is a car is expected to be highly vigilant.
It may be noted that there is no iota of evidence brought on record to show
that there was any kind of negligent act on the part of deceased or that the act
of deceased had contributed in the occurrence of accident in any manner.
Rather, it is established on record from the ocular testimonies of PW3 that the
accident in question had occurred due to sole negligence on the part of driver
of offending vehicle. It is relevant to note that PW3 has categorically
deposed that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent
driving of respondent no. 1. Merely because deceased had consumed the
liquor at the time of accident, would not be sufficient to deduct any amount
on account of contributory negligence on his part. It is pertinent to mention
here that as per the mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle, fresh
damages were found at the front portion(right side) of the offending vehicle
and at the middle portion of the scooter of victims, which clearly shows that
scooter of victim had almost crossed their side when it was hit by the driver
of offending vehicle. Even the damages caused to the offending vehicle
speaks loudly that it was being driven by respondent no. 1 at a very high
speed at the time of accident, due to which the driver lost control over his
vehicle and could not see the scooter passing through his way and hit the
same from the back. It is the contention of respondent no. 2 that accident took
place as both the victims/deceased were under the influence of alcohol. No
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 18 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
evidence as such has been brought on record to show that the manner of
accident shows the negligence of victim/deceased. However, as per the FSL
report, deceased and injured were under the influence of alcohol to the extent
of 34.6 mg/100 ml & 62.5 mg/100 ml which was beyond the permissible
limit of 30 mg/100 ml. The respondent have failed to bring on record any
evidence to show that intake of alcohol by the deceased contributed to the
happening of accident in any manner.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion on the point of contributory
negligence on the part of deceased, I am not inclined to deduct any amount
on account of contributory negligence on the part of deceased and injured as
respondents have failed to prove that they had contributed in any manner in
the accident. Rather the site plan, investigation by IO and mechanical
inspection report shows that their vehicle had almost crossed the side of the
road when they were hit by the car of respondent no. 1.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has
come on record, it is held that the petitioner(s) have been able to prove on the
basis of preponderence of probabilities that Anand had sustained fatal
injuries, whereas petitioner Amit Saini had sustained grievous injuries in the
road accident which took place on 11.12.2013 at about 12:35 am, near
Prashant Vihar, Sector 13 & 9, Bharat Chowk, Rohini, Delhi, due to rash and
negligent driving on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Thus, issue no. 1
& 2 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in both the
cases.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 19 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
ISSUE NO.3
26. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the
Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” in fatal case has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in
Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: –
“The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, “MV Act“) gives paramount importance to the
concept of ‘just and fair’ compensation. It is a
beneficial legislation which has been framed with the
object of providing relief to the victims or their
families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the
concept of ‘just compensation’ which ought to be
determined on the foundation of fairness,
reasonableness and equitability. Although such
determination can never be arithmetically exact or
perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to
award just and fair compensation irrespective of the
amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma &
Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, this
Court has laid down as under:
“16.”Just compensation” is adequate compensation
which is fair and equitable, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, to make good the loss
suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can
do so, by applying the well settled principles relating
to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit.”
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 20 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
27. It has been duly established as per findings of issue no.1 & 2
that deceased Anand and injured Amit Saini sustained fatal and grievous
injuries respectively on 11.12.2013 at about 12:35 am, near Prashant Vihar,
Sector 13 & 9, Bharat Chowk, Rohini, Delhi, due to rash and negligent
driving of the respondent no. 1/driver. Accordingly, claimant(s) are entitled
for just and fair compensation in the present case.
28. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant
equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and
dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards
and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation” (2009)
6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges in
Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held
as under:
“16. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair
and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to
make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as
money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating
to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza,
largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective.
Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment,
consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and
uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions.
While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or
identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar
facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the
factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles areAsha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 21 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and
freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just
compensation…”
29. These guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental
Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been
held:-
“10. The possession of one’s own body is the first and most
valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for
bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind.
Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity
of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with
human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and
Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award
damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard
must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well
as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages
awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not
token damages…..”
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment
of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should
award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same
position as he would have been in the same position as he
would have been in if he had not sustained injuries”.
30. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should
be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be
niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K.
Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has
also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 22 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and
adequate compensation to the victims of road accident is to be derived after
assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter,
assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the
present case.
COMPENSATION IN CASE MACP NO. 5443/16)
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY(DECEASED ANAND)
31. The claimants/petitioners are the widow, minor daughter and
parents of deceased. The petitioners have examined PW1 Smt. Asha (widow
of deceased) and PW2 Sh. Dharambir (father of deceased) under this head by
way of their respective affidavits Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW2/X. PW1 has
deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that deceased was 31
years of age; he was running a dairy and was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month
at the time of accident. She further deposed that all the petitioners were
dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. She further deposed that
deceased was the only bread earner in their family.
32. During cross-examination of PW1 (widow of deceased) on
behalf of driver-cum-owner, she admitted that she had remarried with Sh.
Deepak on 17.04.2016. She deposed that her matrimonial house was situated
in Village Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana and he was residing at
her matrimonial house. She admitted that one child was born from her
wedlock with Sh. Deepak and petitioner no. 2 was born from her wedlock
with deceased. She deposed that deceased Anand @ Monu was running milk
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 23 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
dairy at Gogha, however, there was no name under which he was running the
said dairy. She deposed that she had not brought any document to show that
deceased was running his dairy in Gogha. She denied the suggestion that
deceased was not running any milk dairy. She deposed that she can not
produce any document to show that deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- per
month as claimed in para 2 of the affidavit Ex. PW1/A. She denied the
suggestion that deceased was not earning Rs. 25,000/- per month as claimed
in para 2 of the affidavit Ex. PW1/A. She further denied the suggestion that
she had not brought any document since deceased was not running any such
milk dairy at the time of accident. During her cross-examination on behalf of
insurance company, she deposed that deceased had studied upto 10 th class,
however, she had not filed any document in this regard. She deposed that her
father in law was aged about 50 years at the time of accident. She further
deposed that father of deceased was running milk dairy alongwith deceased.
She denied the suggestion that father of deceased alone was running the milk
dairy at the time of accident. She deposed that it is not within her knowledge
if deceased was filing any income tax return during his life time or not and
she can not produce any document in this regard. She deposed that parents of
deceased were residing with them together at Village Naharpur at the time of
accident.
33. PW2 has also deposed on the similar lines of PW1. During his
cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was
not doing any job at that time. He further deposed that for last 4-5 years, he
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 24 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
had left his work/job. He further deposed that he did not have any document
to show that deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. He further
deposed that from the last 14 years, his son was running dairy at Goga Dairy
Farm at 104, I Block, Goga, near Bawana, Delhi. He further deposed that
there were 12-13 buffaloes when deceased was running the dairy farm. He
further deposed that on that day, he was having 4-5 buffaloes only. He further
deposed that the dairy was being run sometimes by him and sometimes by his
nephew. He denied the suggestion that deceased was not earning Rs. 25,000/-
per month. During his cross-examination on behalf of driver-cum-owner, he
deposed that he had not filed any document showing the actual age of
deceased as on the date of accident. He denied the suggestion that deceased
was not aged 31 years at the time of accident or that his age was more than
40 years at that time. He deposed that deceased Anand @ Monu was running
a dairy. He denied the suggestion that deceased was not running any Dairy
business or that he had not filed any document in this regard. He admitted
that the allotment letter dated 23.05.2025 Ex. PW2/A was issued in his name
and it did not bear the name of deceased. He further deposed that he could
not produce any documentary proof to show that deceased was earning
Rs. 25,000/- per month at the time of accident in question. He denied the
suggestion that deceased was not working at all at the time of accident or that
he was totally dependent upon him. He deposed that he was assisting
deceased in running dairy business prior to the accident but due to ill health,
he was not regular in doing the said business. He denied the suggestion that
he himself alone was running dairy business at the time of accident or that
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 25 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
deceased was not running any such dairy business at all.
34. Ld. Counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that salary of
deceased should be considered as Rs. 25,000/- per month. He further argued
that since deceased was not having permanent job and he was aged about 31
years at the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% should also be awarded
in favour of the petitioners.
35. As already noted above, PW1 Smt. Asha, who is widow of
deceased deposed in her evidence that deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- per
month at the time of accident. Apart from the bald statement made by PW1
that deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, no definite evidence
whatsoever has been brought on record to prove the monthly income of
deceased at the time of accident in question. Petitioners have also failed to
file any educational qualification documents of deceased.
36. It is seen that the petitioners are not having any proof regarding
income of deceased nor having any qualification documents, either
educational or vocational, of deceased. Thus, in the absence of any relevant
document in respect of working and earning of deceased, I am of the view
that income of deceased should be assessed as per the minimum wages of an
unskilled person, applicable in the State of Delhi as on the date of accident.
The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs. 8,086/- per month as on
the date of accident which is 11.12.2013.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 26 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
37. The petitioners have claimed that deceased was aged about 31
years as on the date of accident. In order to consider the age of deceased, the
relevant document is copy of his driving licence (which is part of DAR)
wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 22.10.1982. This document has not
been disproved by the respondents. Therefore, it stands proved that date of
birth of deceased is 22.10.1982 and thus, he was aged about 31 years as on
the date of accident i.e. 11.12.2013. Hence, the multiplier of 16 would be
applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex
Court in the case titled as “Sarla Verma Vs. DTC” 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
38. Considering the age of deceased, future prospects @ 40% has to
be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by
Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as “National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided
on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as “Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors“, decided on 02.11.17.
39. In the peculiar facts of the case, the widow of deceased
remarried after lapse of more than 2 years from the death of the deceased. It
is relevant to mention here that PW1/widow of deceased during her cross-
examination has admitted that she had remarried on 17.04.2016. It is relevant
to mention here that petitioner no. 1/widow of deceased was living separately
in her matrimonial home after her second marriage. It is also relevant to
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 27 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
mention here that admittedly, petitioner no.2 who is minor daughter of
deceased is residing with her grandparents i.e., parents of deceased after the
marriage of petitioner no.1.
40. As regards the dependency rights of a widow re-marrying are
concerned, the settled position of law is that after the death of her husband, if
the widow re-marries, there is no hindrance for the Tribunal to give the
dependent widow, as on the date of accident, such share in the Award, which
is her due by treating her as one of the entitled claimants. It is well-settled
that the fact of re-marriage is not considered as a ground to deny, refuse or
even reduce the Award of compensation. Our own Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the case of “Dincy Devassy Vs. United India Insurance Co. & Ors.”,
MAC. APP. 26/19, decided on 12.12.2019, has been pleased to lay down the
guiding principles in case of remarriage of a dependent widow for the
purpose of a MACT case, wherein it has been held as under: –
“Para-3 The calculation of loss of dependency was
on the basis of her dependency on her deceased
husband; her loss is equal to the loss of
dependency suffered by her parents-in-law. Her
decision to re-marry was entirely her personal
choice,over which nobody can have any say. Her
right to claim compensation crystallized upon her
husband‟s life being tragically snatched away in
the motor accident. Therefore, simply because she
has now re-married, her claim does not abate or
lessen. Who can judge whether the second
marriage was not a compromise because of her
personal circumstances and whether it would have
the same value emotionally and psychologically as
the first marriage. Her entitlement fructified when
the dependency was calculated. Therefore, as anAsha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 28 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025aggrieved widow, she would be entitled to a share
of compensation apropos ‘loss of dependency’ of
equal amount of her parents-in-law, who had lost
their son….”
41. The present case is well guided by the pronouncement of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Dincy Devassy case (Supra). There is no bar
under M.V Act against a widow from claiming compensation on account of
her re-marriage. After the death of her husband, the widow continues to
represent his estate, irrespective of her re-marriage, because she inherits part
of the estate of her deceased husband. Motor Vehicle Act is a socio-welfare
legislation and therefore, it is to be interpreted so as to fulfill its objective
with which it was enacted. In the present case, widow of the deceased is the
sole testifying witness for the purposes of proving the dependency upon the
deceased for herself as well as other dependent claimants, who is mother and
minor daughter of deceased. It is worth mentioning that although
PW1/widow of deceased has remarried after the death of deceased but still
she shall be entitled for compensation in the present case. The collective
facts truly demonstrates the circumstances in which the widow of the
deceased may have decided to remarry and the said fact shall not preclude
her from inheriting the estate of her first husband, as she would have been
entitled on the date of accident.
42. The learned counsel for the insurance company further made a
strong pitch that father of deceased was not dependent upon the deceased as
he was running a Milk Dairy at the time of accident and as such he is not
entitled to any compensation. As regards the dependency of father of
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 29 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
deceased upon deceased, it is noted that in “Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. V/s Nanu Ram”, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
reaffirmed the rights of parents to compensation in case of accidental death of
a child. Furthermore, in case reported as, “(2021) 276 DLT 415”, titled as,
“Indrawati V/s Ranvir Singh”, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has been
pleased to hold as under:
xxxxx
12. This Court is of the view that the parents of the
deceased are considered in law as dependent on their
children, considering that the children are bound to
support their parents in their old age, when the parents
would be unable to maintain themselves and the law
imposes a responsibility on the children to maintain their
parents. Even if the parents are not dependent on their
children at the time of the accident, they will certainly
be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon
their children at the later stage of their life, as the
children were dependent upon their parents in their
initial years. It would therefore be unfair as well as
inequitable to deny compensation for loss of dependency
to a parent, who may not be dependent on his/her child
at the time of accident per se but would become
dependent at his/her later age.
xxxxx
43. The contention of learned counsel for the insurance company to
the effect that father of deceased should not be considered as dependent of
deceased, stands rejected.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 30 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
44. In view of the aforesaid and considering all the facts and
circumstances, it is held that there were four dependents i.e. widow, one
minor daughter and parents of deceased at the time of accident. Hence, there
has to be deduction of one fourth as held in the case of Sarla Verma
mentioned supra. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to
Rs. 16,30,137.60p (Rs. 8,086/- X 3/4 X 140/100 X 12 X 16). Hence, a sum
of Rs. 16,30,137.60p is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
45. PW1 has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.
PW1/A) that after the accident, deceased was immediately taken to BSA
Hospital and thereafter, he was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where initial
treatment was given to him but on 18.12.2013, he had expired. She further
deposed that during treatment period, petitioners had spent huge amount on
the treatment of deceased. She has relied upon final medical bill dated
18.12.2013 as Ex. PW1/4(colly). During her cross-examination by Ld.
Counsel for insurance company, she denied the suggestion that bill Ex.
PW1/4 filed alongwith DAR were forged and fabricated.
46. It is relevant to note that petitioners have relied upon bills to the
tune of Rs. 2,39,830/- which are Ex. PW1/4(colly). It is quite evident that the
respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said
medical bills during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 31 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2,39,830/- is awarded to the petitioner under this
head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
47. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that all the
petitioners are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards “loss of
consortium”. By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be
an increase of 10% on account of ‘inflation’ after a period of three years.
Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR‘s of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP.
518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to
direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though,
the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of
2013. Accordingly, all the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/-
each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) each
towards “loss of consortium”.[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two
escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present
matter is 11.12.2013]
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
48. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in
view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 32 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
which has been re-enforced in LR’s of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal
considers that all the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/-
(Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of
“loss of estate” and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of
Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards “funeral expenses”. [As per the
judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since
the date of accident in the present matter is 11.12.2013]
49. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the
compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 16,30,137.60p
2. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,39,830/-
3. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,93,600/-
4. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses
Total Rs. 20,99,867.6p
Rounded off to Rs. 21,00,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 5445/16 (Injured Amit)
MEDICAL EXPENSES
50. Petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.
PW3/A) that after the accident, he was taken to Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini,
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 33 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
Delhi, where he was medically examined. He further deposed that he
remained under treatment at Jaipur Golden Hospital w.e.f., 11.12.2013 till
01.01.2014. He further deposed that he had spent more than Rs. 4,81,000/- on
his treatment. For this, he has relied upon medical bills Ex. PW3/3(Colly).
During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed
that he did not receive any amount under ESI for the injuries sustained by
him in the accident. He denied the suggestion that he had not incurred Rs.
4,81,000/- on his medical treatment or that medical bills Ex. PW3/3(colly)
were forged and fabricated.
51. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical
bills (Ex. PW3/3 colly) to the tune of Rs. 5,33,722.18p. It is quite evident that
the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the
said medical bills during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any
evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 5,33,722.18p is awarded to the petitioner under
this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
52. The petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex. PW3/A that he was working in Super Pharmaceuticals, Mangol Puri
Industrial Area and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/- besides this,
he was also taking Rs. 250/- per day as conveyance charges and thus, his total
income was Rs. 17,500/- per month. He has relied upon copy of salary slip
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 34 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
Ex. PW3/1. He further deposed that he had suffered financial loss due to the
injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. During his cross-
examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was
working in Super Pharmaceuticals since the year 2007/2008 or so. He further
deposed that no appointment letter was issued to him at the time of his
appointment. He further deposed that his salary used to be paid in cash. He
further deposed that he was not working with the aforesaid firm after the
accident. He further deposed that except pay slip Ex. PW3/1, he can not
produce any documentary proof to show that he was working in Super
Pharmaceuticals or that he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/- at the
time of accident. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW3/1 was forged and
fabricated or that he was not working for gain or that he was not earning
anything at the time of accident.
53. The document (which is part of Ex. PW3/3 colly) of Jaipur
Golden Hospital, in respect of petitioner/injured would reveal that he was
admitted in the said hospital on the date of accident i.e., 11.12.2013 and was
discharged on 02.01.2014. As per discharge summary of Jaipur Golden
Hospital, petitioner was found to have suffered head injury with fracture shaft
left femur lower 1/3rd. Apart from the aforesaid documents, petitioner has
failed to file any treatment record.
54. In the absence of any definite evidence being brought on record
showing the actual period till which the petitioner had received medical
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 35 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to accident in question, it
would necessarily involve some guess work on the part of Tribunal in
assessing the loss of income. It is reasonable to consider that the petitioner
would have been precluded to resume his necessary activities of daily life for
a period of 4 months which includes period of recovery also.
55. It may be noted here that no definite evidence whatsoever has
been brought on record to prove monthly income of injured/petitioner at the
time of accident in question. However, the petitioner has relied upon copy of
his salary slip for the month of December, 2013 wherein his basic was found
to be mentioned as Rs. 10,000/-. No evidence to the contrary has been
adduced by insurance company to disprove the said fact. In view of the
document produced by petitioner, I deem it fit to accept the monthly salary
of petitioner as Rs. 10,000/- per month as on the date of accident. Thus, a
sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- x 4) is awarded in favour of petitioner
under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
56. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non-
pecuniary heads, reliance is placed upon ruling of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the matter titled as ” Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors.” passed
in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, wherein it
has been held as under:-
“15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed
on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to
case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the
petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, heAsha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 36 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the
said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of
anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without
movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In
order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am
guided by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of
decision: 2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-“On account of
pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is
difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money
value, However, compensation which has to be paid must
bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment.”
57. As already considered, the petitioner required treatment for
some time from the date of accident and remained incapacitated to resume his
work of earnings for at least a period of 4 months owing to grievous injuries
suffered in the road traffic accident. Thus, he would have undergone great
physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the
accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the
petitioner, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is considered reasonable towards pain &
sufferings.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
58. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on
record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries i.e., head
injury in the accident. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 37 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
of life after the accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely
affected. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by him, I award a notional
sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life
to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
59. Ld. Counsel for petitioner/injured argued that petitioner had
spent considerable amount on conveyance, special diet and attendant charges.
However, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of
amount incurred by him under the aforesaid heads. At the same time, it
cannot be overlooked that he had sustained grievous injuries in the accident
in question. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his
speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards
conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD
patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical
treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either
outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while
visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts
and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 10,000/- for
conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each for special diet and
attendant charges to the petitioner.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 38 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 5,33,722.18
2. Loss of income Rs. 40,000/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 40,000/-
enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 40,000/-
attendant charges
Total Rs. 7,03,722.18
Rounded off to Rs. 7,04,000/-
60. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which
of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no.
3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence as it had no statutory
defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or
condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in
view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 2/insurance
company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance
company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided
accordingly.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 39 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
61. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, following order is
passed after relying upon judgment “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby
Raksha & Ors.”, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 on 21.04.2023, on the point of
interest.
a) A sum of Rs. 21,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty One Lakh only)
(including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 5443/16
alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the
respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 03.04.2014 (except for the
period of delay w.e.f., 23.09.2022 till 23.12.2022) till the date of its
realization.
b) A sum of Rs. 7,04,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs and Sixty Four
Thousand only) in MAC Petition No. 5445/16 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per
annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing
of the petition i.e. 03.04.2014(except for the period of delay w.e.f.,
23.09.2022 till 23.12.2022) till the date of its realization.
Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
62. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were
recorded on 04.10.2024. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that out of total
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 40 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 5443/16, the petitioner no. 1 Smt.
Asha (Widow of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no.
2 Jannvi (Daughter of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs.
15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate interest,
the petitioner no. 3 Smt. Santra Devi (Mother of deceased) shall be entitled to
share amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) alongwith
proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 4 Sh. Dharmveer Saini (Father of
deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate interest
63. In MACP No. 5443/16, it is directed that entire respective share
amounts of petitioner no. 1, 3 & 4 be immediately released to them in their
respective saving bank accounts, as per rules.
64. In MACP No. 5443/16, the entire share amount of
Rs. 15,00,000/- alongwith proportionate interest of petitioner no. 2/minor
daughter of deceased be kept in FDRs for the period till she attains the age of
majority. However, the said petitioner is at liberty to withdraw her monthly
interest in order to meet her educational expenses through her natural
guardian.
65. In MACP No. 5445/16, the entire award amount (Since an
amount of Rs. 5,33,722.18 has already been spent by the petitioner on his
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 41 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
medical treatment) alongwith interest shall be immediately released to
petitioner through his bank account on completing necessary formalities, as
per rules.
66. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be
subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings
bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings
bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank
account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of
maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS)
in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their
residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near
the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on
the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit
card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have
already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of
the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the
claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the
claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 42 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been
issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and
claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement
before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the
duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the
claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity
(Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of
Hon’ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs.
Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and
form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD)
Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to
disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit
(MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide
order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
67. Respondent no. 2/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 43 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
amount in the bank accounts of the claimants [ A/c No. 43402500757 with
SBI, Rohini District Court Branch, Delhi, having IFSC Code SBIN0010323
of petitioner no. 1] [A/c No. 33955400894 with SBI, Rohini Court Branch,
Delhi, having IFSC Code SBIN0010323 of petitioner no. 2] [A/c No.
33954721900 with SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi, having IFSC Code
SBIN0010323 of petitioner no. 3] and [A/c No. 43410571015 with SBI,
Rohini Court Branch, Delhi, having IFSC Code SBIN0010323 of petitioner
no. 4] and [A/c No. 43466584350 with SBI, Naharpur, Delhi, having IFSC
Code SBIN0021223 of petitioner Amit Saini in MACP No. 5445/16] within
30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable
to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay in terms of directions passed
by Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled “Parminder Singh Vs.
Honey Goyal & Ors.”, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020, DOD:18.03.2025.
68. Concerned Manager of petitioners bank is directed to release the
amount to the petitioners as aforesaid, on completing necessary formalities as
per rules. He is further directed to keep the remaining amount in fixed
deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and send compliance report to
this Court. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to
counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioners are also
directed to provide copy of this award to their bank Manager for compliance.
Form XV, XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as
Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 44 of 45
MACP Nos. 5443/16 & 5445/16; FIR No.704/13; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 09.05.2025
as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be placed on
the judicial record of MAC Petition No. 5445/16, as per the rules.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA MANCHANDA
Announced in the open MANCHANDA Date:
2025.05.09
Court on 09.05.2025 15:37:31 +0545
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Asha & Ors. & Amit Vs. Sunny Goel & Ors. Page 45 of 45
[ad_2]
Source link