Delhi District Court
Sunita Kumari vs Mohd Islam Etc on 29 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAYURI SINGH
P.O : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
In the matters of :
CNR No.: DLET01-009249-2019
MACP No. 852/2019
Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Ors.
In the matter of :
1. Sunita Kumari (Legal Representative of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Rahul Prasad Yadav.
2. Tushar Yadav (Legal Representative of deceased)
S/o Late. Sh. Rahul Prasad Yadav
3. Ansh (Legal Representative of deceased)
S/o Late. Sh. Rahul Prasad Yadav
4. Riya (Legal Representative of deceased)
D/o Late. Sh. Rahul Prasad Yadav
5. Ram Sunder Yadav (Legal Representative of deceased)
S/o Shri Dev Narayan Yadav
6. Chandrawati Devi (Legal Representative of deceased)
W/o Sh. Ram Sunder Yadav
All resident of Jhuggi No.88, Guldhar
Near Guldhar Railway Station,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
......... Petitioners
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 1 of 46
Versus
1. Mohd. Islam (Driver / Owner)
S/o Mohd. Umar
R/o - Flat No. 35, Sanjay Enclave, Jahangir Puri,
Shanjarpur, N.S. Mandi, Delhi - 110033
2. Reliance General Insurance Com. Ltd. (Insurer)
Thapar House, 4th Floor, 163, S.P. Mukherjee Road,
Kolkata, West Bengal.
3. Suresh Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Shish Ram
R/o H.No.32, Hanuman Puri,
Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
4. Shanti Devi (Owner)
W/o Purshottam Lal,
R/o 3rd / M-36, Nehru Nagar - II, Ghaziabad, U.P. - 201002
5. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Core - 1, 10th Floor, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110092.
........Respondents
AND
MACP No. 192/20
CNR No. DLET01-005967-20
Soni
D/o Mohd. Islam
R/o Flat No.35, Sanjay Enclave, Jahangirpuri,
N.S. Mandi, North – West, Delhi – 110033.
……Petitioner
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 2 of 46
Versus
1. Suresh Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Shish Ram
R/o H.No. 32, Hanumanpuri,
Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Shanti Devi (Owner)
W/o Sh. Purshottam Lal
R/o 3rd / M- 36, Nehru Nagar – II,
Ghaziabad, U.P. – 201002.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Core – I, 10th Floor, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092.
………………Respondents
AND
MACP No. 193/20
CNR No. DLET01-005968-20
Smt. Iqbal Jahan
W/o Mohd. Islam
R/o Flat No.35, Opp. G.T.K. Depot,
Sanjay Enclave, Jahangirpuri,
N.S. Mandi, North – West, Delhi – 110033.
……Petitioner
Versus
1. Suresh Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Shish Ram
R/o H.No. 32, Hanumanpuri,
Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Shanti Devi (Owner)
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 3 of 46
W/o Sh. Purshottam Lal
R/o 3rd / M- 36, Nehru Nagar – II,
Ghaziabad, U.P. – 201002.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer of Driver)
Core – I, 10th Floor, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092.
………………Respondents
AND
MACP No. 194/20
CNR No. DLET01-005969-20
Mohd. Islam
S/o Mohd. Umar
R/o Flat No.35, Sanjay Enclave, Jahangirpuri,
N.S. Mandi, North – West, Delhi – 110033.
……Petitioner
Versus
1. Suresh Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Shish Ram
R/o H.No. 32, Hanumanpuri,
Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Shanti Devi (Owner)
W/o Sh. Purshottam Lal
R/o 3rd / M- 36, Nehru Nagar – II,
Ghaziabad, U.P. – 201002.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer of Driver)
Core – I, 10th Floor, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092.
………………Respondents
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 4 of 46
Date of Institution : 23.10.2019 (MACP No. 852/19
04.11.2020 (MACP No. 192/20,
193/20 & 194/20
Date of Reserving : Not reserved
Date of Judgment : 29.03.2025
AWARD
1. By this common award, all the four claim petitions, as filed by
LRs of the deceased injured Late Sh. Rahul Prasad Yadav and other
injured persons namely Soni, Islam & Iqbal Jahan and arising out of
same accident, filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
would be decided.
2. As per the facts in the FIR registered on the complaint of
Ram Sunder Yadav @ R.S. Yadav (P5 in this case), on 07.06.2019,
deceased Rahul Prasad yadav was going on his motor-cycle bearing
registration No. UP-14PQ-0766 from Ghaziabad to Guldhar and at about
8:00 pm, when he reached at Honda cut u turn, a Honda city car coming
from Meerut side and being driven at very fast speed and negligent
manner, hit the deceased and dragged on the wrong side, resulting in
Rahul Prasad Yadav coming under the Truck and having been crushed
under the Truck and Rahul died due to injury sustained after having been
crushed under the truck.
3. Important facts of the case as per the claim petition in MACP
No.852/2019 are that on 07.06.2019 at about 08:00 pm, the deceased
Rahul Prasad Yadav was going to Guldhar from Ghaziabad, U.P. on his
motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 14 PQ 0766 while driving with
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 5 of 46
due precaution and care and when he reached Honda Cut, U-turn, Meerut
Road, P.S. Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, U.P., at the same time the driver of
the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL 3C AK 4757, who was
coming from Meerut side, hit the deceased motorcycle with great force
and dragged him into wrong side. At the same time, the driver of the
offending vehicle No. UP 14 CT 5125 (truck) came from Ghaziabad side
while driving in a rash and negligent manner and crushed the deceased
with his vehicle. The drivers of the above-mentioned vehicles were
driving the above-mentioned vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and
at a very high speed as a result of this, deceased was crushed and
sustained multiple injuries on his head and various other injuries all over
his body and died on the spot.
4. As per the facts in the other claim petitions bearing MACP
No. 192/20, 193/20 & 194/20, the petitioners namely Soni, Mohd. Islam
and Smt Iqbal Jahan were going from Meerut to Delhi in their Honda
City car bearing no. DL 3C AK 4757 and the car was being driven by
petitioner Mohd. Islam. When the car reached at Honda cut u turn,
Ghaziabad, U.P. at about 8 pm, the truck bearing No. UP-14CT-5125
came at a very high speed, being driven by R-1 in a rash and negligent
manner and at first it hit the motor-cycle rider of victim motor-cycle no.
UP-14PQ-0766 and thereafter, the offending truck hit the car of the
petitioner, resulting in sustaining of injuries by all three occupants.
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 6 of 46
5. On notice of the petition, all the respondents have marked
their appearance and filed their separate written statements in MACP No.
852/19.
6. Respondent No.1/Driver of the alleged offending vehicle
namely Mohd. Islam (petitioner in claim petition No. 194/20) has filed
his reply and stated in MACP No.852/2019 that petitioner is not entitled
for any compensation from the respondent as his vehicle was not
responsible for the accident and accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle No. UP 14 CT 5125 (truck) by respondent
No. 3/ Suresh Kumar. The facts of the claim petition are denied.
7. Respondent No.2/Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
has filed written statement in MACP No.852/2019 and stated that there is
no cause of action against R-2 and liability is denied. FIR was lodged
with delay of 6 days and the alleged offending car was not involved in
the accident. The accident, if any took place due to rash and negligent on
the part of the deceased motor-cycle and offending truck. The claim
against owner, driver and insurer is not maintainable. The insurance
policy of the car was valid from 06.06.2019 to 05.06.2020. Other general
defences have been taken by R2. An amended WS was sought to be filed
on behalf of R-2 with application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC which was
dismissed and amended WS was not taken on record.
8. Respondent No.3/Driver of the alleged offending truck
namely Suresh Kumar has filed his reply and stated in MACP
No.852/2019 that on 07.06.2019, he was driving the truck in its lane at
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 7 of 46
controlled speed and Honda City car coming from Meerut side, hit the
victim motor-cycle No. UP 14 PQ 0766 with great force and dragged him
into wrong side in front of vehicle No. UP 14 CT 5125 and collided with
the truck. Respondent No. 3 has stated that he was not driving his vehicle
in a rash and negligent manner or at a very high speed. It is further
submitted that at the time of accident, the alleged offending truck was
insured.
9. Respondent No.4/Owner of the alleged offending truck
namely Shanti Devi has filed her reply and stated in MACP No.852/2019
that petitioner is not entitled for any compensation from the respondent
as vehicle bearing No. DL 3C AK 4757 which was coming from Meerut
side hit the motorcycle No. UP 14 PQ 0766 with great force and dragged
him into wrong side in front of vehicle No. UP 14 CT 5125 and collided
with the truck. Respondent No. 4 has stated that respondent no. 3 was not
driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or at a very high
speed. It is further submitted that at the time of accident, the vehicle was
insured.
10. Respondent No.5/The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed
written statement in MACP No.852/2019 and stated that the petition
should be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and has further
stated that the R5 was not informed regarding the accident by either
driver of the alleged offending vehicle or by the insurer. It is further
submitted by Ld. Counsel for R5 that the offending vehicle was duly
insured with the insurance company on the date of accident.
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 8 of 46
11. In the claim petitions No. 192/20, 193/20 & 194/20, all of the
respondents i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of the offending
truck put in appearance and filed separate written statements. Written
Statements filed by R-1 to R-3 in all three claim cases are the same.
12. Respondent No.1/Suresh Kumar, driver of the alleged
offending truck, has filed same reply in above three claim petitions and
stated that claim petitions are not maintainable as one cannot advantage
of his wrong and negligence. It is further stated that accident took place
due to rash and negligent driving of car by one of the petitioners namely
Islam and while driving his Honda City car, he collided with the victim
motor-cycle at Honda cut U turn, Ghaziabad and collision was with great
such force that car dragged the motor-cycle to wrong side, from where
truck bearing No. UP-14CT-5125 was coming with a controlled speed
but the truck driver could not stop /apply brakes immediately due to
sudden and wrong side intusion of motor-cycle due to being dragged by
Honda city car in front of running truck. Thus, inadvertently the bike
driver sustained multiple injuries and petitioner Islam ran away from the
spot. The accident took place at Honda cut U turn, Meerut Road,
Ghaziabad from where Jahangir puri, Delhi is not far, while the petitioner
went to Meerut for admission in Hospital for alleged injuries suffered in
the accident. In the entire claim petition, the nature of injury is not
explained. It is stated that due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner
Islam, his car collided with the victim motor-cycle and dragged it to
wrong side, in front of vehicle No. UP 14 CT 5125 and inadvertently
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 9 of 46
bike driver sustained multiple injuries. The offending truck was insured.
Respondent No. 2 has stated that truck bearing No. UP-14CT-5125 is
fully insured and the respondent No. 1 had valid licence at the time of
inadvertent mishappening.
13. Respondent No.2/Shanti Devi, registered owner of the alleged
offending truck has filed same reply in above three claim petitions and
stated that claim petitions are not maintainable as one cannot advantage
of his wrong and negligence. It is further stated that accident took place
due to rash and negligent driving of one of the petitioners namely Islam
and while driving his Honda City car, he collided with the victim motor-
cycle at Honda cut U turn, Ghaziabad and collision was with such great
force that car dragged the motor-cycle to wrong side, from where truck
bearing No. UP-14CT-5125 was coming at a controlled speed but the
truck driver could not stop /apply brakes immediately due to sudden and
wrong side intrusion of motor-cycle, due to being dragged by Honda city
car in front of running truck. Thus, inadvertently the bike driver sustained
multiple injuries and petitioner Islam run away from the spot. The
accident took place at Honda cut U turn, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad from
where Jahangir puri, Delhi is not far, while the petitioner went to Meerut
for admission in Hospital for alleged injuries suffered in the accident. In
the entire claim petition, the nature of injury is not explained. It is stated
that due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner Islam, his car collided
with the victim motor-cycle and dragged it to wrong side, in front of
vehicle No. UP 14 CT 5125 and inadvertently bike driver sustained
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 10 of 46
multiple injuries. The offending truck was insured. Respondent No. 2 has
stated that truck bearing No. UP-14CT-5125 is fully insured and the
respondent No. 1 had valid licence at the time of inadvertent
mishappening.
14. Respondent No.3/The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed
written statement in reply to the claim petition No. 192/20 & 193/20 and
stated that the driver of the alleged victim vehicle i.e. Honda City car
namely, Islam is charge-sheeted driver in the criminal case bearing FIR
No. 934/19. The accident occurred due to sole negligence of Islam who is
impleaded as respondents in the above two claim petitions. Petitioners
were co-passengers and respectively wife and daughter of Islam.
Petitioner did not implead the driver/ owner of the vehicle bearing No.
DL-3CAK-4757 as respondent in the present case. It is further stated that
the claim petitions bearing No. 192/20 and 193/20 are not maintainable
as petitioner namely Soni and Iqbal Jahan are the gratuitous passengers
of vehicle bearing No. DL-3CAK-4757. In the written Statement filed
behalf of R-3 in claim petition bearing MACP No. 194/20, it is stated that
the claim petition may be rejected with heavy cost as accident occurred
due to negligence of Islam himself and he is not a third party. He is
charge-sheeted in the FIR case.
15. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed on
10.02.2013 :-
In MACP No. 852/19
i). Whether Rahul Prasad Yadav, husband of Petitioner No.1, father
of Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and son of Petitioner Nos. 5 & 6, died in a
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 11 of 46
motor vehicular accident which happened on 07.06.2019 at about
08:00 P.M., at Honda cut U Turn, Meerut Road, Sihani Gate,
Ghaziabad, U.P., within the jurisdiction of PS- Sihani Gate, due to
rash and negligent driving of Car (Honda City) bearing
Registration No. DL-3CAK-4757 driven by the respondent No.
1/Md. Islam and truck bearing Registration No. UP-14CT-5125
driven by Respondent No.3/Suresh Kumar? (OPP)
ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation on
account of said death and if yes, to what extent and from whom ?
(OPP)
iii). Relief.
In MACP No. 192/20
i) Whether the petitioner Soni suffered grievous injuries in a
motor vehicular accident that happened on 07.06.2019 at
about 08:00 P.M., at Honda cut U Turn, Ghaziabad-
Meerut Road, District- Ghaziabad, U.P., withing
jurisdiction of PS- Sihani Gate, due to rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing
Registration No. UP-14CT-5125 (TRUCK) being
driven by the respondent No. 1/Suresh Kumar? (OPP)
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on
account of said injuries and if yes, to what extent and from
whom ?(OPP)
iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award
amount, if so, at what rate and for which period?
iv) Relief.
In MACP No. 193/20
i) Whether the petitioner Iqbal Jahan suffered grievous
injuries in a motor vehicular accident that happened on
07.06.2019 at about 08:00 P.M., at Honda cut U Turn,
Ghaziabad-Meerut Road, District- Ghaziabad, U.P.,
withing jurisdiction of PS- Sihani Gate, due to rash and
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 12 of 46
negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing
Registration No. UP-14CT-5125 (TRUCK) being driven by
the respondent No. 1/Suresh Kumar? (OPP)
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on
account of said injuries and if yes, to what extent and from
whom ?(OPP)
iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award
amount, if so, at what rate and for which period?
iv) Relief.
In MACP No. 194/20
i) Whether the petitioner Md. Islam suffered grievous injuries
in a motor vehicular accident that happened on 07.06.2019
at about 08:00 P.M., at Honda cut U Turn, Ghaziabad-
Meerut Road, District- Ghaziabad, U.P., withing
jurisdiction of PS- Sihani Gate, due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-
14CT-5125 (TRUCK) being driven by the respondent No.
1/Suresh Kumar? (OPP)
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on
account of said injuries and if yes, to what extent and from
whom ?(OPP)
iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award
amount, if so, at what rate and for which period?
iv) Relief.
In MACP No.852/19
16. In the above-stated three claim petitions, respectively claims
have been made against driver, owner and insurance company of the
offending truck by driver and two occupants of the car, which is one of
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 13 of 46
the offending vehicles, as per charge-sheet in the criminal case bearing
FIR No.934/19. Whereas, the claim case bearing No. 852/19 is against
driver-cum-owner and insurer of the alleged offending car as well as the
driver, owner and insurance company of alleged offending truck. In order
to determine whether there was composite negligence of both of the
vehicles involved in the accident or only one of the vehicles was at fault
and which of the versions of the accident is true, it is necessary for the
Tribunal to shift and weigh the evidence led by petitioner and respondent
side together in MACP No.852/19. Similarly, in the other three
consolidated claim petitions as well, evidences led on behalf of both
sides have to be looked at carefully.
17. In order to establish their claim, petitioners in MACP
No.852/19 have examined two witnesses.
17(a) In support of the claim of the petitioners in MACP No.852/19,
petitioner has examined two witnesses i.e. petitioner no.1 Sunita Kumari,
wife of the deceased victim Rahul Prasad Yadav. PW1 tendered her
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and deposed regarding the
manner of occurrence and fatal injuries sustained by her husband and
relied upon the following documents:-
* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioners are Ex.PW1/A.
* Photocopy of DL, Death certificate and ITR are Ex.PW1/B.
* Certified copy of criminal case record is Ex.PW1/C.
She deposed that her husband had expired on the spot and his
post-mortem was got conducted by the Doctors of Government HospitalMACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 14 of 46
in Uttar Pradesh. In her cross-examination, PW1 denied that the accident
took place due to negligence of vehicle bearing no. UP-14CT-5125. As
far as testimony of PW-1 is concerned, it is seen that she was not a
witness to the spot and has not claimed to be an eye witness to the
accident and during her cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R5, she
deposed that “it is correct that I was not on the spot at the time of
accident”. She also deposed in her cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for
R-5 that she was informed about the accident by her neighbour namely
Manan Yadav. She denied that he was not an eye witness/ not present at
the spot. She also denied that she has made driver of vehicle bearing no.
UP-14CT-5125 i.e. truck as a party to the present case proceedings,
which is contrary to the record.
17(ii). PW-2/Sh. Manan Yadav examined himself as an eye witness.
He relied upon his aadhar card Ex.PW2/A and testified that the deceased
was going to Guldhar from Ghaziabad on his vehicle bearing registration
No. UP-14PQ-0766 and when he reached Honda Cut U-turn, the driver
of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-3CAK-4757 came from Meerut
side, while driving in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle
of the deceased with great force, dragging him into wrong side and at the
same time, the driver of another offending vehicle bearing no.
UP-14CT-5125 came from Ghaziabad side, while being driven in a rash
and negligent manner and crushed the deceased. Both of the drivers were
driving their respective vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and theMACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 15 of 46
deceased was crushed and received fatal injuries on account of lapse on
the part of drivers of both of the offending vehicles.
Thereafter, petitioner/s closed their PE.
18. Mohd. Islam/ RW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.R1W1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
* Copy of the complaint is Ex.RW1/1
* Speed Post of the complaint is Ex.RW1/2
* Postal receipt is Ex.RW1/3.
Thereafter, respondent/s closed their RE.
In MACP No.192/20
19(a) Petitioner/PW1 Ms. Soni deposed on the strength of affidavit
Ex.PW1/A and deposed regarding manner of accident, injuries suffered
by her and the medical expenses incurred on her treatment and relied
upon the following documents:-
* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner Soni is Ex.PW1/1.
* Charge-sheet is Ex.PW1/2.
* Medical bills and treatment records are Ex.PW1/3.
* Salary slip and educational document of petitioner is Ex.PW1/4.
Thereafter, petitioner closed her PE.
20. Respondents did not choose to examine any witness in their
behalf.
In MACP No.193/20
21(a) Petitioner/PW1 Iqbal Jahan deposed on the strength of
affidavit Ex.PW1/A and deposed regarding manner of accident, injuries
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 16 of 46
suffered by her and the medical expenses incurred on her treatment and
relied upon the following documents:-
* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner is Ex.PW1/1.
* Charge-sheet is Ex.PW1/2.
* Medical bills and treatment records are Ex.PW1/3.
Thereafter, petitioner closed her PE.
22. Respondents did not choose to examine any witness in their
behalf.
In MACP No.194/20
23. Petitioner/PW1 Md. Islam deposed on the strength of affidavit
Ex.PW1/A and deposed regarding manner of accident, injuries suffered
by him and the medical expenses incurred on his treatment and relied
upon the following documents:-
* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner is Ex.PW1/1.
* Charge-sheet is Ex.PW1/2.
* Medical bills and treatment records are Ex.PW1/3.
Thereafter, petitioner closed his PE.
24. Respondents did not choose to examine any witness in their
behalf.
25. I have heard Ms. Sulekha Thakur, Ld. Counsel for petitioners
in MACP No. 852/19 and Md. Iqrar Ali Khan, Ld. Counsel for
petitioners in claim petitions No. 192/20 to 194/20; Sh. S.N. Jha, Ld.
Counsel for the insurer namely The new India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(respondent No. 5 in ACP No. 852/19 and respondent No.3 in other three
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 17 of 46
claim petitions) and Mohd. Rafi, Ld. Counsel for insurer Reliance GIC
Ltd in MACP No. 852/19. Other respondents did not make final
submissions. Record of the case has also been perused.
MACP No. 852/19, MACP No. 192/20, 193/20 & 194/20
ISSUE No.1 :
26. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the
proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua
non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal
cases and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of
preponderance of probabilities.
27. The involvement of aforesaid motorcycle, car and truck in the
accident is not in dispute. Further, death of the motor-cycle rider is also
not in dispute. Admittedly, the FIR was registered with delay of 6 days
and further informant was father of the victim in the present claim
petition and he was not an eye witness. After investigation, R1 and R-3
were charge-sheeted. PW1 is not an eye-witness to the accident and
hence, her testimony is of no help to establish the manner of the accident.
Coming to the testimony of PW2, he has claimed himself to be an eye-
witness but it is strange that he is not cited in the list of witnesses in the
charge-sheet prepared by IO in case FIR No. 934/19. There is not a single
document produced before the Tribunal to suggest that he was involved
in the investigation or reported the accident to the police or that he was
joined in the investigation and there is no explanation as to why he did
not approach police, if at all he had witnessed the accident. He claims
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 18 of 46
himself to be neighbour of PW1 and PW1 deposed in her cross-
examination for the first time that she was informed about the accident
by Manan Yadav. However, in the claim petition, she is silent regarding
presence of any witness at the spot of accident or she having been
informed through that person. Further, even while during her deposition
in the year 2023, she deposed for the first time that Manan Yadav had
informed to her about the accident, she failed to disclose the date, time
and year of such information. A suggestion was given to her by Ld.
Counsel for R-5 Manan Yadav was not present at the spot and that he
was assisting her being her neighbour. Coming to the testimony of
Manan Yadav, he did not aver a word regarding his presence at the spot
of accident in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/1.
During his cross-examination, he stated that he was not a summoned
witness and came at instance of father of deceased. He stated that he de-
boarded the auto and had to cross the road. He further stated that the
deceased was standing and was about to cross the divider of the road at
the turning point. Even while deposing so, he failed to explain where he
was present at the spot and the reason for his presence at the spot. He did
not even aver a word to suggest where exactly was he coming from and
going to at the time of accident other than that he was coming from
Ghaziabad Market. He deposed that he immediately made a call to father
of deceased. However, it is interesting to note that while the claim
petition has been filed also by father of deceased as P-5, claim petition is
silent regarding presence of PW2 on the spot or having made any such
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 19 of 46
call to P-5. PW2 stated that he had taken the injured to MMG Hospital,
Ghaziabad by ambulance but no documentary evidence has been led in
this regard. He also stated that police inquired from him after 2-3 days of
the accident but criminal case record as placed on record shows
otherwise. He was never joined in the investigation. A suggestion was
given to him that he was not joined in the investigation by police and
police did not record his statement under Section 161 Cr PC as he was
not present at the spot. Even though he denied this suggestion, petitioner
failed to examine IO and prove on record that any such statement was
recorded by IO. PW2 himself admitted that his name is not mentioned in
the list of witnesses. No statement of any witness under section 161 CrPC
is placed on record by petitioner. PW2 stated that he was coming from
market of Ghaziabad at the time of accident and that was at a distance of
about 10 feet. However, his presence at the spot of accident is doubtful.
He is not a witness in the FIR case and never gave any intimation to
police about the accident or apprised regarding him being an eye witness
and his version came to be recorded for the first time only on 18.07.2023
before the Tribunal. He deposed that the truck had hit only the deceased
and not the car. Now if car had dragged the deceased motorcycle and put
it in front of truck, how was it possible for the truck to have hit only the
deceased and not the Car? This is not explained by petitioners. Coming to
the testimony of RW1, it is not in dispute that he is an eye witness to the
accident. He deposed that at Honda Cut, the offending Truck had came at
high speed and hit the motorcycle and then dragged the rider and hit car
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 20 of 46
on wrong side. He placed on record copy of a complaint dated
25.06.2019 as made by police to him alleging being hit by the truck.
However, this complaint Mark RW1/1 is not proved on record. He also
placed on record another complaint dated 17.03.2020 stated to have been
sent to SSP office through post and this is also not proved on record.
Coming to his cross-examination, he admitted that he is co-accused in the
FIR case. He deposed that he had told about the negligence on the part of
truck driver at the time of applying for bail. He deposed that the
offending truck had first hit the bike rider and due to the impact, the
motor-cyclist collided the car of RW1 and thereafter, the truck hit his car,
resulting in injuries to him and his family members. He admitted the
suggestion of Ld. Counsel for R-2 that the accident was caused solely
due to the negligence of truck driver. He is an eye witness to the accident
and his testimony cannot be ignored, particularly in light of the fact the
site plan does not support the version of PW2. If the deceased was
moving on the road toward Meerut and standing on the U turn to go
towards Guldhar, it was not possible for the accident to have taken place
at point ‘AX’ due to fault of the car driver and instead the presence of the
motor-cycle rider would have been close to point ‘AY’ for taking turn
and accident would have taken place at point AY and in such a situation,
in case the vehicle was dragged by the car on either side of the road, it
would have been well beyond the point ‘AY’ where truck is stated to
have hit the bike and car. It is relevant to note that the truck driver did not
choose to examine himself in defence and was not even examined by any
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 21 of 46
of the insurers in defence either. Hence, from the factum of R3 having
been charge-sheeted and petitioners having failed to prove on record the
negligence on the part of R-1 and keeping in mind the testimony of R-1
as an eye-witness to the accident, it can be concluded that while it is
proved on record that the accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending truck, the rashness or negligence on the part of
car driver / R-1 remains unproved and rather his testimony could not be
impeached in his cross-examination.
28. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against
respondent no. 3 the driver of the truck. Filing of charge-sheet against the
driver of offending vehicle prima-facie points to his culpability. (New
India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Washeema Bano (2022) SCC
OnLine All 403 and Mangla Ram vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
(2018) 5SCC 656).
29. In New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Pazhaniammal
(2011) (2) KLT 648, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held that as a
general rule, it can be accepted that production of charge-sheet is prima-
facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under
section 166 MV Act. If any party does not accept such charge-sheet, the
burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels
that charge-sheet is collusive, it can record that charge-sheet cannot be
accepted and call upon the parties at any stage to adduce oral evidence of
accident and alleged negligence. In such cases, issue of negligence must
be decided on other evidence ignoring the charge-sheet. In the case at
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 22 of 46
hand, informant is not an eye witness and perusal of charge-sheet shows
that the same was prepared on the basis of circumstantial evidence, in the
shape of site plan and mechanical inspection report. In the light of the
fact that no eye-witness was joined in the investigation and as discussed,
the witness produced by the petitioners in MACP No.852/19, comes up
as a got up witness, testimony of R1W1 assumes significance as an eye
witness. He clearly deposed that offending truck had hit the motor-cycle
and then hit his car and that the accident took place due to negligence of
truck driver.
30. Respondent no.3 & 4 i.e. the driver and owner of the
offending truck did not led any evidence to prove anything contrary to
the version of R1 /eye witness. In the case of Cholamandalam MS
General Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Kamlesh and Others2009 (3)
AD Delhi 310 it was held that an adverse inference can be drawn when
the driver of the offending vehicle does not enter into the witness box.
Even R-5 has not led any evidence to disprove the version of R-1. While
petitioners have contributed part negligence to R-1, R-1 established on
record that the accident took place solely due to the negligence of truck
driver i.e. R-3. It is seen that R-1 did not clarify in his testimony whether
the offending truck was or had come to the wrong side after dragging the
motor-cycle but no specific query was made to R-1 in his cross-
examination with respect to the position of the vehicles at the time of the
accident.
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 23 of 46
31. Coming to the testimonies led in other three cases (MACP
No. 192/20, 193/20 and 194/20), victims Soni, Mohd. Islam and Smt.
Iqbal Jahan have been examined as PW1 in these cases. All of them
deposed that the accident took place due to the offending truck bearing
No. UP-14CT-5125 having been driven in a high speed. He stated that
the offending truck had first hit the motor-cycle rider and then the car,
being driven by Mohd Islam. Coming to the cross-examination of PW2,
she remained consistent in her cross-examination and denied that the
truck had been falsely implicated in connivance with his father.
Testimony of PW2 Iqbal Jahan could also not be shattered in the cross-
examination by Ld. Counsel for New India Assurance Co. Ltd. She
deposed that she had not made any complaint to police but her husband
might have filed the same. In the cross-examination, PW1 deposed that
the offending truck was going on the opposite side to him. He also stated
that he had lodged a written complaint against the driver of the alleged
offending truck. He testified that he could not file any complaint on the
date of accident as he had suffered grievous injuries. Nothing could be
extracted in his cross-examination to assail his version of the accident.
Not a single question was put to him in his cross-examination to
elaborate on the manner of accident. It is worthwhile here to mention
that Soni, Islam and Iqbal Jahan were not chosen to be cross-examined
by driver and registered owner of the offending truck and further
insurance company also did not choose to lead any evidence in defence
and further to examine Suresh Kumar, the driver of the offending truck as
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 24 of 46
a respondent witness, upon failure of him and registered owner of truck
to lead evidence in defence. Even IO was not examined by the Insurance
companies. The petitioners Islam, Soni and Iqbal Jahan have succeeded
to establish on record that offending truck had hit their car and it resulted
in injuries to them and further that driver of the offending truck was
driving in a rash and negligent manner.
32. In view of this Court, aforesaid material are found sufficient
to establish that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of offending truck bearing No.UP-14CT-5125 by respondent no.3
Suresh Kumar, resulting into fatal injuries to deceased Rahul Prasad
Yadav and injuries to Mohd. Islam, Soni and Iqbal Jahan. Therefore,
issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners in all the
four claim petitions.
ISSUE NO.2
33. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners in the claim
case are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of
compensation still needs to be adjudicated.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
34. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the
claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and
reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be
windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 25 of 46
compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss
which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970)
Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
35. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation
have been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma
and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the
Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National
Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., decided on 31.10.2017,
laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in
death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as
under:
“18. Basically only three facts need to be
established by the claimants for assessing
compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
These issues to be determined by the Tribunal to
arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/ deductions to be made for arriving at
the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal
living expenses of the deceased; and
iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the
age of the deceased.
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 26 of 46
If these determinations are standardized, there will
be uniformity and consistency in the decisions.
There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It
will also be easier for the insurance companies to
settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the
Tribunals should determine compensation in cases
of death, by the following well-settled steps:death
case
Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction
should be made in regard to the amount which the
deceased would have spent on himself by way of
personal and living expenses. The balance expired
e which is considered to be the contribution to the
dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) death case
Having regard to the age of the deceased and
period of active career, the appropriate multiplier
should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining
the number of years he would have lived or worked
but for the accident. Having regard to several
imponderables in life and economic factors, a table
of multipliers with reference to the age has been
identified by this Court. The multiplier should be
chosen from the said table with reference to the age
of the deceased.
Step-3 (Actual Calculation)
The annual contribution to the family(multiplicand)
when multiplied by such multiplier gives the ‘loss
of dependency’ to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of
Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 27 of 46
estates. Where the deceased is survived by his
widow, another conventional amount in the range
of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the
head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be
awarded under the head of pain, suffering or
hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the
body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical
treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred)
should also be added.”
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to
take into consideration the following parameters:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
(In re:MACP No. 852/19 Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Ors).
Age of deceased :
36. As per the aadhar card (though not exhibited in the evidence)
of the deceased, his date of birth is 19.03.1991. The date of accident is
07.06.2019. Thus, the age of the deceased was 28 years at the time of
accident.
Assessment of Income of deceased :
37. PW1 testified that her deceased husband was self employed
and was earning Rs.3,95,210/-. However, no document is filed on record
showing that what work the deceased was doing on the date of accident.
No salary slip or income proof is filed on record. PW1 relied upon the
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 28 of 46
ITR Ex. PW1/B to prove the income of the deceased. The ITR relied
upon by the petitioner does not bear any stamp, seal or signature for
authentication. Even date of filing of ITR is not mentioned anywhere in
these photostat documents. No name or date is mentioned on the ITR as
to who filed the ITR and on what date the same was filed. Further, no
witness from the Income tax Department was called by the petitioner to
prove this ITR. Without bearing a signature, stamp and date, the said ITR
cannot be considered as income proof of the petitioner. No bank
statement reflecting the crediting of any amount is placed on record.
Petitioners have merely mentioned in the claim petition that deceased
was doing private work, without disclosing what work he was doing and
her testimony, PW1 did not aver a word to suggest what self employment
work her husband was engaged in. As per aadhar card and election I. D.
Card (placed on record), the deceased was the resident of U.P. PW1 has
not claimed in her testimony that deceased was working in Delhi and no
document has been filed either. No educational documents of the
deceased is filed and proved on record on behalf of the petitioners.
Hence, his income has to be taken as per the minimum wages of unskilled
worker applicable in U.P. on the date of accident i.e. Rs.8012/- per month.
Thus, the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.8012/- per
month.
Number of dependents :
38. In the claim petition, there are petitioners / legal heirs of the
deceased, who are wife, minor children and parents. All of them are
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 29 of 46
stated to be dependents on the deceased. Thus, for the purpose of
ascertaining the dependency of the deceased, all the petitioners are
considered dependents on the deceased.
Application of Multiplier:
39. As discussed above, the deceased was considered to be 28
years of age at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be
determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as
Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the
multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier
were laid down in accordance with age are as under:-
MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF DECEASED
M-18 Age group between 15 to 20 &
21 to 25 years)
M-17 Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
M-16 Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
M-15 Age group between 36 to 40 yrs
M-14 Age group between 41 to 45 yrs
M-13 Age group between 46 to 50 yrs
M-11 Age group between 51 to 55 yrs
M-9 Age group between 56 to 60 yrs
M-7 Age group between 61 to 65 yrs
M-5 Age group between 66 and above
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 30 of 46
40. In view of the above, multiplier of 17 shall be applicable in the
present case.
Future Prospects:
41. This issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment
are reproduced here as under:
“(iii) While determining the income, an addition of
50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased
towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40 years,
should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the
age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In
case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60
years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary
should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased
was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25%
where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50
years and 10% where the deceased was between the
age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The established
income means the income minus the tax component.”
42. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. In view of
the above said judgment, the deceased, who was 28 years of age, an
addition of income of deceased to the extent of 40% has to be considered in
view of decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case,
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 31 of 46
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors . (Supra).
benefit of future prospects.
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
43. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased,
necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased
towards his personal expenses. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as
Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr ., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30,
laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses
of deceased as under :
Deductions out of earning of the Number of
deceased dependentsWhere dependent is 1 Half
Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd
members is 2 to 3Where the number of dependent family 1/4th
members is 4 to 6Where the number of dependent family 1/5th
members exceeds 6 (six)
44. All the six petitioners i.e. wife, parents and minor children of
deceased are considered as dependents upon the deceased as held above.
Accordingly, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted
towards his personal living expenses.
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 32 of 46
45. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.17,16,170/-
( 8012x 3/4 x 140/100 x 12 x 17).
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
46. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-,
15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss
of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is
required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a
compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on
account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is
required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020,
decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the
LRs. In this case, there are five legal heirs of the deceased. Thus,
claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,24,000/-
(48,000×6+18,000+18,000) under this head.
47. Thus, all the petitioners i.e. wife, children and parents of the
deceased in the instant case shall be entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.20,40,170/- (17,16,170 + 3,24,000) only.
48. The case of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1
SCC 343, is one of the most prominent judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court which deals with compensation in injuries cases. It was
held in this case that in routine personal injury cases, compensation will
be awarded only under the heads-(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 33 of 46
hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which
the injured would have made had he not been injured , comprising (a)
Loss of earning during the period of treatment and (iv) Damages for pain,
suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. Where the
claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the
assessment of compensation is also to be done under the head of loss of
future earnings which would depend the effect and impact of such
permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured. The tribunal
should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as
the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. What
requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanent
disability on the earning capacity of the injured after assessing the loss of
earning capacity in terms of percentage of the income. It has to be
quantified in terms of money to arrive at the future loss of earnings by
applying standard multiplier method. All injuries or permanent
disabilities arising from injuries do not resulting loss of earning capacity.
If there is no loss of employment or earning capacity, there may not be
any need to award any compensation under the head of loss of future
earnings, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss
of amenities in consequent to his injuries.
(In Re: MACP No.192/20 Soni Vs. Suresh & Ors.)
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 34 of 46
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
49. The medical documents of petitioner Soni suggest that she
sustained simple injuries in the accident. Petitioner has proved her
medical bills Ex. PW1/3 to the tune of Rs.25,729/-. Under this head,
actual medical bills are reimbursed. All the bills are original and no
serious dispute has been raised on behalf of respondent side. Therefore, I
award Rs. 25,729/- as compensation under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
50. According to her affidavit, after the accident, petitioner was
treated first at Anand Hospital, Meerut and thereafter, she has been
treated in various private hospitals. Perusal of treatment record and
medical bill Ex. PW1/3 reflects that petitioner remains hospitalized in
Mrityunjay Hospital from 08.06.2019 to 09.06.2019. Except the
documents Ex.PW1/3, there is no other document which could show that
the petitioner Soni underwent further treatment. No OPD slip / other
document placed on record which could throw light that the petitioner
Soni was regularly making visits to the hospital after her discharge on
09.06.2019. In these circumstances, her hospitalzation is considered only
of three days. However, considering her hospitalization and pain and
suffering, she must have endured in that accident, I find it appropriate to
grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner under this head.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 35 of 46
51. The petitioner has not proved any actual expenses in relation
to these heads and has not placed any material on record to substantiate
the said expenses. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I
deem it fit to grant Rs.5,000/- to petitioner for conveyance and special
diet charges.
52. No evidence has been led to show that petitioner had hired
any attendant during her treatment and she has not made any such claim
either. Hence, no amount is awarded towards attendant charges.
53. Thus, petitioner is granted a total compensation of Rs.5000/- under
this head.
LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT :
54. In her examination in chief, petitioner has claimed that she
was working as a guest teacher and was drawing a salary of Rs.42,000/-
per month. She has relied upon copy of her salary slip alongwith her
educational documents Ex.PW1/4. Last pay certificate which is part of
document Ex.PW1/4 reflect the salary of the petitioner as 12,627/-. No
suggestion was given to the petitioner from the respondent No.3 to
disprove her claim regarding she being a Guest Teacher and that she was
earning. However, petitioner has not placed on record any leave record to
show that how many days she was on leave after the accident. Petitioner
has also not explained as to how many days she had taken leave after the
accident and after discharge from the hospital if the doctor gave her
advice for bed rest and if yes, for how many days. From the medical
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 36 of 46
documents of the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner was hospitalized
only for two days. The medical document of hospital first attended is not
placed on record to suggest what injuries were sustained in the accident.
Petitioner has also not explained or proved any document to show that
after how many days of accident, she joined the duty. No documentary
proof is also not placed on record. In the absence of any document in
support of leave duration of petitioner, I am not inclined to compensate
the petitioner under this head.
55. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is
summarized as under:-
Sl. Head of compensation Amount
No.
1 Medical Expenses Rs.25,729/-
2 Pain & Sufferings Rs.10,000/-
3 Conveyance & Special diet Rs.5,000/-
TOTAL Rs.40,729/-
rounded off to
Rs.41,000/-
(In Re: MACP No.193/20 Iqbal Jahan Vs. Suresh & Ors.)
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
56. Petitioner has not proved any MLC on record. Further the
document of hospital first attended i.e. Anand Nirogdham Pvt. Hospital
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 37 of 46
has not been placed on record where she is stated to have been admitted
first and discharged on LAMA (leave against medical advice). However,
the medical document of Mrityunjay Hospital, where petitioner was
admitted on the same days shows that her was a case of grievous injuries
and she sustained fracture. Petitioner has proved her medical bills
Ex.PW1/3 and as per the break of medical bills, are to the tune of
Rs.3,04,339/-. Under this head, actual medical bills are considered. All
the bills are original and no serious dispute has been raised on behalf of
respondent side. Therefore, I award Rs.3,04,339/- as compensation under
this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
57. According to her affidavit, after the accident, petitioner was
treated first shifted to Anand Nirogdham Hospital, Meerut and thereafter,
she has been treated in various private hospitals. Perusal of treatment
record and medical bill Ex. PW1/3 reflects that petitioner remains
hospitalized in Mrityunjay Hospital from 08.06.2019 to 16.06.2019.
Further the medical documents and prescription reflect that she was on
medication at least upto July 2019. Documents further reflect that during
hospitalization, several procedures were done. Except the documents
Ex.PW1/3, there is no other document which could show that the
petitioner Iqbal Jahan underwent further treatment. No OPD slip / other
document placed on record which could throw light that the petitioner
Iqbal Jahan was regularly making visits to the hospital after her discharge
on 16.06.2019. In these circumstances, her hospitalization for a
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 38 of 46
considerable period of time, I find it appropriate to grant a sum of
Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner under this head.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
58. The petitioner has not proved any actual expenses in relation
to these heads and has not placed any material on record to substantiate
the said expenses. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I
deem it fit to grant Rs.5,000/- to petitioner for conveyance and Rs.5000/-
towards special diet charges.
59. No evidence has been led to show that petitioner had hired
any attendant during her treatment. It cannot be ignored that family
members of petitioner must have had to render their services for
providing assistance to the petitioner for her routine activities and that
would definitely suffer their work/job. For claiming compensation,
necessity of employing a professional attendant/ care taker is not required
and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the
family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong
doing of the driver. (DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Therefore,
the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as attendant charges.
60. Thus, petitioner is granted a total compensation of Rs.15,000/-
(5,000+5,000+5,000) under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT :
61. In her examination in chief, petitioner has not claimed that
she has suffered any loss of income during the period of treatment. She
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 39 of 46
deposed in her examination in chief that she is house wife and was
rendered great house service upon her husband and children and thus she
suffered a huge loss towards the said head. Petitioner is silent on the
aspect of any loss of income during the period of treatment and has not
made any claim towards loss of income. In the absence of any document
in support of her assertion, I am not inclined to compensate the petitioner
under this head.
62. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is
summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1 Medical Expenses Rs.3,04,339/-
2 Pain & Sufferings Rs.20,000/-
Loss of Income during period of Nil
3
Treatment
4. Conveyance & Special diet Rs.10,000/-
5 Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
TOTAL Rs.3,39,339/-
rounded off to
Rs.3,39,000/-
(In Re: MACP No.194/20 Mohd. Islam Vs. Suresh & Ors.)
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 40 of 46
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
63. Petitioner has not proved any MLC on record. Further the
document of hospital first attended i.e. Anand Nirogdham Pvt. Hospital
has not been placed on record where he is stated to have been admitted
first and discharged on LAMA (leave against medical advice). However,
the medical document of Mrityunjay Hospital, where petitioner was
admitted on the same day shows that his was a case of grievous injuries
and he sustained fracture. Petitioner has proved his medical bills Ex.
PW1/3 to the tune of Rs.37,483/-. Under this head, actual medical bills
are reimbursed. All the bills are original and no serious dispute has been
raised on behalf of respondent side. Therefore, I award Rs.37,483/- as
compensation under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
64. According to his affidavit, after the accident, petitioner was
treated first shifted to Anand Nirogdham Hospital, Meerut and thereafter,
he has been treated in various private hospitals. Perusal of treatment
record and medical bill Ex. PW1/3 reflects that petitioner remained
hospitalized in Mrityunjay Hospital from 08.06.2019 to 09.06.2019.
Except the documents Ex.PW1/3, there is no other document which
could show that the petitioner Mohd. Islam underwent further treatment.
No OPD slip / other document placed on record which could throw light
that the petitioner Mohd. Islam was regularly making visits to the
hospital after his discharge on 09.06.2019. In these circumstances, his
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 41 of 46
hospitalization is considered only of three days. However, considering
his hospitalization and pain and suffering, he must have endured in that
accident, I find it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the
petitioner under this head.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
65. The petitioner has not proved any actual expenses in relation
to these heads and has not placed any material on record to substantiate
the said expenses. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I
deem it fit to grant Rs.5,000/- to petitioner for conveyance and Rs.5000/-
towards special diet charges.
66. No evidence has been led to show that petitioner had hired
any attendant during her treatment. It cannot be ignored that family
members of petitioner must have had to render their services for
providing assistance to the petitioner for her routine activities and that
would definitely suffer their work/job. For claiming compensation,
necessity of employing a professional attendant/ care taker is not required
and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the
family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong
doing of the driver. (DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Therefore,
the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as attendant charges.
67. Thus, petitioner is granted a total compensation of Rs.10,000/-
(5,000+5,000+5,000) under this head.
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 42 of 46
LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT :
68. In his examination in chief, petitioner is silent on the aspect
of any loss of income during that period. He has not even disclosed his
nature of work or the period during which he was unable to work. He
simply claimed in his examination in chief that he suffered huge financial
losses. He has not filed any documentary proof in this regard. He has not
placed on record or called any witness to suggest that he suffered any
loss of income during the period his treatment. In the absence of any
document, I am not inclined to compensate the petitioner under this head.
69. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is
summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1 Medical Expenses Rs.37,483/-
2 Pain & Sufferings Rs.15,000/-
3 Conveyance & Special diet Rs.10,000/-
4 Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
TOTAL Rs.67,483/-
rounded off to
Rs.67,000/-
INTEREST
70. The petitioner has conducted the proceedings in this case
since year 2019 and 2020 respectively. Therefore, they are entitled for
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 43 of 46
interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the date
of filing of the petition till date of realization.
LIABILITY :
71. As discussed above, now, the question arises as to which of
the respondents are liable to pay the compensation amount. As insurance
company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured
and, in these cases, insurance company has not been able to prove that
any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/ violated by
insured, therefore, respondent namely The New India Assurance
Company Ltd becomes liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount
to the respective petitioners.
RELIEF:
(In re: MACP No. 852/2019 Sunita Kumari & Ors Vs. Mohd. Islam &
Ors.)
72. In view of the aforesaid, this Tribunal awards a compensation
of Rs.20,40,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Forty Thousand
only( rounded off from Rs.20,40,170/-) to the petitioners along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till
realization to be paid by the respondent no.5 / The New Assurance
Company Ltd to the petitioner. Amount of interim award, if any, be
deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of
interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this
case. This award amount is required to be deposited by the insurance
company within 30 days.
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 44 of 46
(In re: MACP No. 192/2020 Soni Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.)
73. In view of the aforesaid, this Tribunal awards a compensation
of Rs.41,000/- (Rupees Forty One Thousand only) to the petitioner along
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till
realization to be paid by the respondent no.3 / The New Assurance
Company Ltd to the petitioner. Amount of interim award, if any, be
deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of
interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this
case. This award amount is required to be deposited by the insurance
company within 30 days.
(In re: MACP No.193/20 Iqbal Jahan Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.)
74. In view of the aforesaid, this Tribunal awards a compensation
of Rs.3,39,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand only) to the
petitioner along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing
of petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3 / The New
Assurance Company Ltd to the petitioner. Amount of interim award, if
any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of
interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this
case. This award amount is required to be deposited by the insurance
company within 30 days.
(In re: MACP No. 194/20 Mohd. Islam Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.)
75. In view of the aforesaid, this Tribunal awards a compensation
of Rs.67,000/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand only) to the petitioner
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 45 of 46
along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition
till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3 / The New Assurance
Company Ltd to the petitioner. Amount of interim award, if any, be
deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of
interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this
case. This award amount is required to be deposited by the insurance
company within 30 days.
Digitally signed
by MAYURI
MAYURI SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.03.29
17:38:37
+0000
Announced in the open (Mayuri Singh)
Court on 29.03.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
MACP No.852/19; Sunita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No.192/20; Soni Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 193/20; Iqbal Jahan Vs. Md. Islam & Ors;
MACP No. 194/20; Md. Islam vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Page 46 of 46
[ad_1]
Source link