Delhi District Court
Renu Luthra (F) (Petition) vs Krishna Gupta on 8 February, 2024
DLCT010080292019
Presented on : 07-06-2019
Registered on : 01-07-2019
Decided on : 08-02-2024
Duration : 04 Years 07 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI,
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT No. 427/19
RENU LUTHRA (Since Deceased)
Through Lrs (Impleaded vide order
dated 16/01/2023):-
1. SHIVANI MEHTA
W/o Sh. Amit Mehtra
D/o Late Sh. Ashwani Kumar
R/o H.No. B-17/18, 2nd Floor,
Near Parwana Road, Old Govind Pura,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.
2. PALAK LUTHRA
W/o Late Sh.Ashish Luthra
D/o Lae Sh.Ashwani Kumar
R/o H.No. 3191, Mohalla Dassan
Hazi Qazi, Ballimaran, Baradari,
Delhi-110006. ......Petitioners.
VERSUS
MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 1/39
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08
15:06:51 +0530
1. SMT. KRISHNA GUPTA
W/o Sh.B.R.Gupta
R/o H.No. 166, Kalyan Vihar,
Delhi-110009.(Owner)
2. SH. VARUN GUPTA
S/o sh. B.R.Gupta
R/o H.No. 166, Kalyan Vihar,
Delhi-110009. (Driver). ....Respondents.
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles
(fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as
under:-
1. Date of the accident 22/07/2
007
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident N.A.
Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A.
Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A.
from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident N.A.
Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A.
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N.A.
by the Insurance Company
MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 2/39
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08
15:06:58 +0530
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A.
the part of the Designated officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer N.A.
of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 08/02/2
024
15. Whether the claimant (s) was/were directed to Yes
open savings bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 16/12/
directed to open savings bank account(s) near his 2023
place of residence and produce PAN Card and
Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the N.A.
passbook of their savings bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H.No.
Claimant(s). B-
17/18,
2nd
Floor,
Near
Parwan
a Road,
Old
Govind
MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 3/39
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08
15:07:03 +0530
Pura,
Krishna
Nagar,
Delhi-
110051
AND
H.No.
3191,
Mohall
a
Dassan
Hazi
Qazi,
Ballima
ran,
Baradar
i,
Delhi-
110006
.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) N.A. is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at N.A. the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. This petition U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act was filed on 01/07/2019 seeking compensation in respect of the death of MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 4/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:07:08 +0530 one Sh. Shrey Luthra @ Babu S/o Sh. Ashwani Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") due to a motor vehicular accident dated 22/07/2007. As per petition, on 22/07/2007 at about 2.20 A.M. the deceased alonwith his other friends namely Harish Kumar, Nitish Verma, Saurav Sharma, Harman Singh, Achin Walia, Amritpal Singh @ Mohit and Balwinder Singh @ Pricne after attending a kirtan at Bangla Sahib, New Delhi arrived at Ridge Road adjoining Shankar Road in front of the Office of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi on their respective scooter/ motorbikes, the deceased was fatally hit by one Accent Car bearing registration no. DL-6CG-2263 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") while trying to overtake them a very high speed and driven in a very rash and negligent manner wherein all the occupants of the said Car were high drunk and were throwing empty bottles on the road and after hitting the deceased, fled away, however, the said friends of the deceased managed to note down the registration number of the said offending Car and informed the police regarding the same. It is further stated that after the accident the deceased sustained serious multiple injuries on his body and was taken to nearby Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, by his said friends where the doctors treated him and at about 6.15 A.M. the doctors of the said hospital declared him dead and the postmortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased on the same date i.e. 22.07.2007 vide PM No. 516/2007. An FIR no. 192/07 PS Rajinder Nagar U/s 279/304A IPC was registered in respect of the above accident. The deceased was 17 years and was helping his father with business of plating/ galvanization in the name of Luthra MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 5/39 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:07:13 +0530 Automobiles, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as pocket allowances from Luthra Automobiles and Rs. 12,000/- per month from Vishal Electro Clinic. As per petition, the petitioners were completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. Petitioners seek compensation to the tune of Rs.1,61,10,000/- in respect of the untimely death of deceased in the above said accident. R-1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the driver of the same. Notice of this petition was issued to both the respondents.
2. Both the respondents were proceeded exparte vide order dated 16/01/2020 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
ISSUES
3. Vide order dated 16/01/2020, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Shrey Luthra @ Babu suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 22.07.2007 at about 2.20 AM involving Accent Car bearing registration No. Dl-6CG-
2263driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 6/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:07:19 +0530
4. In support of their contentions, the petitioners examined Petitioner no. 1 Shivani Mehta who is the sister of the deceased, as PW-1. PW-1 vide her affidavit Ex. PW1/A deposed that the deceased was his brother who lost his life on due to an accident dated 22.07.2007 involving the offending vehicle. She further deposed that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence of R-1. She further deposed that the deceased was 17 years old, was self employed and earning Rs.10,000- per month as pocket allowances from Luthra Automobiles and Rs. 12,000/- per month from Vishal Electro Clinic from the said business, being the sisters of the deceased, were completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. She has relied upon following documents :-
"Ex. PW1/1 (Colly) (OSR) is the photocopies of the identity cards of the original petitioners;
Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) is photocopy of birth certificate of the deceased;
Ex.PW1/3 is certified copy of FDR No. 192/2007 u/s 279/337, IPC, PS Rajender Nagar;
Ex.PW1/4 is certified copy of MLC bearing No. 434 dated 22/07/2007;
Ex.PW1/5 is certified copy of death summary dated 22/07/2007;
Ex.PW1/6 is certified copy of provisional death certificate dated 22/07/2007 issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital;
MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 7/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:07:24 +0530 Ex.PW1/7 is certified copy of post mortem report bearing No. 516/2007 dated 22/07/2007;
Ex.PW1/8 is certified copy of Site Plan;
Ex.PW1/9 is certified copy of written complaint dated 23/07/2007 by one eye witnesses of accident to the police;
Ex.PW1/10 is certified copy of registration certificate of offending vehicle bearing reregistration no. DL-6CG-2263;
Ex.PW1/11 is certified copy of Motor Inspection Report of offending vehicle bearing registration no.DL-6CG-2263;
Ex.PW1/12 is certified copy of Motor Inspection Report of Scooter bearing registration no. DL-4SN-9008;
Ex.PW1/13 is original death certificate dated 11/08/2007 issued by MCD;
Ex.PW1/14 is certified copy of Forensic Report dated 30/08/2007;
Ex.PW1/15 is certified copy of protest application dated 11.09.2007;
Ex.PW1/16 (Colly) is certified copies of Status Reports dated 13/09/2007, 06/10/2007, 03/01/2008, 05/09/2008, 13/02/2009 & undated Status Report submitted by the IO;
Ex.PW1/17 (Colly) is certified copies of ordersheets of the Ld. MM in connection with FIR No. 192/2007 PS Rajinder Nagar MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 8/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:07:30 +0530 dated 17/09/2007, 06/10/2007, 03/11/2007, 17/11/2007,04/12/2007,03/01/2008,15/01/200 8,29/03/2008,15/07/2008,08/08/2008,05/09/2 008,01/12/2008,27/01/2009,13/02/2009,28/04 /2009,08/07/2009 and 13/07/2009;
Ex.PW1/18 is certified copy of final report dated 21/22/09/2009;
Ex.PW1/19 is certified copy of the order dated 27/04/2013 passed by the Ld. MM in FIR No. 192/2007;
Ex.PW1/20 is certified copy of the final report dated 27/09/2013;
Ex.PW1/21 is Office Copy of protest application dated 29/03/2014 filed by the original Petitioner No.2;
Ex.PW1/22 (Colly) is certified copies of DAR case bearing MACT Misc No. 05/2014 alongwith order dated 04/06/2009, 01/06/2015 and 16/09/2015;
Ex.PW1/23(colly) is certified copies of the affidavits dated 15/01/2015 of Nitish Verma, Saurav Sharma, Harman Sing, Amritpal Singh @ Mohit Balwinder Singh @ Prince and Achin Walia filed on 30/09/2015 before the Ld. MM;
Ex.PW1/24 is certified copy of the order dated 27/04/2018 passed by the Ld. MM in FIR No. 192/2007 wherein congnizance was taken;
Ex.PW1/25 (Colly) is certified copy of the orders dated 04/07/2018 & 13/07/2018 MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 9/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:07:35 +0530 passed by the Ld. MM in FIR No. 192/2007;
Ex.PW1/26 certified copy of application dated 12/09/2018 filed by the original Petitioner No.2 for direction to the IO to seize the Insurance Policy Certificate of the offending vehicle;
Ex.PW1/27 (Colly) is certified copy of the orders dated 19/09/2018, 30/10/2018 and 16/01/2019 passed by the Ld. MM in FIR No. 192/2007;
Ex.PW1/29 is certified copy of the order dated 26/02/2019 passed by the Ld. MM in FIR No. 192/2007;
Ex.PW1/30 (Colly) (OSR) is photocopies of medical documents of the original Petitioner No.1;
Ex.PW1/31 (Colly) is photocopies of medical documents of the original Petitioner No.2 is de-exhibited as Mark H Ex.PW1/32 is original visiting card of the deceased;
Ex.PW1/33 is affidavit of the original Petitioner No. 1;
Ex.PW1/34 is affidavit of the original Petitioner No.2;
Mark A is true copy of school record book of the deceased;
Mark B is true copy of the driving license of the original Petitioner No.2;
MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 10/39 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:07:40 +0530 Mark C is true copy of Ration Card of the original petitioners;
Mark D is true copy of request to Forensic Department for conduction post mortem of the deceased;
Mark E is true copy of statement of Sh. Arun Malwa;
Mark F is true copy of statement of Sh.Rajesh Chauhan;
Mark G is true copy of death report of the deceased;
Ex.PW1/35 (OSR) is true copy of the death certificate of the original Petitioner No. 1;
Ex.PW1/36 (OSR) is true copy of the death certificate of the original Petitioner No. 2;
Ex.PW1/37 (OSR) is photocopy of the identity card of the substitute Petitioner No.1, Ex.PW1/38 (OSR) is photocopy of the identity card of the substitute Petitioner No.1, Ex.PW1/39 (Colly) is claim petition.'' 4.1 PW1 was not cross-examined by the respondents.
5. Petitioners' evidence was then closed.
6. Respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence.
MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 11/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:07:44 +0530 FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1"Whether the deceased Sh. Shrey Luthra @ Babu suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 22.07.2007 at about 2.20 AM involving Accent Car bearing registration No. DL-6CG-2263 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No. 2? OPP.''
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 12/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:07:49 +0530 Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. Perusal of records reveals that initially an untraced report was filed by the police u/s 173 Cr.PC dated 22/09/2009. Thereafter, supplementary report was filed by the police u/s 173 Cr.PC dated 27/09/2013 whereby it was concluded that the offending vehicle could not be traced and the involvement of accent car could not be established.
11. Further perusal of records reveals that vide order dated 27.04.2018 Ld. MM took cognizance of offence u/s 279/304A IPC on the basis of material produced by the police u/s 173 CrPC and summoned Varun Gupta as an accused in this case and same is an importance circumstance which substantiate the stand of the petitioners regarding involvement of Hundai Accent Car bearing registration no. DL-6CG-2263 in the alleged accident.
12. Besides the above, R-2 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the deposition being made by PW-1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 13/39 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:07:56 +0530 but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time the deceased had died due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by R-2.
14. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-2, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-2 has not explained the circumstances under which he hit the Scooter of the deceased from behind. In the absence of any evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-2 by failing to observe due care for the other road users while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-2 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
15. In view of the postmortem report pertaining to the deceased placed on record by the petitioners, no dispute is left MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 14/39 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:08:02 +0530 regarding the death of the deceased on account of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and default of R-2 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?"
17. As this Tribunal has already held that R-2 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
18. Assessment of compensation under this head is for the benefit of the dependants left behind by the deceased. The MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 15/39 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:08:07 +0530 relevant principles in this regard have been evolved by judicial dicta and observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 are the law governing the field. The dictum of Sarla Verma (Supra) has been followed consistently since long and the same have been reaffirmed in a latest judgment titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur & Ors., MANU/SC/0500/2020, wherein at para 8(a)certain general principles have been set out regarding the entitlements of dependants towards 'loss of dependency'and it has been observed inter-alia that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters of the deceased bachelor would not be considered to be dependants, because they would usually either be independent and earning or married or dependant on the father. It has been further observed that even if the deceased was survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant. An exception has been carved out to the general principles mentioned above for the cases where the family of the bachelor was large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he had a widowed mother and a large number of younger non-earnings sisters or brothers, but the said exception is not applicable in the present case and hence we have to go only by the general principles referred to above.
19. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioners happen to be the real sisters of deceased. It is apparent that none MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 16/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:08:12 +0530 of the petitioners are Class-I legal heirs of the deceased. Although, Petitioner No. 1 Shiwani Mehta claims that she was dependant upon the deceased, however, the said fact, even if taken to be a gospels truth, does not constitute petitioner no. 1 as a "dependant" as referred to in Sarla Verma (supra) and Satinder Kaur & Ors. (supra). Reason being the fact that the contribution, if any, was not being made in discharge of any legal duties towards any dependant family member, which duties seem to be the primary reason for the evolution of the concept of grant of compensation towards 'loss of dependency'. The said duties extend to only to the relatives defined as dependants in Section 21 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 as far as any 'Hindu' is concerned. Admittedly, the deceased was a Hindu by religion and none of the petitioners herein fall in the category of 'Dependants' defined in Section 21 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. There is no plausible reason for this Tribunal to go beyond the said definition of 'dependants' while disposing of the present proceedings. So, even if the deceased was contributing his income towards the household expenses of Petitioner no. 1, the said contribution has to be necessarily held to be nothing more than a gratuitous help to a close relative. In the absence of any adoption deed in favour of Petitioner no. 1, by no stretch of imagination could the Petitioner no. 1 be treated as "family" of the deceased for the purpose of assuming any loss of dependency on account of the untimely and unfortunate death of deceased due to a motor vehicular accident. Similarly, for MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 17/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:08:17 +0530 Petitioner No.2. This observation would subsist even in the face of 'nomination' of Petitioner no.1 as a beneficiary to a life insurance policy owned by the deceased, as the said nomination would only demonstrate the closeness and affection of parties towards each other and would never be sufficient to presume that Petitioner no. 1 is a dependant of the deceased. In fact, the copy of ration card of Petitioners annexed with the petition, fortifies the above observation, as name of the deceased does not figure in the same for reasons unknown and unexplained. As such, petitioners could not be granted any compensation under this head as they were not a dependant of the deceased. Admittedly, petitioners, who are real sisters of the deceased, were already married and independent as on the date of demise of the deceased, therefore, none of them could be treated as a dependant of the deceased. In the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal holds that no compensation is admissible to either of the petitioners under the head "Loss of Dependency".
COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
20. Having ruled that none of the petitioners are entitled to any compensation towards loss of dependency, this Tribunal is left with the task to assess whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation under the non-pecuniary heads. In this regard, it could be observed at the very outset that none of the petitioners are entitled to any compensation under the head "loss of consortium" as the latest MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 18/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:08:23 +0530 pronouncement made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satinder Kaur & Ors. (supra) does not make any provision for real sisters of any deceased.
21. Now the last head of compensation which remains is the "Loss of Estate". In this regard, it may be noted here that the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors., MAC. APP. No. 601/2007, decided on 15.01.2010, while seeking a decision on merits. It would be appropriate to mention here that the following observations have been made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Keith Rowe (supra) at para no. 9 as under :-
"9. The appellant was not financially dependent upon the deceased and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the compensation for loss of dependency. However, the appellant is entitled to the loss of estate. The law in this regard is well settled by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Ors., I(2005) ACC 304/ 2005 ACJ 1992, wherein it was held as under:-
"8. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for consideration:
What are the principles for determining compensation, where the claimant is not a dependant?"
"12. In GOBALD MOTOR SERVICE v. R.M.K. VELUSWAMI, MANU/SC/0016/1961 :
MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 19/39 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:08:27 +0530 [1962]1SCR929 referring to Sections 1 and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act (Sections 1A and 2 after 1951 amendment to the said Act), the Supreme Court pointed out the difference between damages recoverable under the said two Sections. It was held that while under Section 1 (new Section 1A) damages are recoverable for the benefit of the persons mentioned therein, under Section 2, compensation goes to the benefit of the estate; whereas under Section 1, damages are payable in respect of loss sustained by the persons mentioned therein, under Section 2 damages can be claimed inter alia for loss of expectation of life and loss to the estate. The Supreme Court held that persons who claim benefit under Section 1 and 2 need not be the same as the claims under the said two Sections are based upon different causes of action. The Supreme Court held:
"The principle in its application to the Indian Act has been clearly and succinctly stated by a division bench of the Lahore High Court in SECRETARY OF STATE v. GOKAL CHAND (AIR 1925 Lah 636). In that case, Sri SHADILAL CJ observed thus:
"The law contemplates two sorts of damages: the one is the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident; the other is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The action for the latter is brought by the legal representatives, not for the estate, but as trustees for the relatives beneficially entitled; while the damages for the loss caused to the estate are claimed on behalf of the estate and when recovered from part of the assets of the estate. An illustration may clarify the position X is the income of the estate of the deceased, Y is the yearly expenditure incurred by him on his dependants (we will ignore the other expenditure incurred by him). X-Y, i.e., Z is the amount he saves every year. The capitalised value of the income spend on the dependants, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family though his death. The capitalised value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 20/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:08:32 +0530 caused to the estate by his death. If the claimants under both the heads are the same, and if they get compensation for the entire loss caused to the estate, they cannot claim again under the head of personal loss the capitalised income that might have been spent on them if the deceased were alive. Conversely, if they got compensation under Section 1, representing the amount that the deceased would have spent on them, if alive, to that extent there should be deduction in their claim under Section 2 of the Act in respect of compensation for the loss caused to the estate. To put it differently, if under Section 1 they got capitalised value of Y; under Section 2 they could get only the capitalised value of Z, for the capitalised value of Y+Z, i.e., X, would be the capitalised value of his entire income."
"The rights of action under Section 1 and 2 of the Act are quite distinct and independent. If a person taking benefit under both the Sections is the same, he cannot be permitted to recover twice over for the same loss. In awarding damages under both the heads, there shall not be duplication of the same claim, that is, if any part of the compensation representing the loss to the estate goes into the calculation of personal loss under Section 1 of the Act, the portion shall be excluded in giving compensation under Section 2 and vice versa."...
"15. Where a breadwinner dies and his wife, children and parents, who are normally depending on the deceased, claim compensation, the method of computation is now standardized. The Court first finds out the income of the deceased, then estimates how much he would have spent for himself (for his personal and living expenses). The balance is taken as the contribution to the dependents (family). The said estimate of the amount contributed to the family per year, which is the annual dependency, becomes the basis for arriving at the compensation. It is converted into a lump sum by multiplying it by the number of years during which he would have contributed to the family (duly scaled down to take several uncertainties into account). Thus, the annual dependency becomes the multiplicand and the number of years' purchase becomes the multiplier. As it is well MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 21/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:08:37 +0530 settled that there cannot be a duplication of award under Sections 1A and 2 of the FA Act, where the main head for award of compensation is loss of dependency, the Courts will not duplicate the award under the head of loss of estate. Instead a conventional sum (Say Rs. 10,000/-) is awarded under the head of loss of estate, where the income has already been taken note of under the head of loss of dependency.
16. But, what would be the position if the claimant, though a legal heir is not a dependant of the deceased? Obviously, the question of awarding any amount under the head of loss of de-
pendency would not arise, as there was no financial dependency. In fact in this case, the deceased was not even managing the 'house hold' as is normally done by a housewife as the husband and wife were living in different places due to exigencies of ser- vice and the couple had no children. In such a case, the main head of compensation will be loss to estate under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. The claim petition becomes one on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation re- ceived becomes part of the assets of the estate. Consequently what is to be awarded under the head of loss of dependency un- der Section 1A would be nil, as there is no real pecuniary loss to the members of the family.
17. In GAMMELL v. WILSON, 1981(1) ALL ER. 578 the House of Lords held that in addition to the conventional and moderate damages for loss of expectation of life, damages for loss to the estate should include damages for loss of earnings of the lost years. The annual loss to the estate was computed to be the amount that the deceased would have been able to save after meeting the cost of his living and damages for loss to the estate were computed after applying a suitable multiplier to the an- nual loss. GAMMEL was relied on in SUSAMMA THOMAS (Supra) and by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in RAMESH CHANDRA v. M.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COR- PORATION, 1983 ACC. C.J 221".
MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 22/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:08:42 +0530
18. In MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANS-
PORT CORPORATION v. SUDHAKAR, 1977 ACJ 290 the Supreme Court considered a case where an employed husband claimed compensation in regard to the death of his wife who was employed on a monthly salary of Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/-. The Supreme Court observed:
"We find it difficult to agree that only half of that amount would have been sufficient for her monthly expenses till she retired from service, so that the remaining half may be taken as the measure of her husband's monthly loss. It is not impossible that she would have contributed half of her salary to the household, but then it is reasonable to suppose that the husband who was employed at slightly higher salary would have contributed his share to the common pool which would have been utilised for the lodging and boarding of both of them. We do not therefore think it is correct to assume that the husband's loss amounted to half the monthly salary the deceased was likely to draw until she retired. If on an average she contributed Rs. 100/- every month to the common pool, then his loss would be roughly not more than Rs. 50/-per month."
19. We may summarise the principles enunciated, thus:
The law contemplates two categories of damages on the death of a person. The first is the pecuniary loss sustained by the de- pendant members of his family as a result of such death. The second is the loss caused to the estate of the deceased as a result of such death. In the first category, the action is brought by the legal representatives, as trustees for the dependants benefi - cially entitled. In the second category, the action is brought by the legal representatives, on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation, when recovered, forms part of the assets of the estate. In the first category of cases, the Tribunal in exer - cise of power under Section 168 of the Act, can specify the per- sons to whom compensation should be paid and also specify how it should be distributed (Note: for example, if the depen- dants of a deceased Hindu are a widow aged 35 years and mother aged 75 years, irrespective of the fact that they succeed MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 23/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:08:47 +0530 equally under Hindu Succession Act, the Tribunal may award a larger share to the widow and a smaller share to the mother, as the widow is likely to live longer). But in the second category of cases, no such adjustments or alternation of shares is per- missible and the entire amount has to be awarded to the benefit of the estate. Even if the Tribunal wants to specify the shar - ing of the compensation amount, it may have to divide the amount strictly in accordance with the personal law governing succession, as the amount awarded and recovered forms part of the estate of the deceased.
Where the claim is by the dependants, the basis for award of compensation is the loss of dependency, that is loss of what was contributed by the deceased to such claimants. A conven- tional amount is awarded towards loss of expectation of life, under the head of loss to estate.
(i) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the de-
ceased who were not dependants of the deceased, then the ba- sis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased.
(ii) A conventional sum for loss of expectation of life, is added.
The procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalising it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependants claim loss of dependency, and in cases where the claimants who are not dependents claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate.
The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases.
MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 24/39 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:08:54 +0530
20. The following illustrations with reference to the case of a de- ceased who was aged 40 years with a monthly income of Rs. 9000/ will bring out the difference between cases where claimants are dependents and cases were claimants are not de- pendents.
(i)If the family of the deceased consists of a dependant wife and child, normally one- third will be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The balance of Rs. 6000/- per month (or Rs. 72000/- per annum) will be treated as con- tribution to the dependent family. The loss of dependency will be arrived by applying a multiplier of 14. The loss of de- pendency will be Rs. 10,08,000/- plus Rs. 10,000/- under the head of loss of Estate.
(i) If the family of the deceased was larger, say consisting of de- pendent parents, wife and two children, necessarily the de- ceased would spend more on his family and the deduction to- wards personal and living expenses of the deceased will H.R.ink to one-fifth instead of one-third (Note: In Gulam Khader v. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., - ILR 2000 Kar 4416 details of this illustration have been given). Therefore the deduction toward personal and living expense would be Rs. 1800/- per month (one-fifth of Rs. 9000/-) and contribution to the family would be Rs. 7200/- per month or Rs. 86,400/- per annum. Thus loss of dependency will be Rs. 12,09,600/- (by applying the multiplier of 14). The award under the head of loss of estate would be Rs. 10000/-.
(i) If the deceased was a bachelor with dependent parents aged 65 and 60 years, normally 50% will be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. This is because a bachelor will be more care free as he had not yet acquired a wife or child and therefore would tend to spend more on himself. There was also a possibility of the bachelor getting married in which event the contribution to parents will get reduced. Therefore the contribution to the family (parents) will be Rs. 4500/- per month or Rs. 54000/- per annum. As the multiplier MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 25/39 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:08:59 +0530 will be 10 with reference to age of the mother, the loss of depen- dency will be Rs. 5,40,000/-. Loss of Estate would be a conven- tional sum of Rs. 10,000/-.
Note: The above three illustrations relate to cases where the claimants are dependants. The said illustration demonstrate that even though the income of the deceased and age of the deceased are the same, the 'loss of dependency' will vary, having regard to the number of dependants, age of the dependants and nature of dependency. The ensuing illustrations relate to cases where the legal heirs of the deceased are not dependants.
(i) If the deceased is survived by an educated employed wife earning an amount almost equal to that of her husband and if each was maintaining a separate establishment, the ques- tion of 'loss of dependency' may not arise. Each will be spending from his/her earning towards his living and personal expenses.
Even if both pool their income and spend from the common income pool, the position will be the same. In such a case the amount spent for personal and living expenses by each spouse from his/her income will be comparatively higher, that is tH.R.ee-fourth of his/her income. Each would be saving only the balance, that is one fourth (which may be pooled or maintained separately). If the saving is taken as one-fourth (that is 25%), the loss to the estate would be Rs. 2250/- per month or Rs. 27000/- per annum, By adopting the multiplier of 14, the loss to estate will be Rs. 3,78,000/-.
Note: The position would be different if the husband and wife, were both earning, and living together under a common roof, sharing the expenses. As stated in BURGESS v. FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE HOSPITAL (1955(1) Q.B. 349), 'when a husband and wife, with separate incomes are living together and sharing their expenses, and in consequence of that fact, their joint living expenses are less than twice the expenses of each one MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 26/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:09:05 +0530 living separately, then each, by the fact of sharing, is conferring a benefit on the other'. This results in a higher savings, say, one- third of the income; In addition each spouse loses the benefit of services rendered by the other in managing the household, which can be evaluated at say Rs. 1,000/- per month or Rs. 12,000/- per annum). In such a situation, the claimant (surviving spouse) will be entitled to compensation both under the head of loss of dependency (for loss of services rendered in managing the household) and loss to estate (savings to an extent of one- third of the income that is Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36000/- per annum). Therefore, the loss of dependency would be 12000X14=168,000/- and loss to estate would be 36000X14=504,000/-. In all Rs. 6,72,000/- will be the compensation.
(i) If the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are two non- dependent brothers/sisters aged 47 years and 45 years with independent income, the position would be different. As the deceased did not have a 'family', the tendency would be to spend more on oneself and
(ii) the savings would be hardly 15%. If the saving is taken as 15% (Rs. 1350/- per month), the annual savings would be Rs. 16,200/- which would be the multiplicand. The multiplier will be 13 with reference to the age of the claimants and the loss of estate would be Rs. 2,10,600/- per annum.
Though the quantum of savings will vary from person to person, there is a need to standardise the quantum of savings for determining the loss to estate (where the claimants are not dependants) in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary. The quantum of savings can be taken as one-third of the income of the deceased where the spouses are having a common establishment and one-fourth where the spouses are having independent establishments. The above will apply where the family consists of non-dependant spouse/children/parents. Where the claimants are non-dependant brothers/sisters claiming on behalf of the estate, the savings can be taken as 15 % of the income. The above percentages, one of course, subject to any MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 27/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:09:11 +0530 specific evidence to the contrary led by the claimants."
22. In view of the above observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi it is apparent that the present action is very much maintainable by his legal representatives, on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation, when recovered, shall form a part of the assets of the said estate. Further, the procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalising it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependants claim loss of dependency, and in cases where the claimants who are not dependents claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases. Lastly, the Hon'ble High Court has laid down that in case the deceased is a bachelor having non-dependant brothers and sisters who are claiming on behalf of the estate, the savings can be taken as 15% of the income of the deceased as the said savings would form a part of the estate to which such brothers and sisters would be entitled by virtue of succession laws. Having understood the principles, this Tribunal proceeds to assess the compensation.
23. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners, speaking through PW-1 Shivani Mehta has stated that the deceased was self MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 28/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:09:16 +0530 employed at the time of his demise. Admittedly, the respondents have not disputed the vocation of the deceased either in the pleadings or during trial. In these circumstances, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the deceased was self employed at the time of his unfortunate demise. However, there is no material on record, except the oral statement of PW-1, which could demonstrate that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Accordingly, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to assess the monthly income of deceased as per the minimum wages admissible to a Un-Skilled person in Delhi at the time of accident i.e. 22/07/2007. At the relevant time, the minimum wages payable to an Un-Skilled person in Delhi were Rs.3,470/- per month. PW1 has placed on record birth certificate of the deceased as Ex. PW1/2, as per the said document the date of birth of deceased was 20/09/1991. The date of accident is 22/07/2007. Apparently, the age of deceased was about 17 years at the time of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioner on account of death of the deceased.
24. Upon computation it is clear that the deceased would have earned at least a sum of Rs.7,49,520/- (3,470/- X 12 x 18) in the MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 29/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:09:23 +0530 ordinary course of his life had he not lost his life in the unfortunate accident mentioned above. As per the observations made in Keith Rowe (supra) this Tribunal is supposed to assume that 15% of the above income of deceased would have benefited his inheritable estate. Therefore, the total accrual to the estate of deceased would be Rs.1,12,428/- (15/100 x 7,49,520/-) and this sum is to be divided/ distributed amongst the eligible inheritors/ legal heirs.
APPORTIONMENT
25. It has been clearly laid down in Keith Rowe (supra) at para no. 9(19)(i) (reproduced above) that in case of where the death of a deceased causes loss to his estate, no adjustments or alteration of shares his permissible and the amount has to be divided strictly in accordance with the law governing the succession to the estate of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was a Hindu. Admittedly, none of petitioners fall in the category of Class-I legal heirs; rather, all the petitioners fall in the category of Class-II legal heirs. The scheme of succession for any Hindu is laid down in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A joint reading of Section 8 (b), Section 11 and Section 9 of the Hindu Succesion Act, 1956 would imply that the petitioners , being the sisters of the deceased, reason being the fact that the petitioners fall in a prior entry no. II. In these circumstances, petitioners are held to be equally entitled to the inheritable estate of deceased as calculated in the aforegoing paragraphs. It is hereby clarified that the above observations have been made strictly in the MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 30/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:09:28 +0530 context of the above computations towards loss of estate caused due to the demise of deceased Shrey Luthra @ Babu in a motor vehicular accident and have nothing to do with the intestate or testamentary succession to the other properties of deceased whether movable or immovable.
26. Also, both the petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs.
15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
27. The Petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs.1,27,428/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Eight Only) (Rs.1,12,428/- + Rs.15,000/-), along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 01/07/2019. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
27. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording their statements regarding financial needs and requirements.
27.1 The Petitioners No. 1 & 2 are awarded a sum of Rs.87,076/ each ( Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand and Seventy Six Only) and same be released immediately in their savings/MACT MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 31/39 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:09:33 +0530 Claims SB Account as and when they furnish the details of their bank accounts which are near the place of their residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioners No. 1 & 2 respectively.
28. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
29. R-2 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-1 being owner of the said vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-2, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners. R-1 & R-2 are directed to MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 32/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:09:38 +0530 deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC O@ 8% nline Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
30. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 33/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:09:43 +0530
31. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
32. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and the Digitally signed same be put up on 11.03.2024.
by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:09:49 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) On this 08.02.2024 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/08/02/2024 MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 34/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:09:53 +0530 FORM - XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 22.07.2007
2. Name of the deceased : Shrey Luthra @ Babu
3. Age of the deceased : 17 Years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Self employed
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of minimum wages of Unskilled Person prevailing in Delhi at the relevant time
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 35/39 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:09:58 +0530 S. Name Age Relatio No. n (1) Shivani Mehta 37 Years Sister of the deceased (2) Palak Luthra 34 Years Sister of the deceased Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Monthly Income of the Rs.3,470/-
deceased(A)
8. Add-Future Prospects NIL (B) MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 36/39 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.08 15:10:03 +0530
9. Less-Personal expenses NIL of the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs.3470/-
dependency[(A+B)-
C=D]
11. Annual loss of Rs.41,640/-
dependency (Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) '18'
13. Total loss of dependency NIL (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of NIL consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of NIL MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 37/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:10:08 +0530 love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,12,428/-(3,470/- x estate(J) 12 x 18 x 15/100) 15% of the total income as per Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors., MAC. APP. No. 601/2007, decided on 15.01.2010,
18. Compensation towards Rs. 15,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL Rs.1,27,428/-
COMPENSATION
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20.
RATE OF INTEREST 8%
AWARDED
21.
Interest amount up to the Rs.46,724/- (rounded date of award(M) off) MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 38/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:10:16 +0530
22.
Total amount including Rs.1,74,152/-
interest(L + M)
23.
Award amount released Entire
24.
Award amount kept in NIL
FDRs
25.
Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioner (s)
26.
Next date for compliance 11/03/2024
of the award
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 08.02.2024.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with dir ections to put up the same on 11.03.2024.
Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:10:23 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/08.02.2024 MACT No. 427/19 Renu Luthra (since deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.Vs. Krishna Gupta & Ors. Pages No. 39/39 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.02.08 15:10:26 +0530