IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

MAC APP.NO. OF 2017

IN RE:

SMT. POONAM SINGH & ORS. ….APPELLANTS

V/s

SH. VIVEK KUMAR & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

FORMAT OF BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF SUBMISSION TO BE

FILED ALONGWITH THE APPEAL IN DEATH CASES.

1. Date of Accident 22.01.2017

2. Name of The Deceased Miss Shikha Singh.

3. Age of The Deceased 21 1/2 years.

4. Occupation of The Deceased Self-Employed.

(running Beauty-parlour)

5. Income of The Deceased Rs.16,000/- P.M.

6. Name, Age, And Relationship of Legal Representative of

Deceased.

S. No. NAME RELATION AGE

WIDOWED 38
1. SMT.POONAM SINGH
MOTHER YEARS.

19
2. MR.ABHISHEK SINGH BROTHER
YEARS.

7.Computation of Compensation.

S. AWARD BY THE CLAIM IN

HEADS
No. TRIBUNAL APPEAL
16,000/-
11,830/- +50%incrX12X18
1. Dependency X1/2X15X12= =51,84,000,less
10,64700/- P.D
50%=25,92,000/-
 2. Medical Bills NIL NIL

3. Pain &Sufferings
(during treatment NIL NIL
period)

1,50,000/-
4. LOVE &AFFECTION 1,00,000/- X2=3,00,000/-

5.
Loss Of Expectancy 1,00,000/-
NIL
Of Life

6. Loss Of ESTATE 10,000/- 1,00,000/-

7. Funeral 25,000/- 25,000/-

TOTAL 11,99,700/- 31,17,000/-

COMPENSATION

INTREST
9% 18%
AWARDED

BRIEF GROUNDS OF APPEAL:-

KINDLY REFER TO MEMORANDUM OF

APPEAL,GROUNDS OF APPEAL.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAC APP.NO. OF 2017

IN RE:

SMT. POONAM SINGH & ORS. ….APPELLANTS

V/s

SH. VIVEK KUMAR & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM OF FIRST APPEAL UNDER SEC. 173 OF

THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT OF SH. G.N PANDEY, JUDGE, MACT(PILOT
COURT), DELHI, DATED 01.06.2017 IN SUIT NO.
180/2017.AND AMENDED JUDGEMENT/ORDER ON
09/08/2017.

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.

The humble petition of the Appellants above named :-

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That this Memorandum of First Appeal is directed

against the judgment of Sh. G.N PANDEY Judge,
MACT(PILOT COURT), Delhi dated 01.06.2017, in Suit
No. 180/2017, AND the award was amended by the
hon'ble judge on 09/08/2017 ,by the said judgment
the Ld. Tribunal awarded a compensation of
Rs.11,99,700/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Ninty Nine
Thousand Seven Hundred Only) against the claimed
amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs)
which is much less than the reasonable and just.

2. That the facts of the case are briefly stated as under: -

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAC APP.NO. OF 2017

IN RE:

SMT. POONAM SINGH & ORS. ….APPELLANTS

V/s

SH. VIVEK KUMAR & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM OF FIRST APPEAL UNDER SEC. 173 OF

THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT OF SH. G.N PANDEY, JUDGE, MACT(PILOT
COURT), DELHI, DATED 01.06.2017 IN SUIT NO.
180/2017.AND AMENDED JUDGEMENT/ORDER ON
09/08/2017.

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.

The humble petition of the Appellants above named :-

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That this Memorandum of First Appeal is directed

against the judgment of Sh. G.N PANDEY Judge,
MACT(PILOT COURT), Delhi dated 01.06.2017, in Suit
No. 180/2017, AND the award was amended by the
hon'ble judge on 09/08/2017 ,by the said judgment
the Ld. Tribunal awarded a compensation of
Rs.11,99,700/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Ninty Nine
Thousand Seven Hundred Only) against the claimed
amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs)
which is much less than the reasonable and just.

2. That the facts of the case are briefly stated as under: -

 i) That on 22-01-2017 at about 06:45
P.M. deceased late Miss.Shikha SINGH was
traveling as pillion rider on Honda Activa
bearing no. DL-5SAT-9293 at Pushta Marg
coming from Nanaksar side and going
towards Sonia Vihar with her uncle Shri
Satish Kumar who was driving the Scooty.
Sh. Satish Kumar driving the said Scooty
with due care and caution at a normal
speed at the left side of the road, both the
riders were wearing proper helmet and when
they had reached near 4th pushta ,Sonia
Vihar,a TATA TRUCK407 bearing no.
DL-1LR-8772 being driven by its driver
respondent no.1 at a very high speed rashly
and negligently came from behind at a very
high speed and hit their Scooty from behind
as a result of this Shikha Singh and Satish
Kumar had fallen down on the road and as a
result of which the deceased received fatal
injuries. A FIR was also registered with respect
of the said accident vide registration no.
27/2017 under Section 279/338/304-A IPC
with P.S. Sonia Vihar. Thus this accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of
TATA TRUCK407 bearing no.DL-1LR-8772,
being driven by Respondent No.1.

ii) That the deceased was aged about 21 1/2 years

and was having good health. That the date of
birth of deceased was 05.09.1995 (As per Pan
Card). That the deceased was gainfully self
employed and was earning Rs.16,000/- per
month by running a beauty parlor. The
deceased was highly qualified and has done
her Vocational Course of Beauty Culture
from Satoshi Beauty Parlour under
 community welfare organization Affiliated to
DWCD(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI).She was
running Shikha Beauty Parlour and training
centre at Tomar Market. Shukar Bazaar,
Chauhan Patti,50 Futta Road, Sonia
Vihar,North East Delhi-110094.She had
passed 12th examination with good
percentage of marks in Delhi(C.B.S.E
BOARD) and was doing B.A. through School
of Correspondence Studies, University of
Delhi.The deceased have various certificates
in different fields as she was highly
qualified. And had always attained merit in
different fields. The deceased was having
high prospectus in her life as it was the
starting time of her career and she was
earning Rs.16,000/- per month and later on
she would have earn upto Rs.25 to Rs.35
thousand Per month and she was planning
to do IAS or PCS exams after completing her
B.A. the income of the deceased would have
increased at least three times in her life.
The deceased was a meritorious girl. The
appellants herein had claimed a sum of
Rs.32,00,000/-.

iii) That the deceased was also assessed to Income

Tax. That the Certified True Copy of the PAN
CARD of the deceased was placed on record by
the PW1.

iv). That the written Statement was filed on

behalf of R-1 & 2 jointly wherein they have
alleged that the claim of the petitioner is
highly exorbitant and denying the
averments made in the petition contending
that this is not maintainable and there is no
 cause of action for filling of the same
untenable in the eyes of law and
respondents are not liable to pay
compensation to petitioner as vehicle
involved in this case has been insured with
respondent no.3, factum of accident has
been denied by the respondents.
Respondent No.3 i.e. BAJAJ ALLIANZ
GENERAL INSURANCE Company LTD.has
also filed written statement and had alleged
that TATA TRUCK407 bearing no.DL-1LR-
8772 was insured vide policy no.OG-17-
1104-1803-00000351 effective from 28-08-
2016 to 27-08-2017.

v). That on the pleadings of the parties,

following issues were framed;

a. Whether the deceased died on account

injuries sustained in accident took place on
22/01/2017 at about 6:45 P.M at SONIA
VIHAR Pushta Road, near 4th Pushta, Sonia
Vihar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS
SONIA VIHAR due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle bearing No.DL-1LR-8772
driven by respondent no.1 ?OPP

b. Whether the petitioners are entitled to

compensation, if so, to what amount and
from whom? OPP

c. Relief.

vi). That Appellant No.1 is the widow mother,

Appellant No. 2 is the Brother respectively of
the deceased. All the Appellants were dependant
on the earnings of the deceased. The Appellants
 were having great love and affection for the
deceased. The Appellants were leading
comfortable life during the lifetime of the
deceased. The Appellants suffered great shock
and agony on account of sudden and premature
death of the deceased.

vii). That the Respondent No.1 is the driver &

Respondent no.2 is the Regd. Owner of the
TATA TRUCK407 bearing no.DL-1LR-8772
and the said offending vehicle was insured with
Respondent no.3, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE Company LTD for all such risks.
Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the
Appellants.

viii). That the appellant no.1 examined herself as

PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of
affidavit where in she has stated the entire
facts on oath and exhibited the documents
pertaining to educational qualification and
meritorious back ground of her deceased
daughter . That the appellants further lead
evidence and PW1 stated that the deceased
was earning about Rs.16,000/- P.M. from
running beauty parlour and give entire
earnings to PW1.

ix). That the respondent no.1 to 3 did not lead

any evidence. The counsel for the appellants
filed a detailed written submissions and
also argued at length.

x). That the Ld. Tribunal vide judgment dated

01.06.2017 passed the award, taking the
income of the deceased on the basis of
 minimum wages @ Rs. 11,830/- p.m. and
deducted 50% towards the personal expenses of
the deceased on herself, and applied a
multiplier of 15 and computed an award of Rs.
11,99,700/- including Rs. 1,00,000/- towards
loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- each for
the loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/- for funeral
expenses. That on 09/08/2017 award was
amended by the Hon'ble Presiding officer Sh.
G.N PANDEY MACT(PILOT COURT), NORTH EAST
Delhi. THAT LD. TRIBUNAL AWARDED THE LOSS
OF CONSORTIUM OF RS.1,00,000/- IN A
BACHELOR'S CASE SO AFTER TWO MONTHS
AWARD WAS AMENDED AND THE MONEY OF
RS.1,00,000/- IS DEDUCTED FROM THE BASIC
AWARD THAT IS (12,99,700-1,00,000/-=11,99,700).
THIS PROVES THAT LD. TRIBUNAL HASTLY AND
WITHOUT APPLYING DUE DELIGENCE INTO THE
MATTER AWARDED THE QUANTUM AND
DELIVERED THE JUDGEMENT.

xi). That aggrieved by the judgment of the Ld.

Tribunal dated 01.06.2017(AS AMENDED ON
09/08/2017) on the point of Quantum, the
Appellants herein most respectfully seek to
Appeal to this Hon’ble Court for the
enhancement of the award amount on the
following grounds amongst others: -

G R O U N D S O F A P P E A L:

A. That the Ld. Trial Court has mechanically

passed the order exercising its jurisdiction
illegally and with material irregularity and
has passed a non speaking order. The
impugned final award as such, if not
enhanced, will result in gross miscarriage of
justice and irreparable injury and damage
 to the Appellants who have lost their
daught er and sister respectively. That the
judgment of the Ld. Tribunal is against the
facts, law and evidence on record whereby the
Ld. Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.
11,99,700/- only against the claimed amount of
Rs. 32,00,000/- which is much less than the
reasonable and just. That the Ld. Trial Court
has passed the order with material
irregularity and without going into the
merits of the written submissions filed by
the appellant herein. The quantum awarded
by the Ld. Tribunal is on the lower side and
is not based on the law of land.

B. That the Ld. Tribunal has erred in computing

the income of the deceased on the basis of
minimum wages applicable to the matriculate,
whereas the deceased was engaged in the
business of Beauty Parlour and the proprietor of
the Parlour. The Ld. Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the evidence of PW.1 appellant
no.1 in which she stated that the deceased
perusing her B.A. and was in second
semester of B.A. and good in general
knowledge and could have easily pass the
IAS or PCS examination and could earn a
sum of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.35,000/- in near
future and PW1 also stated that the
deceased PRESENTLY used to earn a sum
of Rs.5,00/- TO RS700/- per day from beauty
parlour in addition to studies, and the
Ld.Trial Court has blissfully ignored the
same and has failed to reach a reasonable
expected income of deceased for the purpose
of calculating the compensation and passed
the order erroneously. The Ld. Trial Court
has failed to appreciate the fact that the
deceased was perusing her education at
Delhi because she was serious towards her
carrier and wants to achieve I.A.S or P.C.S
jobs and nothing can stop her from
achieving her carrier and high jobs had she
not died in the said accident . That the Ld.
Trial Court has failed to appreciate the
points and various judgment referred in
written submissions on behalf of appellants
and even failed to appreciate and refer and
discuses the same in the impugned order as
if the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the written
submission and passed the order
mechanically. The Ld. Trial Court has
intentionally ignored the provisions of law
and judgments referred in written
submission for the reasons best known to
the court. On completion of Bachelor's
degree from the Prestigious University
(DELHI UBIVERSITY),it can be reasonably
assumed that she would have got Good Job.
Even if that is not accepted for want of any
evidence in support thereof, there would not
have been any difficulty for her in getting
some decent Job in the Private Sector. Had
She decided to join Govt. service and got
selected, She would have been put in the
pay scale of at least Rs. 25,000/-to
30,000/- P.M. Where ever She joined, she
has a fair chance of some promotion and
remote chance of some high position. So,
the Income of the deceased must be taken
according to her future prospects in the life
as she was very young and in this age she
has a fire to earn more and more and make
her carrier the best and also make her
 mother's status the best and provide her all
the luxuries and animates of the life. We
can't measure her status mere applying
minimum wages of matriculate and accesses
her earnings and future earnings. She was a
extraordinary Girl, She is not a crowd, her
mother sometimes called her "TIGRESS"
because she works like a "TIGRESS" and
she behave like a "TIGRESS" and her
attitude is like a tigress .So, she is not a
common face in the crowd. She is a
extraordinary girl and her widowed mother
who is fully dependent on her and she also
fully support her widowed mother both
financially and physically. SHE WAS A
"BRIGHT STAR", She has a future, the said
accident ruined all the prospectus of her
widowed mother and the that of "BRIGHT
STAR". And on the other hand LD.
TRIBUNAL also added the salt on the
injuries of the dependent widowed mother
and increased the pain of the victims by
calculating the income of the "BRIGHT
STAR" merely by applying formula of
minimum wages, which is not acceptable in
any circumstances in the present scenario
of the world and the present situation.

C. That the Ld. Trial Court has acted without

diligence and has not applied its mind to
the aspects of the case properly and duly as
the Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into
consideration the future prospect of the
deceased Lt. Miss Shikha Singh in the light
of her meritorious past and general
knowledge etc. which are duly proved by
appellant before the Trial Court and are
exhibits PW.1/4, PW.1/5, PW.1/6, PW.1/7,
PW.1/8, PW.1/9,PW.1/10 which shows that
the deceased was a
meritorious/working/self-employed girl and
could have attained high jobs and high post
in future and could have earn a higher
income in near future. The Ld. Trial Court
has failed to consider that the future
prospects would necessarily mean advancement
in future career, earnings and progression in
one's life. It could be considered by seeing, from
which post a person began her career, what
avenues or prospects she has while being in a
particular avocation and what targets he/she
would finally achieve at the end of his career.
The promotional avenues, career progression,
grant of selection grades etc. are some of the
broad features for considering one's future
prospects in one's career. The same is the case
of the appellants because the appellant no.1
duly exhibited the entire educational back
ground of the deceased which is showing a bright
future of the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme
court has held that some guess work is to be
allowed in the following judgment
SUBBULAKSHMI & ORS VERSUS S. LAKSHMI
& ANR CIVIL APPEAL NO 990 OF 2008[Arising
out of SLP(C) No. 19532 of 2006] where the
Hon’ble court held “In a case of this nature,
some guess work is inevitable. This Court could
have gone into the question provided there was
some materials had been brought on record by
the appellants upon which reliance could be
placed. Similarly in the instant matter there is
enough evidence on record to show the future
prospect of deceased and some guess work can be
done by the Tribunal. The Ld. Tribunal had
committed grave error in not only taking
minimum wages as the basis of the income
of the deceased but also failed to consider
the periodical increase in minimum wages
and failed to take judicial notice of revision
of minimum wages as laid down under the
Minimum Wages Act and accordingly the
future increase in income has not been
considered by the Ld. Tribunal. That Hon’ble
Delhi High court has held in various judgments
that periodical increase in the minimum wages
is to be considered as held by Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Prdeep Nandrajog in the following two
judgments ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
VS. PUTUL DEVI DECIDED ON 09.01.2007
BEARING PETITION MACT NO.14/07 while
deciding a petition in which the tribunal had
taken into account the future prospects
Similarly in another petition on same
proposition our own High Court in NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY VS. SMT.MATTI DEVI
AND OTHERS DECIDED ON 15.1.2007 BEARING
PETITION MACT NO.27/07HELD AS UNDER:- ''
Suffice would it be to note that a futuristic
vision can be taken only in respect of the events
of the past. it was held by Hon. Supreme Court
that while calculating dependency the chances
of future prospect of advancement in life and
career should be taken into consideration. In
case of SARLA DIXIT VS. BALWANT YADAV AIR
1996 SC 1272 The gross monthly income of the
deceased would shoot up at least double of that
which he was earning at the time of his death
had She survived. In Santosh Devi V.National
Insurance Company Ltd. &Ors. 2012(6)421, the
Supreme Court took a view and observed that "it
would be reasonable to say that a person who is
 self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will
also get 30% increase in his total income over a
period of time if he/she becomes victim of
accident then the same formula deserves to be
applied for calculating the amount of
compensation". In The Case Reported As Rajesh
& Ors. V. Rajbir Singh &Ors. (2013)9 Scc 54
,Decided On 12/04/2013, Upheld The Affronted
Views In Santosh Devi (Supra) Held As future
prospects must be awarded. In Shashikala &
Ors. V. Gangalakshmamma & Anr. Civil Appeal
No.2836 Of 2015.

D. That the Ld. Tribunal has erred in deducting

50% towards personal expenses for the
deceased on herself. The deceased was a simple
girl without vice. as per the PW1 deposition she
said that deceased was earning Rs.500/- to
Rs.700/- per day and she fully stay on her
deposition and nothing contradictory is come
out from the cross of PW1 and she further
submitted that deceased give entire earnings to
PW1/APPELLANT NO.1/MOTHER OF THE
DECEASED because her father died earlier and
she is the only bread earner in the family so she
give entire income to appellant no.1 so no
deduction should be taken entire income of the
deceased should be kept for calculation because
there is no evidence given by the respondents
that contradicts the deposition of the PW1.
which she has given on Oath so it is fully
considered as the evidence and there is no
contradiction of opinion by the respondents and
no evidence is provided by the respondents.
when somebody deposed on oath in front of
court that deposition should be considered as
evidence so that is admissible under evidence
 act. so, there is no deduction from the income of
the deceased. That even otherwise the deceased
was the sole-bread winner of the family and was
supporting her family. That the brother of the
deceased was studying and was given good
upbringing.

E. That the Ld. Tribunal erred in taking the

multiplier of 15 years to compute compensation
payable to the Appellants. The Ld .District Court
committed a serious error by applying the
Multiplier of 15. AS the victims age is 21 1/2
years the multiplier of 18 should have been
applied as the law laid down by SUPREME
COURT IN SARLA VERMA CASE
(SUPRA),AMRIT BHANUSHALI AND ORS. V/S
NATIONAL INS.COMP. LTD. &ORS.(2012) 11
SCC 738 where SC observed and held that the
selection of multiplier is based on the age of the
deceased and not on the basis of the age of the
dependents as there are many dependents of
different ages, same view has been taken in M.
MANSOOR &ANR. V/S UNITED INDIA INS.
COMP. LTD. &ANR. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8612 OF
2013, SLP (CIVIL) NO. 31010 OF 2010. IN
ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA V/S NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE COMP. LTD. (2010) 10 SCC 254.

F. That the Ld. Tribunal has erred in paying Rs.

25,000/- only for the loss of ESTATE, the Ld.
Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs.
1,00,000/-under the head of loss of ESTATE,
considering the age of MOTHER.IN
KALPANARAJ &ORS. V/S. TAMIL NADU STATE
TRANSPORT CORPORATION 2014 (5) SCALE
479.THE ld. Tribunal further given rupees
1,00,000/- For Loss of Love And Affection as
 there are two Lr's of the deceased ,IN JUJU
KURUVILA &ORS. V/S KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN
&ORS.2013 (9) SCC 166.The amount of love and
affection must be increased (as there are two
appellants/ Lr's of the deceased. In view of the ruling
in MAC.APP.No.160/2015 Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd
v. Usha decided by this court on 05.05.2016, non-pecuniary
damages are also deficient. The same are increased to Rs.
1,50,000/- each towards loss of love & affection.

G. That the Ld. Tribunal has erred in not awarding

any compensation to the Appellants for the loss
of expectancy of life and value of the services
which were being rendered by the deceased to
the Appellants during her lifetime, as the
deceased was to work & earn upto the age of 70-
75 yrs for the welfare and benefit of the
Appellants.

H. That the Ld. Tribunal has erred in not taking

into consideration that the value of Rupee is
dwindling due to high rate of inflation, while
computing the total compensation payable to
the Appellant which is to be spent and utilized
by the Appellant in the years to come.

I. That the Ld. Tribunal erred in paying the

interest @ 9% only on the awarded amount. The
Ld. Tribunal ought to have paid interest @ 18%
p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of the
petition till realization.

J. That the appellants have not preferred any

other appeal against the impugned award

dated 01-06-2017 before this Hon’ble Court

or any other court. The appellants received

 the awarded amount from the Ld. Tribunal

without prejudice to their rights before this

Hon’ble Court.

K. That the present Appeal is within limitation.

The impugned order was passed on

01/06/2017 and further amended on

09/08/2017 and the appellants have

received the certified/attested true copy of

impugned order on 27/09/17.

PRAYER :
Under the circumstances as explained herein above it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to : -

i) Allow the Appeal of the Appellants with costs

throughout and modify the judgment dated
01/06/2017 passed by Sh. G.N PANDEY Judge,
MACT(PILOT COURT), Delhi, in Suit No. 180/2017,
AND the award was amended by the Hon'ble Judge on
09/08/2017 ,by the said judgment the Ld. TD. by
modifying the said judgment enhancing the
award/compensation payable to the Appellants to
Rs. 32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty TWO Lacs only)
along with the interest @18% p.a. from the date of
filing of the Claim Petition till realization in favor of
the Appellants and against the Respondents.
 ii) Pass such further and other orders/directions as
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in
the circumstances of the matter.

APPELLANTS

THROUGH

((POOJA GOEL)
Advocates,
DELHI
DATED : 11.11.2017 Chamber No.D-227,
Chamber Block,
KarKardomma Courts,
New Delhi-110032.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAC APP.NO. OF 2017

SMT. POONAM SINGH & ORS. ….APPELLANTS

V/s

SH. VIVEK KUMAR & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

INDEX

SL.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES COURT-

FEE

1. Listing Performa 'A'.

2. Urgent Application.

3. Notice of Motion.

4. Memo of Parties.

5. Synopsis & List of Dates.

6. MACT Performa.

7. Opening Sheet.

8. Memorandum of Appeal
under Sec.173 of Motor
Vehicles Act along with
supporting affidavit.

9. Certified copy of impugned

judgment dated 01.06.2017
passed by Sh. G.N.PANDEY
Judge, MACT, N.E Delhi in
Suit No. 180/2017.

10. Application For Coadunation

of Delay with Affidavit.

11. Application For Exemption

from Filling 'Annexure A' with
Affidavit.

12. Insurance Policy.

13. Vakalatanama Welfare

Stamp.
Note: No notice of the Caveat has been received.
No connected/similar matter filed by the Appellants before
this Hon'ble Court.

(POOJA GOEL)
Advocates,
DELHI
DATED : 11.11.2017 Chamber No.D-227,
Chamber Block,
KKDM COURTS,
New Delhi-11032.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAC APP.NO. OF 2017

SMT. POONAM SINGH & ORS. ….APPELLANTS

V/s

SH. VIVEK KUMAR & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES

22.01.2017
That on 22-01-2017 at about 06:45 P.M.
deceased late Miss.Shikha SINGH was
traveling as pillion rider on Honda Activa
bearing no. DL-5SAT-9293 at Pushta Marg
coming from Nanaksar side and going
towards Sonia Vihar with her uncle Shri
Satish Kumar who was driving the Scooty.
Sh. Satish Kumar driving the said Scooty
with due care and caution at a normal
speed at the left side of the road, both the
riders were wearing proper helmet and when
they had reached near 4th pushta ,Sonia
Vihar,a TATA TRUCK407 bearing no.
DL-1LR-8772 being driven by its driver
respondent no.1 at a very high speed rashly
and negligently came from behind at a very
high speed and hit their Scooty from behind
as a result of this Shikha Singh and Satish
Kumar had fallen down on the road and as a
result of which the deceased received fatal
injuries. A FIR was also registered with respect
of the said accident vide registration no.
27/2017 under Section 279/338/304-A IPC
with P.S. Sonia Vihar. Thus this accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of
TATA TRUCK407 bearing no.DL-1LR-8772,
being driven by Respondent No.1.
That the deceased was aged about 21 1/2 years
and was having good health. That the date of
birth of deceased was 05.09.1995 (As per Pan
Card). That the deceased was gainfully self
employed and was earning Rs.16,000/- per
month by running a beauty parlor. The
deceased was highly qualified and has done
her Vocational Course of Beauty Culture
from Satoshi Beauty Parlour under
community welfare organization Affiliated to
DWCD(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI).She was
running Shikha Beauty Parlour and training
centre at Tomar Market. Shukar Bazaar,
Chauhan Patti,50 Futta Road, Sonia
Vihar,North East Delhi-110094.She had
passed 12th examination with good
percentage of marks in Delhi(C.B.S.E
BOARD) and was doing B.A. through School
of Correspondence Studies, University of
Delhi.The deceased have various certificates
in different fields as she was highly
qualified. And had always attained merit in
different fields. The deceased was having
high prospectus in her life as it was the
starting time of her career and she was
earning Rs.16,000/- per month and later on
she would have earn upto Rs.25 to Rs.35
thousand Per month and she was planning
to do IAS or PCS exams after completing her
B.A. the income of the deceased would have
increased at least three times in her life.
The deceased was a meritorious girl. The
appellants herein had claimed a sum of
Rs.32,00,000/-.
07.04.2017
That the DAR was filed by the POLICE before the
Ld. M.A.C.T. on 07.04.2017 for the grant of
compensation u/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, being Suit No. 180/17. That the Respondent
No.1 is the driver & Respondent no.2 is the
Regd. Owner of the TATA TRUCK407 bearing
no.DL-1LR-8772 and the said offending
vehicle was insured with Respondent no.3,
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE
Company LTD for all such risks.
01.06.2017
That the Ld. Tribunal vide judgment dated
01.06.2017 passed the award, taking the
income of the deceased on the basis of
minimum wages @ Rs. 11,830/- p.m. and
deducted 50% towards the personal expenses of
the deceased on herself, and applied a
multiplier of 15 and computed an award of Rs.
11,99,700/- including Rs. 1,00,000/- towards
loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- each for
the loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/- for funeral
expenses.

09/08/2017
That on 09/08/2017 award was amended by
the Hon'ble Presiding officer Sh. G.N PANDEY
MACT(PILOT COURT), NORTH EAST Delhi. THAT
LD. TRIBUNAL AWARDED THE LOSS OF
CONSORTIUM OF RS.1,00,000/- IN A BACHELOR'S
CASE SO AFTER TWO MONTHS AWARD WAS
AMENDED AND THE MONEY OF RS.1,00,000/- IS
DEDUCTED FROM THE BASIC AWARD THAT IS
(12,99,700-1,00,000/-=11,99,700). THIS PROVES
THAT LD. TRIBUNAL HASTLY AND WITHOUT
APPLYING DUE DELIGENCE INTO THE MATTER
AWARDED THE QUANTUM AND DELIVERED THE
JUDGEMENT.
11.11.2017
That aggrieved by the impugned judgment the
Appellants have filed the present appeal under
section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the
enhancement of the award amount on Ground A to
Ground N of the Memorandum of Appeal.

(POOJA GOEL &ASS.)

Advocates,
DELHI
DATED : 11.11.2017 Chamber No.D-227,
KKDM Court of Delhi,
New Delhi-110032.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAC APP.NO. OF 2017

SMT. POONAM SINGH & ORS. ….APPELLANTS

V/s

SH. VIVEK KUMAR & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

(Appeal against order dated 01.06.2017 passed by Sh. G.N PANDEY Judge.
MACT(PILOT COURT), NORTH EAST, Delhi in Suit no. 180/2017 in case
titled Smt. POONAM SINGH & Ors. vs. Sh. VIVEK KUMAR & Ors.)

MEMO OF PARTIES
1. SMT. POONAM SINGH W/O LATE SH.ROHIT SINGH,
2. SH.ABHISHEK SINGH, S/O LATE SH. ROHIT SINGH,
ALL RESIDENTS OF HOUSE NO. E-1/276,GALI NO.16, 4TH
PUSHTA,SONIA VIHAR,NORTH-EAST, DELHI-110094.
….APPELLANTS
V/S

1. SH. VIVEK KUMAR , S/o SH. NAWAB SINGH,

R/O D-2/233,GALI NO.6,SONIA VIHAR,3RD PUSHTA,
NORTH-EAST,DELHI-110094.
ALSO AT:-
VILLAGE-ABBUPUR,POST-AND P.S-
KAYAMGANJ.DISTRICT-FARRUKHABAD,UTTAR-PARDESH.
(DRIVER).

2. M/S BEDI INDANE,

THROUGH IT'S PROP.
SH:SATISH KUMAR,S/O SH:PRAKASH,
R/O-D-43.3RD PUSHTA,
KARTAR NAGAR,
NORTH-EAST DELHI-110053.
(REGD. OWNER).

3. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

LTD.
THROUGH IT'S MANAGER,
BLOCK NO.4,7TH FLOOR,
DLF TOWER,SHIVAJI MARG,
MOTI NAGAR,DELHI. (INSURANCE COMAPNY)
… RESPONDENTS

APPELLANTS
THROUGH
(POOJA GOEL AND ASS.)
Advocates,
DELHI
DATED : 11.11.2017 Chamber No.D-227,
KKDM Courts of Delhi,
New Delhi-11032.