Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of order: 13th August, 2024
53989/2023 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE .....Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Somnath Parashar, Advocate for R-1 to R-3 (Through VC)
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
ORDER
1. The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“The Act”) seeking setting aside of the impugned award dated 2nd June, 2018 (“impugned award” hereinafter) passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in petition bearing No.49/16
2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows: a. On 21st April, 2014 at about 9 am, Pooja/deceased (hereinafter “injured party”) was going to a marriage ceremony with her brother and grandmother, when she reached village Hasan Pur Masuri, PS Khekra, District Baghpat, a Mahindra car registered in Uttar Pradesh bearing Temporary No. UDB 0033032 (“offending vehicle”) being driven by its driver/ respondent No. 1 and hit the injured party with great force. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and was taken to the Trauma Centre, where she was declared dead. b. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 to 3 herein being mother, father and husband respectively of the deceased Ms. Pooja, filed the claim petition for compensation in MACT bearing no. 49/16 claiming compensation. c. The learned Tribunal held that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent no. 4 herein and awarded Rs. 6, 85, 888/- to the petitioners/respondents no. 1-3 herein along with interest @9% pa. d. Aggrieved by the aforementioned impugned award, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned award is bad in law and liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without taking into consideration the documents placed on record.
4. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that there is negligence on the part of the driver/respondent no. 4 of the offending vehicle in causing the alleged accident. It is further submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to hold the respondent No.4 herein guilty of causing the accident.
5. It is submitted that the findings of the learned Tribunal is against the pleadings and the documents on record as the learned Tribunal has incorrectly concluded that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. It is further submitted that the FIR dated 26th April, 2014 pertaining to the alleged accident dated 21st April, 2014 was lodged with the police against an unknown vehicle and the offending vehicle was identified after 5 days without any substantial evidence.
6. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award incorrectly relied upon the statement of PW-4 who was not a witness to the accident. Moreover, the testimonies of other witnesses are unreliable as they failed to disclose the registration number of the vehicle involved in causing the alleged accident.
7. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to conduct a proper enquiry under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prior to passing of the impugned award.
8. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has erroneously computed compensation to the tune of Rs.6,15,888/- towards loss of dependency to the petitioners/respondents no. 1-3 herein and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the petitioner no.3/ respondent no. 3.
9. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the present appeal may be allowed, as prayed.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 3 vehemently opposed the instant appeal and submitted that the same is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merits.
11. It is submitted that the findings of the learned Tribunal are just and fair, and the same has been concluded on the basis of the evidence produced by the respondents no. 1 to 3 herein.
12. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has correctly adjudicated that driver/respondent no. 4 herein was at fault for causing the accident in question due to rash and negligent driving.
13. It is submitted that the impugned award is valid in the eyes of law and has been passed by the learned Tribunal after meticulously examining the evidence placed on its record by the petitioners/respondents no. 1-3 herein.
14. Hence, in view of the forgoing submissions, it is submitted that the instant appeal may be dismissed.
15. The appeal is admitted.
16. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
17. It is the case of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has not considered the documents on record in order to determine the liability of the driver/respondent no. 4. It has been contended that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the cause of death of the deceased Pooja is the rash and negligent driving on part of respondent no. 4.
18. It has further been contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration that the FIR dated 26th April, 2014 was made against an unidentified vehicle and the offending vehicle was identified after an unexplained period of 5 days.
19. In rival submissions, it has been submitted that that the impugned award has been passed after appreciating the entire evidence and testimonies produced on record before the learned Tribunal by the petitioner/respondents no. 1-3 herein. It is contended that the learned Tribunal correctly determined that driver/respondent no. 4 herein was driving in a rash and negligent manner which led to the accident and the death of Pooja/deceased.
20. At this juncture, this Court deems it pertinent to peruse the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. The relevant extracts of the same as under: “ISSUE No. 1:-
1. Whether deceased died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 21.04.2014 at about 9 PM near Village Hasan Pur Masuri, PS Khekra, Distt. Baghpat within the jurisdiction of PS Khekra, Distt. Baghpat, UP due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UDB 0033032( Temporary Number) by respondent No. 1 ?OPP
8. To succeed in the claim petition in view of Section 166 of the MV Act, it is for the claimant to prove that vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Husband of deceased i.e. petitioner No. 3 deposed about the facts of the case. He was cross-examined by Id. Counsel for respondents and during crossexamination nothing has come forward in his testimony to disbelieve the version of PW. On the other hand, respondents did not examine any witness to rebut the contentions and deny the claim of the petitioner and mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the claim of the petitioner. No witness was produced or examined by respondents as well to prove as to how accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased; the respondent No. 1 was not at fault and was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of witnesses. I have gone through the record and documents in respect of the accident caused to the petitioner which is prima facie suggestive of negligence of respondent No. 1 in driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Relied judgment in (Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors.. (2009) 13 SC 530 and the judgment in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir. (2011) 3 SCC 646) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Ors. V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 held as under:
9. In judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel &Ors.. 2014 (2). T.A.C. 846 (Del), it was held that in a case, where FIR is lodged, chargesheet is filed, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the vehicle in question was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side. In case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written Statement. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the Claimant had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.
10. I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in2009 ACJ 287. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rang to examine the aspect of negligence wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that:- In case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo and the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. I t was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard-Further, in Kaushnumma Besum and others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited. 2001 ACJ 421 SC. the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Adv. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku &Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as under: "The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit.
11. Therefore, in view of the criminal case record, it is proved that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 21.04.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing No. UDB 0033032(Temporary number) driven by its driver i.e. respondent No. 1. The issue is decided accordingly. Issue No. II
(ii) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasappa V/s Gurdaval Sinsh reported as 2003(2) see 274 ruled that the main guiding principle for determining the compensation is that it must be just and further that it must be reasonable. As observed in UP State Road Transport corporation V/s Trilok Chandra (1996)4 see 362. the compensation awarded in such cases has primarily two elements; the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident and the pecuniary loss sustained by members of his family on account of his death in addition to the conventional award under non pecuniary heads of damages( e.g. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc).
13. The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation on pecuniary benefit or benefits reduceable to money value. In General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V/s Susamma Thomas reported as(1994) 2 see 176. the court ruled that in fatal accident action, the measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered or likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of death that"
9. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables,e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have;contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that that deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma V/s DTC reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 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 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 profits.
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 award in the.same range. When the factors/ inputs are the same, and the formula/ legal principles are the.same, consistency and uniformity and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation.”
15. No amount of compensation can restore, eliminate or ameliorate the loss suffered on account of death ( or injury with lasting effect) the endeavour by such award is to repair the damage done so as to restore the victim(which includes the dependent) to the extent possible to the pre-accidental position. The pecuniary damages are meant to take care of the prospective pecuniary loss of future income and the nonpecuniary damages to compensate, to an extent, for pain and suffering, loss of love, companionship, expectation of life etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K Malik V/s Kiran Pal reported as 2009 (14) see 1 observed as under:-
22. It is extremely difficult to quantify the non pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But, the same could not be a ground for non payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy.
23. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualised and understood. Perhaps, the only mechanism known to law in this kind of situation is to compensate a person who has suffered non pecuniary loss or damages as a consequence of the, wrong done to him by way of damages/monetary compensation. Undoubtedly, when a victim of a wrong suffers injuries he is entitled to compensation including compensation for the prospective life, pain and suffering, happiness, etc., which is sometimes described as compensation paid for "loss of expectation of life".
16. The challenge in determining the ' just and reasonable' compensation in such cases is mainly due to the fact that there is virtually no evidence in actual loss of earning of the deceased child. Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K. Malik v. Kiran Pal) noted:-
25. That being the position, the crucial problem arises with regard to the quantification of such compensation. The injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of a child is extremely difficult to quantify. In view of the uncertainties and contingencies of human life, what would be an appropriate figure, an adequate solarium is difficult to specify. The courts have therefore used the expression "standard compensation” and conventional amount/ sum" to get over the difficulty that arises in quantifying a figure as the same ensures consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation."
17. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete records. Petitioner has prayed for compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- from respondents. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as 2012 ACJ 721 titled Roval Sunderam Alliance Insurance Company Limited V/s Mandeev Sinsh & Ors. Per contra, it is argued by Ld counsel for respondent that petitioners have not suffered any monetary loss on account of the fatal accident nor they were dependent on the deceased and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation. The Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Keith Rowe V/s Prashant Saear&Ors(MANU/DE 1060/2010) is relied in this respect.
18. There is no dispute at all regarding the offending vehicle nor there is dispute that deceased Pooja received fatal injuries due to the accident. The factum of accident as well as death is not denied. The testimony of PW-4/ husband of deceased remained unimpeached/uncontroverted and witness proved the relevant documents. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the respondents.
19. Petitioner deposed that deceased was 20 years of age and was house wife. As already noted, the petitioner has not placed on record any documents regarding income or education of deceased. Keeping in view of abovesaid facts, the income of the deceased has to be considered on the basis of minimum wages applicable to the unskilled workman on the date of accident i.e. 21.04.2014. Therefore, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 8,554/-per month. Petitioner NO. 3 has stated that his wife Smt. Pooja was 20 years of the age at the time of accident. The age of the deceased is also mentioned as about 20 years in the claim petition therefore the age of the deceased is taken as about 20 years on the date of accident. As per dictum laid down in SarlaVerma Vs. DTC. multiplier to be applied is IB. There is nothing on record to show that deceased was self employed or working in fixed salary; nothing improved in respect of income of the deceased. In view of judgment of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi &Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No.25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, petitioners are not entitled for compensation towards future prospects.
20. In the present case, there is 3 petitioner. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Keith Rowe V/s Prashant Sasar&Ors (MANU/DE 1060/2010), petitioner is entitled for the compensation towards loss of estate to the extent of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased. Therefore, the total loss of estate would be calculated as follows Rs. 8,554/- X 12 (annual) X 18 (Multiplier) = Rs. 18,47,664/- Rs. 18,47,664/- / l/3rd = Rs. 6,15,888/-. The total amount towards loss of -dependency is accordingly Rs.6,15,888/-.
21. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi &Ors. in SLP ( Civil)No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, the petitioners are entitled for the loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/d- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.”
21. Upon perusal of the aforementioned impugned award, it is made out that the learned Tribunal adjudicated on three issues. The first issue was whether deceased died on account of injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 21st April, 2014 at about 9 PM near Village Hasan Puri Masuri, PS Khekra, Distt. Baghpat within the jurisdiction of PS Khekra, Distt. Baghpat, UP due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UDB 0033032 (Temporary Number) by respondent No. 1. The second issue was whether the respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein are entitled to compensation and third issue was the relief.
22. With respect to the first issue, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 21st April, 2014 at about 9 pm near Village Hasan Puri Masuri, PS Khekra, District Baghpat.
23. The learned Tribunal relied on the case of Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the claimant merely establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable. It further relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana decided on 20th December, 2007 in MAC APP. No. 360/2007 wherein it was held that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are not the same as the proceedings in a civil suit and therefore, strict rules of evidence are not necessarily followed in this regard.
24. The learned Tribunal also relied on the case of United India Insurance Company ltd. v. Deepak Goel and Ors. 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) wherein it was held that in cases where an FIR is lodged, and a charge sheet is filed, then these documents are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available on his side.
25. In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the learned Tribunal observed that the husband of the deceased deposed the facts pertaining to the accident and the same sequence of events was also corroborated by his cross examination.
26. Moreover, the learned Tribunal took cognisance of the fact that no witness was produced or examined by the appellant to prove as to how the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.
27. Accordingly, the first issue was decided in favour of the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
28. In regard to the second issue i.e., whether the respondent no. 1 to 3 are entitled to compensation, the learned Tribunal held that the respondents no. 1 to 3 were entitled to compensation.
29. The learned Tribunal relied on the case of Nagappa v. Gurdayal Singh 2003(2) SCC 274 wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the main guiding principle for determining the compensation is that it must be just and reasonable. It further relied on the case of UP State Road Transport Corporation V/s Trilok Chandra AIR 1996 SC 324 wherein it was held that compensation has two primary elements; pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident and the pecuniary loss sustained by members of the family on account of death in addition to the heads of damages.
30. The learned Tribunal also relied on the judgment of General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 wherein it was held that the assessment of damages to the dependants is a complicated affair which involves taking into account life, expectancy of the deceased, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount the deceased would have earned and the chances that the deceased might have got better employment. It further relied on the judgement of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein it was held that just compensation means adequate compensation which is fair and equitable.
31. In light of the aforementioned judicial dicta, the learned Tribunal observed that there was a criminal case on record and it was proven that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident that occurred on 21st April, 2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
32. The learned Tribunal perused the testimony of the witness along with complete record. As per the testimony of PW-4/husband of deceased remained unimpeached and witness proved the relevant documents.
33. The learned Tribunal further observed that the respondent no.3 deposed that the deceased was 20 years of age and was a house wife. It was noted that the respondent no.3 did not place any records or documents regarding the income or education of the deceased on record, therefore, the income was assessed as per the chart in the minimum wages act which corresponded to Rs. 8,554/-. Since the age of the deceased was 20 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier applied was 18 and accordingly, a total sum of Rs. 6,15,888/-, additional sums of Rs. 40,000, Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 15,000 were awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively to respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein. Therefore, a total sum of Rs. 6, 85, 888/was awarded to the respondents no. 1 to[3].
34. Now adverting to the adjudication of the instant appeal. Issue no. 1 – whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 21st April, 2014 at about 9 PM near Village Hasan Puri Masuri, PS Khekra, District Baghpat ?
35. In order to adjudicate upon issue no. 1, it is important to ascertain whether there is any merit in the submissions of the appellant, wherein it has been contended that the offending vehicle was not responsible for the accident and the subsequent death of the deceased, this Court will peruse the testimonies of the various witness including the two eye- witnesses of the accident.
36. As per the statement of PW1/Mrs. Ombiri (mother of the deceased), it is made out that Pooja/deceased was going to a marriage ceremony with her brother and grandmother on foot, when they reached near Village Hasan Pur Masuri, PS: Khakra, District Baghpat, the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and collided with Pooja resulting in multiple injuries. She was taken to the Trauma Centre where she was declared as „brought dead‟ by the doctors.
37. As per the eye witness statement of PW2/Smt. Krishna Devi (Grandmother of the deceased), it the same sequence of events which affirmed that while Pooja, her brother and Smt. Krishna were going to the marriage ceremony on foot, the offending vehicle approached at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit Pooja. As a result, she fell down, sustained multiple injuries and was taken to the Trauma Centre where she was declared as “brought dead”.
38. Moreover, as per the statement of Himanshu Kumar (husband of the deceased), the same sequence of events transpired as stated in the aforementioned statements of PW1/ Mrs. Ombiri and PW2/Smt. Krishna.
39. It is pertinent to note that among the statements provided ascribing negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle, there are eye witnesses who have testified that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
40. Hence, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal concluded that the driver/respondent no. 4 was driving in a rash and negligent manner that caused the accident in question.
41. It is further held that based on the above perusal of evidence as well as the aforesaid observations, this Court finds no cogent reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal.
42. Accordingly, the observations made by the learned Tribunal with regards to issue no. 1 are upheld. Issue no. 2: Whether the compensation awarded to the petitioners/ respondents no. 1-3 herein warrants reduction?
43. Before delving into the merits of the instant appeal, this Court deems it apposite to state the settled position of law regarding compensation in cases involving death of the victim.
44. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi & others (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court delineated the heads for grant of compensation in cases involving death of the victim as loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It was held that while determining the income of the deceased and computing compensation, future prospects must be considered, so that a just compensation can be arrived at as envisaged under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
45. The legislative intent behind the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to provide relief to victims of accidents in genuine cases. The Act is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the objective of providing relief to the victims, their families, in case of genuine claimants.
46. The Act is considered beneficial legislation, structured to offer support and justice to individuals who suffer from the consequences of road accidents. It aims to protect the rights of victims and their families by ensuring that they receive fair and timely compensation. The underlying principle of the Act is to address the genuine claims of those affected, thereby alleviating their financial and emotional burdens resulting from accidents. The goal is to balance the needs of the victims with the broader interests of the community and insurance providers, ensuring that justice is served in a manner that is equitable and compassionate.
47. Now adverting to the adjudication of issue no. 2.
48. This Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal rightly observed that the deceased was deposed to be 20 years of age and a house wife. Since, the respondents no. 1 to 3 did not place any records or documents regarding the income or education of the deceased on record, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the income as per the chart in the minimum wages act which corresponded to Rs. 8,554/-.
49. As the age of the deceased was 20 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier applied was 18. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal correctly computed a total sum of Rs. 6,15,888/- towards the loss of estate payable to the respondent no. 1 to 3.
50. It is further held that the learned Tribunal rightly awarded additional sums of Rs. 40,000, Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 15,000 towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively to respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein.
51. This Court finds no merit in the contention of the appellant as the same is not based on cogent facts and is contrary to the well-established principles of compensation.
52. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not interfering with the quantum of compensation being awarded under any other head of compensation as no evidence or argument has been put forth by the appellant to merit such interference of this Court.
53. Accordingly, issue no. 2 stands decided in favour of the respondents no. 1 to 3.
54. It is further noted that as per the certified copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant from the period between 17th December, 2013 and 16th December, 2014.Hence, at the time of the accident i.e. 21st April, 2014, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant.
55. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the offending vehicle was validly insured at the time of the accident and there are several statements on record which explicitly state that the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident in question.
56. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant is liable for payment of the compensation amount to the respondents no. 1 to 3.
57. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal rightly held that the respondent no. 4 was driving negligently and was responsible for the accident in question.
58. In view of the observations made by this Court in forgoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 2nd June, 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in petition bearing No.49/16 is upheld.
59. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed along with pending applications, if any.
60. The order to be uploaded on the website forthwith.