Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs . Bhupender Singh & Ors. on 28 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI, PO :
MACT01 (SOUTHWEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
MACP No. : 258/18
Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010059192018
1. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Vijender Singh
M. No. 9817060017
PAN AOSPK6728B
2. Sh. Ritik Tanwar (brother of deceased)
S/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
M. No. 9817060017
Both R/o
Ratua Mohalla, Pirthla (42),
Prithla, Patwal,
Haryana
... Petitioners
vs.
1. Bhupender Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar
R/o Village Ujwa,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
M. No. 9540777211
2. Kanwal Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Pritam Singh
R/o V. P. O. Ghumanhera,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
M. No. 8744090783
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 1 of 37
3. TATA AIG Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Regd. Off 15th Floor, Tower A,
Peninsula Business Park,
Ganpatro Kadam Marg,
Off Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel,
Mumbai
Nodal Officer : Mr. Amit Chawla
Mobile no. 7303622500
email ID : [email protected]
... Respondents
MACP No. : 259/18
Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010059182018
1. Sh. Rohit Dagar (father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Krishna
M. No. 9211420740
PAN: AUAPR4808F
2. Smt. Sharmila (mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Rohit Dagar
M. No. 9211420740
PAN: HMQPS4070H
3. Ujwal (sister of deceased)
D/o Sh. Rohit Dagar
M. No. 9211420740
PAN Not provided
All R/o
Village Samaspur Khalsa,
New Delhi ... Petitioners
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 2 of 37
vs.
1. Bhupender Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar
R/o Village Ujwa,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
M. No. 9540777211
2. Kanwal Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Pritam Singh
R/o V. P. O. Ghumanhera,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
M. No. 8744090783
3. TATA AIG Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Regd. Off 15th Floor, Tower A,
Peninsula Business Park,
Ganpatro Kadam Marg,
Off Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel,
Mumbai
Nodal Officer : Mr. Amit Chawla
Mobile no. 7303622500
email ID : [email protected]
... Respondents
Date of institution of MACP No. 258/18 12.03.2018
Date of institution of MACP No. 259/18 12.03.2018
Date on which, judgment have been reserved - 02.03.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 28.03.2022
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 3 of 37
(In MACP No. 258/18 - Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh &
Ors.)
1 Date of the accident 11.02.2018
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal
( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company
(Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC Not clear from record
before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 12.03.2018
Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 12.03.2018
Company (Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 12.03.2018
(Clause 11)
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N.A
later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No action warranted
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action / direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by Not clear from record.
the Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
013 Name, address and contact number of the Not clear from record.
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company
( Clause 20)
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance No.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? ( Clause 22)
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the Legal offer was filed.
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the Insurance Company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law ( Clause 23)
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the NA
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 4 of 37
Company? If so, whether any action / directions
warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of Not clear from record.
the Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 28.03.2022
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of No.
the parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open Yes
savings bank accounts (s) near their place of
residence ?( Clause 18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 12.03.2018
to open savings bank accounts(s) near his 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 claimants (s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s)
(Clause 18)
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 18.02.2022
passbook of their savings bank account near the
place of their residence alongwith the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?(Clause
18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) Ratua Mohalla, Pirthla
(Clause 27) (42), Prithla, Patwal,
Haryana
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the Petitioner no. 1
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC Sanjeev Kumar
Code( Clause 27) SB account number:
92612200050311 at
Syndicate Bank, now
merged into Canara
Bank, Prithla, Palwal,
Haryana (IFSC Code:
CNRB0005592)
Petitioner no. 2
Ritwik Tanwar : NA
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is Yes
near his place of residence ? (Clause 27)
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time Yes
of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 5 of 37
financial condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, Account No.
name and branch of the bank of the Claims 37665510911 at SBI,
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be District Court
deposited/transferred. Complex, Sector10,
Dwarka New Delhi,
(IFSC Code
SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code
110002483)
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
(In MACP No. 259/18 - Rohit Dagar & Ors. vs. Bhupender Singh &
Ors.)
1 Date of the accident 11.02.2018
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal
( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company
(Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC Not clear from record
before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 12.03.2018
Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 12.03.2018
Company (Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 12.03.2018
(Clause 11)
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N.A
later on?
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 6 of 37
10 Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No action warranted
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action / direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by Not clear from record.
the Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the Not clear from record.
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company
( Clause 20)
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance No.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? ( Clause 22)
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the Legal offer was filed.
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the Insurance Company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law ( Clause 23)
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the NA
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action / directions
warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of Not clear from record.
the Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 28.03.2022
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of No.
the parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open Yes
savings bank accounts (s) near their place of
residence ?( Clause 18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 12.03.2018
to open savings bank accounts(s) near his 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 claimants (s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s)
(Clause 18)
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 18.02.2022
passbook of their savings bank account near the
place of their residence alongwith the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?(Clause
18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) 135, Post Office, Ujwa,
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 7 of 37
(Clause 27) Village Samas Pur
Khalsa, SouthWest
New Delhi
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the Petitioner no. 1 Rohit
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC Dagar
Code( Clause 27) SB account number:
21440100023198 at
Bank of Baroda,
Branch Ujwa, Delhi
(IFSC Code:
BARB0TRDUJW)
Petitioner no. 2 Smt.
Sharmila : NA
Petitioner no. 3 Ujwal
Dagar : NA
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is Yes
near his place of residence ? (Clause 27)
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time Yes
of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, Account No.
name and branch of the bank of the Claims 37665510911 at SBI,
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be District Court
deposited/transferred. Complex, Sector10,
Dwarka New Delhi,
(IFSC Code
SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code
110002483)
JUDGMENT:
1.a. Vide this common judgment, the Tribunal shall dispose of two cases bearing MACP No. 258/18 and MACP No. 259/18 arising out of the same accident, which took place on 11.02.2018. b. The first case DAR bearing (MACP No. 258/18) has been filed on behalf of petitioner Sh. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. against respondents MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 8 of 37 Bhupender Singh & Ors. for grant of compensation in respect of death of his son Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul caused in a road traffic accident on 11.02.2018. c. The other DAR bearing (MACP No. 259/18) has been filed on behalf of petitioner Rohit Dagar & Ors. against respondents Bhupender Singh & Ors. for grant of compensation in respect of death of his minor son Vinay in the same road accident.
2. CLAIM a. Brief facts are made out from the abovesaid petitions are that on 11.02.2018 at about 07.25 pm, Sh. Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul (since deceased) alongwith his cousin i.e. minor Vinay (since deceased) were going on motorcycle bearing No. HR 30Q 4752.
b. When they reached near Balaji Vatika, Naresh Farm, Village Ujjwa, Main Road, Delhi, in the meanwhile, an offending vehicle (Car) bearing no. DL9CN 7674 came at a very high speed driven most rashly and negligently and hit above said motorcycle. As a result of impact, deceased Vishal Tanwar and minor Vinay fell down and sustained grievous injuries. c. Further, after the said accident, both the injured were immediately taken to RTRM Hospital, where MLC bearing no. 727/18 pertinent to Vishal S/o Sanjeev and MLC bearing no. 728/18 pertinent to Vinay S/o Rohit Dagar were prepared there. Thereafter, both the injured were shifted to Venkateshwar Hospital, Sector18, Dwarka, Delhi where they remained under treatment and thereafter, during treatment both injured Vishal & Vinay succumbed to the injuries on 15.02.2018 and 17.02.2018 respectively. Postmortem of the deceased Vishal was conducted vide PM No. 35/18 and postmortem of the deceased Vinay was also conducted vide PM No. 38/18.
d. In this regard a FIR No. 25/2018 was lodged in police station Jaffarpur Kalan, U/s 279/304A IPC against respondent no. 1.
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 9 of 37 e. It is alleged that accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle with the permission of respondent no. 2 (owner) and the said vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 Insurance Company. f. The deceased Vinay was 14 years of age at the time of accident and was student of 9th class. Whereas deceased Vishal Tanwar was of 19 years at the time of accident and was pursuing Architect studies. g. It is claimed that due to the sudden death of Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul and Vinay, both families have suffered a great mental, physical and financial loss.
h. It has been prayed in DAR bearing (MACP No. 258/18) that an award for a sum of ₹90,00,000/ and in petition bearing (MACP No. 259/18) it is prayed that an award for a sum of ₹50,00,000/ alongwith interest may be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
3. DEFENCES a. WS was filed on behalf of R1 / Bhupender Singh (driver) wherein it has been alleged that police has falsely implicated the respondents on the pretext to extort money only. It is alleged that police registered FIR on the planted witness, as the witness did not come from the day of incident to further 1011 days and it is sufficient time to plant false eye witness. b. It is further averred by R1 that there is Vatika type marriage venue adjacent to accident place and people parked their vehicles at both sides of the road and from the left side between the parked vehicles, a bike suddenly ahead of the car with very high speed in spectacular act without having light, respondent immediately pressed emergency brakes and the vehicle skid about 10 meters. The bike rider was himself driving his bike without seeing the traffic on the road & pulled the accelerator of the bike in stunt manner and due to this, rider of the bike lost the control over his bike MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 10 of 37 and uncontrolled the bike very swiftly hit the car at left side, even as the R1 tried his best, but accident was a result of the sole negligence on the part of the bike rider. Hence, liability was denied on that ground. c. It is further averred by R1 that the offending vehicle DL9CN 7674 was insured with TATA AIG Insurance company and if any liability comes on the owner or driver, it shall be discharged by the insurer R3 / TATA AIG Insurance Company.
d. WS was filed on behalf of R2 / Kanwal Singh ( Regd. Owner) wherein R2 has reiterated the version of R1 in his affidavit and thereby denied liability on the same grounds. He added that he had sold the vehicle to Nitin Kumar and as per information with him, the same was sold to Bhupender Singh (R1).
e. WS / Legal Offer was filed on behalf of R3 / TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd wherein the said insurance company has given an offer of ₹12,53,235/ qua the deceased Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul. Further, R3 has given an offer of ₹10,95,555/ qua the deceased Vinay Dagar. However, these offers were not acceptable to the petitioners.
4. a. Since, common question of law and facts were involved in both these cases bearing MACP No.258/18 & 259/18 hence, common issues were framed and both these cases were consolidated for the purpose of recording the evidence by treating the case/DAR bearing MACP No. 258/18 as "Leading Case" vide order dated 03.10.2018 passed by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
b. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 03.10.2018 by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
ISSUES :
1. Whether Vishal Tanwar & Vinay sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 11.02.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 11 of 37 vehicle (Car) no. DL9CN7674 being driven by respondent no. 1 Bhupender Singh, owned by respondent no. 2 Kanwal Singh and insured by respondent no. 3 Tata AIG Insurance Co.
Ltd. ? ...OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
5. PETITIONER EVIDENCE a. In petitioner evidence, petitioner Sanjeev Kumar has examined himself as PW1. He has relied upon documents as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/5 and one Mr. Rohit Dagar was examined as PW 2 who relied upon documents from Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/5.
b. Petitioners have also examined one eye witness PW3 Arvind Kumar. PW 3 stated that he was eye witness in the present case.
c. Thereafter, PE was closed. 6. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE
It is pertinent to mention that no evidence has been led on behalf of respondents despite opportunities. Thereafter, RE was closed vide order dated 18.08.2021 passed by this Court.
7. Arguments have been heard. Material on record perused. Submissions considered.
8. The issuewise findings are as under :
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 12 of 37 9. ISSUE No. 1
1. Whether Vishal Tanwar & Vinay sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 11.02.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Car) no. DL9CN7674 being driven by respondent no. 1 Bhupender Singh, owned by respondent no. 2 Kanwal Singh and insured by respondent no. 3 Tata AIG Insurance Co.
Ltd. ? ...OPP a. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus , the petitioners have examined PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/5 (colly) and PW2 Sh. Rohit Dagar, who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) and relied upon documents Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/5. It is pertinent to mention that both these witnesses were hearsay witnesses. b. In addition, petitioners has also examined one Sh. Arvind Kumar as PW3 and it has been stated that he was eye witness to accident and was well conversant with the fact and circumstances of the present case. c. PW 3 Sh. Arvind Kumar deposed that on 11.02.2018 at 07.25(am or pm not mentioned), deceased with his cousin Vinay was travelling on bike bearing no. HR30Q 4752. While traveling he met with an accident at Balaji Vatika, Naresh Farm, Main Road, New Delhi. That Sh. Bhupender Singh, driver of the car (Maruti) bearing no. DL9CN 7674 recklessly, negligently and rashly without blowing any horn or taking any precautions in high speed and in contravention of traffic rules, was driving his car and hit / dragged the deceased Vishal @ Mukul. The pillion rider fell on the front wind shield of the car and driver of the offending car ran away from the spot. The deceased was driving at normal speed. It is further stated that after the accident, both Vishal & Vinay were taken to RTRM Hospital in a private car. It is also stated that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1, who was MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 13 of 37 driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident without observing the traffic rules and regulations.
d. The important fact is that this witness i.e. PW3 Arvind Kumar was cross examined on behalf respondent no. 3, but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness. It is noteworthy that he was not cross examined on behalf of R1 and R2. In his crossexamination on behalf of R3, the witness deposed that he had come to the spot for a wedding. He did not make call to the police as he was busy helping the injured. He further deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle fled from the spot after leaving the vehicle there. He categorically denied the suggestion that he was not an eye witness. Here, it is pertinent to note that R3 has not contested liability in the present case and has filed legal offer. Even R1 driver has not denied the accident. In his WS, he has stated that the accident happened near a wedding venue where cars were parked on both sides of the road. Given these circumstances, the very fact that the car of R1 skid 10 meters before stopping shows that it was being driven at very high speed. Driving at such high speed near the gate of a wedding venue where cars are parked on both sides of the road, itself smacks of negligence. e. Hence, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that deceased Vishal @ Mukul and Vinay sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 11.02.2018 due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 9CN 7674, which was being driven by R1 Bhupender Singh, owned (registered owner) by R2 Kanwal Singh and insured with R3 / TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident.
f. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 14 of 37 10. ISSUE No. 2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP a The onus to prove the abovesaid issue no. 2 in the case bearing MACP No. 258/18 was upon the petitioners therein and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioners have examined PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar who have filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A , wherein it has been stated that his son Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul & Vinay met with a road accident on 11.02.2018 and received fatal injuries and FIR No.25/2018, u/s 279/304A IPC was registered in this regard at PS Jafar Pur Kalan. b. Further, PW1 in his evidence Ex. PW1/A deposed that his son Vishal @ Mukul was about 19 years of age and was pursuing Architect Studies at the time of accident. PW1 also deposed that he was relying upon the documents i.e. his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/1, DAR as Ex. PW1/2, Death Certificate of deceased as Ex. PW1/3, Educational documents alongwith Fee slips of deceased Vishal as Ex. PW1/4(colly) and medical documents of deceased alongwith bills as Ex. PW1/5(colly). c. PW1 in his statement regarding needs and liabilities deposed that he had incurred expenses of approx ₹5,00,000/ on the treatment of his son Vishal @ Mukul and the said expenses were met by him after taking loan from his relative. Further, in addition, he deposed that medical expenses borne by him have not been reimbursed from any insurance company. d. Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence record, it is clear that deceased Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul sustained fatal injuries and died in a motor vehicle accident dated 11.02.2018 due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle no. DL 9CN 7674, which was being driven by R1 Bhupender Singh, owned by R2 Sh. Kanwal Singh and insured with R3 TATA AIG Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 15 of 37 accident and as such petitioners, being the LRs of the deceased Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul, have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of said deceased in the abovesaid accident.
e. In view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, petitioners, being the LRs of the deceased - Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul, have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of said deceased in the abovesaid accident.
f. Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners/LRs of deceased Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul is ascertained under the following heads:
11. AGE & MULTIPLIER As per the Grade Sheet cum Certificate of Performance of Secondary Examination of deceased Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul filed on record, the deceased was born on 26.06.1999 . Thus, at the time of the accident i.e. on 11.02.2018, he was about 19 years of age. Thus, multiplier of 18 would be applicable in the present case.
12. NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS a. In the present case, in view of the material / evidence on record, it is evident that at the time of accident, the deceased Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul was unmarried and has left behind two LRs i.e. petitioner no. 1 Sh.
Sanjeev Kumar (father), petitioner no. 2 Ritik Tanwar (brother). b. So far as dependency is concerned, it is equally noteworthy that the deceased was unmarried at the time of the accident. Further, statement of petitioners regarding financial status, needs and liabilities are recorded on 18.02.2022 whereby petitioner no. 1 Sanjeev Kumar (father of deceased) is doing private job and getting salary of ₹22,000/ per month. Whereas petitioner no. 2 Ritik Tanwar (younger brother) has give up his share in favour of his father vide separate statement dated 18.02.2022.
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 16 of 37 c. In these circumstances, in view of the law/guidelines laid down in the case titled as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr1, one half (1/2) of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted from his total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
13. INCOME AND PROFESSION a. In the instant case, PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (father / LR of deceased) deposed that his son was unmarried and at the time of accident was studying Bacelor of Architecture and was a student of first year in Ganga Institute of Architecture & Town Planning (Affiliated to Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak). In this case, the petitioners have placed on record Secondary Examination Grade Sheet cum Certificate of performance, Senior Secondary Examination Marksheet, Marksheet of Ist Semester of Bachelor of Architecture, December 2017, Migration Certificate, Haryana Resident Certificate etc. in support of educational and residential proof of deceased Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul. While the deceased was still undergoing his college education, the Ist semester record of Bachelor of Architecture cannot be discarded from consideration and given the beneficial nature of the legislation, must be taken into account for calculation of notional income of the deceased.
b. Although, the petitioner had not completed his professional course, it is noteworthy in various cases, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has taken notional income of students based on the course which the student was pursuing at the time of his death. One such case is Raj Bala vs Sumit Dahiya2 .
c. Guidance is also forthcoming in the form of various other decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In Ramesh Chand Joshi vs 1 (2009) 6SCC 121 2 Decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 22.10.2018. MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 17 of 37 New India Assurance Co. Ltd.3, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi estimated the 'wouldbe' earning of a B.Tech first year student (deceased) from Delhi College of Engineering to be ₹26,833/ per month. Similarly, in Meenu Tognatta vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.4, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi presumed the potential income of two engineering students (deceased) from Modi College of Engineering and Technology, Sikar to be ₹18,000/ per month. Hence, taking a conservative estimate, it can be said that the petitioner in the present case would also have earned atleast minimum wages for a highly skilled person if he would have successfully completed his Bachelor of Architecture studies as he was pursuing professional course which is over and above normal graduation.
d. Thus, it would be unfair to consider the deceased as only a matriculation or graduation level student while he was pursuing a professional course. Hence, it would be safe to calculate his notional income on the basis of minimum wages for a highly skilled person at the relevant time. e. Therefore, the case will be decided on the basis of applicable minimum wages for a highly skilled person. The deceased Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul was resident of Haryana. Hence, the minimum wages for highly skilled person applicable in the State of Haryana when the accident took place (11.02.2018) shall be considered. The same are ₹10845.27/ per month. f. Further, in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi5,the deceased was 19 years of age at the time of accident and hence, 40% future prospects be can be given at such age.
3 MAC.APP no. 212213/06 decided by Delhi High Court on 20.01.2010. 4 MAC APP.238/2012 decided on 20.04.2012.
5 2017 (13) SCALE 12.
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 18 of 37
14. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY a. In view of the above and in view of the material on record, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family multiplied by a multiplier as per above guidelines shall give the loss of dependency to the entire family. b. Hence, the same is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of dependency in this case as such, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceased - Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul can be calculated as under:
i) Income of the deceased : ₹10,845.27/ per month
ii) 40% addition towards future : ₹15,183.378/ prospects [₹10,845.27/ + (10,845.27/ X 40%)]
iii) 1/2 deduction towards personal : ₹7,591.689/ and living expenses of deceased.
(₹15,183.378/ X 1/2)
iv) Annual loss of dependency to the : ₹91,100.268/ family due to death of deceased (₹7,591.689/ X 12)
v) Total loss of dependency to the : ₹16,39,804.824/ family due to death of deceased (₹91,100.268/ X 18) c. Hence, in view of the above, the total loss of dependency to the family on account of death of the deceased Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul comes to ₹16,39,804.824/ and as such, the petitioners shall be entitled to the said amount i.e. ₹16,39,804.824/ as compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 19 of 37
15. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 6, a sum of ₹15,000/ is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
16. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi7, a sum of ₹15,000/ is awarded to the petitioners towards 'funeral expenses'.
17. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In the instant case, due to the death of deceased Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul, his LRs i.e. petitioner no. 1 Sanjeev Kumar and petitioner no. 2 Sh. Ritwik Tanwar have suffered loss of love and affection / consortium. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case and in view of law /guidelines laid down in the case Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram8 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur9, a sum of ₹80,000/ (40,000 x 2) is awarded as compensation under the head 'loss of consortium'.
18. MEDICAL EXPENSES a. In the present case, as per record, the injured - Vishal Tanwar was first removed to RTRM Hospital and later on admitted to Venkateshwar Hospital, Sector18, Dwarka on 11.02.2018 and later on expired on 15.02.2018 during treatment.
6 Ibid 7 Ibid 8 2018 SCC Online SC 1546 9 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410.
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 20 of 37 b. Petitioners have placed on record Discharge summary of Venkateshwar Hospital as Ex. PW1/5 showing medical bills amounting to ₹4,06,419/.
c. It is noteworthy that there is nothing on record to show that these bills were reimbursed by any Govt. authority as otherwise the petitioner would not have been able to place the original bills on record in this case. In his crossexamination, the petitioner has specifically stated that the medical expenses were borne by him and the same have not been reimbursed from any insurance company. In these circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the said bills/receipts regarding treatment undergone by the injured before he finally expired on 15.02.2018. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of ₹4,06,419/ and accordingly, the petitioners are awarded the said amount i.e. ₹4,06,419/ towards 'medicines and medical treatment'.
19. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners have been tabulated as below : S. HEAD AMOUNT No.
1. Loss of dependency ₹16,39,804.824/
2. Loss of Consortium (40,000 x 2) ₹80,000/
3. For funeral expenses ₹15,000/
4. Loss of estate ₹15,000/
5. Medical Expenses ₹4,06,419/ TOTAL ₹21,56,223.824/ Rounded off to ₹21,60,000/ MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 21 of 37
20. INTEREST ( In MACP bearing no. 258/18) In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case, in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.10 Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation / award amount i.e. ₹21,60,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 12.03.2018 till realization.
21. RELIEF IN MACP No. 258/18 ( Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.) Thus, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹21,60,000/ (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Sixty Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 12.03.2018 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
22. FORMIVA SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THEAWARD
i) Date of accident : 11.02.2018
ii). Name of the deceased : Vishal Tanwar @ Mukul
iii). Age of the deceased : 19 years (at the time of accident) 102020 SCC OnLine SC 601 MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 22 of 37
iv). Occupation of the : Studying Bacelor of Architecture deceased in Ganga Institute of Architecture & Town Planning, Haryana.
v). Income of the deceased : ₹10,845.27/ per annum (mini
mum wages for graduate)
vi). Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased
S.No. Name Age Relation with deceased
(at the time of
accident)
(i) Sh. Sanjeev 44 years Father
Kumar
(ii) Sh. Ritwik 21 years Brother
Tanwar
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
1. Income of the deceased (A) ₹10,845.27/
2. AddFuture Prospects (B) (40%)(A+B) ₹15,183.378/
3. LessPersonal expenses of the ₹7,591.689/ deceased (C) (one half)
4. Annual loss of dependency ₹91,100.268/ [ (A+B)C=D] X 12 5. Multiplier (E) 18
6. Total loss of dependency (D x E=F) ₹16,39,804.824/
7. Medical Expenses (G) ₹4,06,419/
8. Compensation for loss of consortium ₹80,000/ (40,000 x 2) (I)
9. Compensation for loss of estate (J) ₹15,000/
10. Compensation towards funeral ₹15,000/ expenses (K)
11. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹21,56,223.824/ (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) Rounded off to ₹21,60,000/
12. Deduction of Interim Award Nil RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 23 of 37
13. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from (M) the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.03.2018 till realization.
14. Total amount including interest ₹21,60,000/ + @9% per ( L+M) annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.03.2018 till realization.
15. Award amount released As per table given below
16. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
17. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) Account of the petitioners
18. Next Date for compliance of the 28.06.2022.
award. (Clause 31)
23. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited/ transferred by respondent no. 3/ TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
Further, the statement of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, petitioner no. 1/LR of the deceased regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities has also been recorded in this case. Whereas vide separate statement dated 18.02.2022, petitioner no. 2, Ritik Tanwar gave up his share of compensation in favour of his father / petitioner no. 1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/LRs of the deceased & having regard to fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 24 of 37
S Name Status Age Amount of Release Amount of FDR
. (at Award Amount
N pres
o ent
1 Sanjeev Father 44 ₹21,60,000/ ₹3,60,000/ ₹18,00,000/ be kept
. Kumar of yrs in 60 FDRs of
deceas ₹30,000/ each for
ed the period from 1
Vishal month to 60 months
@ in the name of
Mukul petitioner Sh.
Sanjeev Kumar with
cumulative interest.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
24. In MACP no. 258/18, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 92612200050311 in the name of petitioner no.1- Sh. Sanjeev Kumar has been opened at Canara Bank, Prithla, Palwal, Haryana (IFSC Code: CNRB0005592), PAN : AOSPK6728B, wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of abovementioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 25 of 37 Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
Compensation in MACP no 259/18 (Rohit Dagar Vs Bhupender Singh & Ors)
25. Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners / LRs of deceased Vinay is ascertained as under:
a. The petitioner Rohit Dagar has examined himself has PW2. In MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 26 of 37 the present case, as per the School Leaving Certificate of St. Charles School Ex. PW2/4, the date of birth of deceased Vinay was 09.06.2003 and as such, he was aged about 14 years & 8 months at the time of his death in the accident in this case on 17.02.2018.
b. The law relating to the grant of compensation in case of the death of children in a road traffic accident has been discussed in Rajendra Singh vs National Insurance Company Ltd.11 In the said case, the Apex Court made reference to the principles laid down in R.K. Malik vs Kiran Pal12 and declined to interfere in the calculation of notional income of the deceased child. However, principles governing how such notional income has to be calculated have been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (after making reference to the said case of R. K. Malik vs Kiran Pal13) in the case titled as Chetan Malhotra vs Lala Ram14. In the aforesaid case, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that: "71. Subject to all other requisite conditions being fulfilled, for the foregoing reasons, in order to bring about consistency and uniformity in approach to the issue, it is held that claims for compensation on account of death of children shall be determined as follows:
(i) Till such time as the law is amended by the legislature or the Central Government notifies the amendment to the Second Schedule in exercise of the enabling power vested in it by Section 163A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and except in cases wherein the prospects of employability and earnings (in future or present ) of the deceased child are proved by cogent and irrefutable evidence, this having regard, inter alia , to the academic record or training in special talents or skills, for computing the pecuniary damages on account of the loss to 11 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2624 OF 2020 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18.06.2020 12 (2009) 14 SCC 1.
13 Ibid.
14 MAC. APP 554/10, decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 13.05.2016 .
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 27 of 37 estate, the notional income of nonearning persons (₹15,000/ p.a.) as specified in the Second Schedule (brought in force from 14.11.1994), shall be assumed to be the income of the deceased child, and taken into account after it is inflation corrected with the help of Cost Inflation Index (CII) as notified by the Government of India from year to year under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act,1961, by applying the formula indicated hereinafter.
(ii) For inflationcorrection, the financial year of 19971998 shall be treated as the "base year" and the value of the notional income relevant to the date of cause of action shall be computed in the following manner: ₹15,000/ x A /331 [wherein the figure of ₹15,000/ represents the notional income specified in the second schedule requiring inflationcorrection; 'A' represents the CII for the financial year in which the cause of action arose (i.e. the accident / death occurred); and the figure of '331' represents the CII for the 'base year']
(iii) After arriving at an appropriate figure of the present equivalent value of the notional income (i.e. inflationcorrected amount), it shall be rounded off to a figure in next thousands of rupees.
(iv) The amount of notional income thus calculated shall be reduced to twothird, the deduction to the extent of one third being towards personal & living expenses of the deceased, the balance taken as the annual loss to estate (hereinafter also referred to as "the multiplicand").
(v) For assessment of the pecuniary damages on account of the death of children upto the age of 10 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated, capitalizing the multiplicand, by applying the multiplier of ten (10).
(vi) For children of the agegroup of more than 10 years upto 15 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of fifteen (15).
(vii) For children of the agegroup of more than 15 years but less than 18 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 28 of 37 applying the multiplier of eighteen (18).
(viii) After the pecuniary loss to estate has been worked out in the manner indicated above, an amount equivalent to the amount thus computed shall be added to it as the composite nonpecuniary damages taking care of not only the conventional heads but also towards future prospects as awarded in R.K.Malik vs Kiran Pal15.
(ix) The final sum thus arrived at, appropriately rounded off, if so required to the nearest (if not next) thousands of rupees, shall be awarded as compensation for the death of the child."
"73. .... In cases founded on cause of action arising on or after 10.05.2000, the amount of compensation shall not in any case be less than ₹3,75,000/ which was awarded in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Farzana16."
(Emphasis Supplied) c. Now, the important development to note in this regard is that the Cost of Inflation Index Table stood modified in 201917 and the base year of the currently prevalent CII Table is 200102 (CII: 100). The last financial year mentioned in the old CII is 20162017. Thus, for accidents which have taken place after the new CII came into force in 2019 or even after 20162017, in order to give effect to the mandate of the High Court of Delhi, the notional income will first have to be adjusted for inflation as per the old CII Table from the year 199798 (Old CII: 331) to the year 200102 (Old CII:
426). Then the outcome thereof will have to be adjusted from the new base year 200102 (New CII: 100) to the year in which the cause of action arose.
Hence, the notional income will be:
15 Supra, Note 3.
16 2009 ACJ 2763.
17As per Notification No. So 3266(E) [No. 63/2019 (F.No. 370142/11/2019TPL)], Dated 129 2019, available at <https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/Charts%20%20Tables/CostInflation Index.htm> visited: 20.01.2021.
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 29 of 37 15000 x 426 x A 331 100 Here 'A' is the CII for the year in which the cause of action arose as per the CII Table brought into force in 2019.
d. In the present case, the death of child namely - Vinay Dagar has occurred in the accident on 17.02.2018 i.e. before the new CII came into force but after 20162017 and thus, the notional income of the deceased child will have to be calculated in the present case as per the new CII only. Therefore, the new CII for the financial year 2017 2018 (i.e. 272) would apply. Further, as the deceased child was about 14 years and 8 months old at the time of accident, thus, the computation is to be made on the multiplier of '15'. In view of the above, the notional income after inflation comes to as under:
15000 x 426 x 272 = 52,509.97 331 100 Rounded off to ₹53,000/.
e. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, the pecuniary loss to the estate is calculated as:
₹53,000 x 2/3 x15= ₹5,30,000/.
f. Adding similar amount towards composite non pecuniary damages, the total compensation in this case comes to as under:
₹5,30,000 x 2= ₹10,60,000/.
g. Accordingly, a sum of ₹10,60,000/ (Rupees Ten Lacs Sixty Thousand Only) is awarded as compensation to the petitioners / LR of deceased) in the present case.
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 30 of 37
26. MEDICAL EXPENSES a. In the present case, as per record, the injured - Vinay was first removed to RTRM Hospital and later on admitted to Venkateshwar Hospital, Sector18, Dwarka on 11.02.2018 and later on expired on 17.02.2018 during treatment.
b. Petitioners have placed on record Discharge summary of Venkateshwar Hospital as Ex. PW2/5 showing medical bills amounting to ₹5,65,555/ c. It is noteworthy that there is nothing on record to show that these bills were reimbursed by any Govt. authority as otherwise the petitioner would not have been able to place the original bills on record in this case. In his crossexamination, the petitioner has specifically stated that the medical expenses were borne by him and the same have not been reimbursed from any insurance company. In these circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the said bills/receipts regarding treatment undergone by the injured before he expired on 17.02.2018. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of ₹5,65,555/ and accordingly, the petitioners are awarded the said amount i.e. ₹5,65,555/ towards 'medicines and medical treatment'.
27. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners have been tabulated as below : S. HEAD AMOUNT No.
1. Loss of dependency ₹10,60,000/
2. Medical Expenses ₹5,65,555/ TOTAL ₹16,25,555/Rounded off to ₹16,26,000/ MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 31 of 37
28. INTEREST (In MACP bearing No. 259/18) In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest 9% per annum on the award amount in this case, in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.18 Hence, the petitioners / LRs of deceased Vinay are awarded interest @9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation / award amount i.e. ₹16,26,000/ from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.03.2018 till realization.
29. Further, the statement of Sh. Rohit Dagar, petitioner no. 1 / father of deceased Vinay regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case.
Here, it is pertinent to mention that petitioner no.2 Smt. Sharmila, mother of deceased has given her statement for giving up her share and share of her minor daughter Ujwal Dagar, in favour of petitioner no. 1.
In view of the said statements of the petitioners/ LRs of deceased & having regard to fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed and apportioned as follows: S. Name Status Age Amount of Release Amount of FDR N (at Award Amount o pres ent)
1. Sh. Father 43 ₹16,26,000/ ₹1,86,0000/ ₹14,40,000/ be kept Rohit yrs in 60 FDRs of Dagar ₹24,000/ each for S/o Shri the period from one Krishna month to 60 months 18 Supra, Note 7.
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 32 of 37
in the name of
petitioner Rohit
Dagar with
cumulative interest.
30. RELIEF IN MACP No. 259/18 (Rohit Dagar & Ors.
Vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.) Thus, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹16,26,000/ (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Twenty Six Thousand only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 12.03.2018 realiza tion is passed in favour of the petitioners / LRs of deceased Vinay and against the respondents.
FORMIVA SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 11.02.2018
ii). Name of the deceased : Vinay (minor boy)
iii). Age of the deceased : 14 years and 8 months (at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the deceased : Student studying in IX Class
v). Income of the deceased : N.A
vi). Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased Vinay S.No. Name Age (at the time of Relation with deceased accident)
(i) Rohit Dagar 39 years Father MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 33 of 37 (ii) Smt. Sharmila 35 years Mother (iii) Ujwal 12 years Minor Sister
Computation of compensation for deceased Vinay S. Heads Awarded by the Claims No Tribunal
1. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹16,25,555/ As per the guidelines laid down in the Rounded off to case of Chetan Malhotra vs Lala Ram ₹16,26,000/ (Supra)
2. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
3. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from the (M) date of institution i.e. 12.03.2018 till realization
4. Total amount including interest ₹16,26,000/ + @9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.03.2018 till realization
5. Award amount released As per table given below
6. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
7. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) Account of the petitioners
8. Next Date for compliance of the award. 28.06.2022 ( Clause 31) The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
31. LIABILITY (In both the cases MACP No. 258/18 & MACP No. 259/18) The offending vehicle bearing no. DL9CN7674 was being MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 34 of 37 driven by R1 Bhupender Singh, Owned (Registered owner) by R2 Kanwal Singh, and insured with R3 / TATA AIG General Insurance Company at the time of accident and as such, respondent no. 3/ TATA AIG General Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the awarded amount in both these cases bearing MACP No. 258/18 & 259/18.
The abovesaid compensation amount shall be payable by the respondent no.3 / TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. to the petitioners.
Hence, in view of the above, Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
32. In both these cases bearing MACP No. 258/18 & MACP No. 259/19, the award amounts shall be deposited/ transferred by respondent no. 3/ TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court.
33. In MACP no. 259/18, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 21440100023198 in the name of petitioner no. 1- Sh. Rohit Dagar has been opened at Bank of Baroda, Branch Ujwa, Delhi (IFSC Code: BARB0TRDUJW), PAN : AUAPR4808F, wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of abovementioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 35 of 37 formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
34. The insurance company shall inform the petitioner(s) as well as counsel through registered post that the award amount is being MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 36 of 37 transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioner(s) to know about the deposit in the account.
Copy of this award be sent through email to Sh. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager (Nodal Officer), State Bank of India at his e mail ID : [email protected] in terms of Order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2003. Certified copy of the award be also sent to the manager of the concerned bank(s) where the petitioner(s) is/are having respective savings bank account(s).
Certified copy of this award be given ''Dasti' to the petitioner(s) as well as counsel and respondents as well as counsel.
Certified copy of this award be also sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
The main judgment be placed in the file pertaining to the leading / main case bearing MACP No. 258/18 and the copy thereof be placed in the file of connected case bearing MACP No. 259/18.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate misc. file and put up the sam e for filing of the compliance report on 28.06.2022.
File be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR
(Announced in the open Court
KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2022.03.29
SETHI 12:02:59 +0530
on this 28th day of March, 2022) (Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
PO, MACT 01, (South West District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
28.03.2022
MACP No. 258/18 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 259/18 Rohit Dagar & Ors vs. Bhupender Singh & Ors. 37 of 37