* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 11th November, 2024 % Pronounced on: 18^th December, 2024 + MAC.APP. 337/2021 & CM APPLs. 47017/2021, 47019/2021 POONAM SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sourabh Kansal, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Raghav Vij, Mr. Suraj Kumar Jha & Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advocates.

versus SMT. SHIKHA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh & Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocates.

+ MAC.APP. 338/2021 & CM APPLs. 47033/2021, 47035/2021 POONAM SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sourabh Kansal, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Raghav Vij, Mr. Suraj Kumar Jha & Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advocates.

versus SUMIT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh & Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocates.

+ MAC.APP. 339/2021 & CM APPLs. 47038/2021, 47040/2021 POONAM SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sourabh Kansal, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Raghav Vij, Mr. Suraj Kumar Jha & Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advocates.

versus SMT. USHA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh & Mr. Sudhir Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 337/2021 & connected matters Page 1 of 9 Kumar, Advocates.

+ MAC.APP. 340/2021 & CM APPLs. 47042/2021, 47044/2021 POONAM SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sourabh Kansal, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Raghav Vij, Mr. Suraj Kumar Jha & Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advocates.

versus SMT. MANJULA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh & Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocates.

+ MAC.APP. 341/2021 & CM APPLs. 47046/2021, 47048/2021 POONAM SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sourabh Kansal, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Raghav Vij, Mr. Suraj Kumar Jha & Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advocates.

versus HARSHIT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh & Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Respondent No.2, Smt. Poonam Sharma, who was the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the quantum of compensation of the impugned Award/Judgment dated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 337/2021 & connected matters Page 2 of 9

03.06.2019.

2. It is claimed that only Shri Sumit, who was driving the TSR, was employed whose salary has been calculated on the basis of Minimum Wages. The other three injured ladies i.e., Smt. Shikha, Smt. Usha and Smt. Manjula and a small boy, Shri Harshit - all have been granted pain and sufferings in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Conveyance and Special Diet in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- each, without having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by them.

3. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Respondents/Claimants have submitted that the compensation, has been granted correctly and merits no interference.

4. Submissions Heard and Record Perused.

5. Briefly stated, on 21.01.2015 at about 10:00 P.M., the injured, namely, Smt. Shikha (daughter of Usha), Smt. Usha, Smt. Manjula and nephew Harshit @ Hanny were travelling in a TSR No. DL-1RF-9295 which was being driven by the injured, Shri Sumit (brother of Shikha). When they were at Lucknow Road, Patrachar Jhuggi, going towards Ring Road, an Accent Car bearing No. DL-2CW-8982 which was being driven by Shri Himanshu Sharma, (since deceased), came from the wrong side and hit the TSR with such an impact that the TSR overturned, resulting in injuries to all the occupants of the TSR. Additionally, the Accent Car hit another e-Rickshaw in which its driver, Shri Santosh was sleeping.

6. All the injured persons were taken to Hospital, where they were given the treatment.

7. An FIR No. 64/2015 under Sections 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Timarpur, Delhi. After due investigations, the Chargesheet was filed before the concerned Metropolitan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 337/2021 & connected matters Page 3 of 9 Magistrate.

8. The DAR on the basis of the Chargesheet, was also filed before the Claims Tribunal.

9. The only challenge raised by the Appellant, Smt. Poonam Sharma,