Delhi District Court
Anju Gulati vs Vipin Kumar on 29 November, 2017
N THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA
JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Petition No.:476463/2016 (Suit No.1113/2014)
1. Anju Gulati
W/o Harish Pal Gulati
2. Harish Pal Gulati
S/o Late Sh.Har Krishan Lal Gulati
3. Gaurav Gulati
S/o Harish Pal Gulati
All r/o H.No. A30, Ashoka Enclave,
Peera Garhi, Delhi
.......... Petitioners
Versus
1. Vipin Kumar
S/o Yash Pal
R/o D54, Shiv Encl Main Dichaon Road,
Najafgarh, Delhi
(Driver)
2. Yash Pal
S/o Ram Kishan
R/o H.No.590, Sector45,
Vill. Kanhai, Distt. Gurgaon,
Haryana
(Owner)
3. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.
Through its regional officer
Payal Cinema Commercial Complex,
Delhi Road, Sector14,
Gurgaon, Haryana
(Insurance Company)
..........Respondents
Petition No.: 76931/16 Page No. 1 of 17
Date of Institution : 04.09.2014
Date of concluding arguments : 22.11.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment/award : 29.11.2017
AWARD
1. This judgment cum award shall decide the claim petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) as amended up to date to claim compensation for the death of Sourabh Gulati in a road vehicular accident. An FIR No.317/14 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar and chargesheet was filed under Sections 279/304A IPC against Vipin Kumar (Respondent No.1), driver of Santro Car bearing registration No.HR55P8031 (offending vehicle).
2. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed by the Investigating Officer (IO) along with copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and chargesheet.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the Claim Petition and DAR are that at about 4:10 pm on 21.03.2014 near Delhi Metro Pillar No.497, deceased Sourabh Gulati was travelling in a Santro car bearing registration No. HR55PT8031 driven by Vipin Kumar/respondent No.1. Respondent No.1/Vipin Kumar lost his control over the car due to rash and negligent driving and hit the same in a road roller. Consequently, Sourabh Gulati sustained multiple grievous injuries and was removed to DDU Hospital. He was thereafter removed to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, where he succumbed to his injuries on 03.04.2014.
4. Vipin Kumar (Respondent No.2) is the driver of offending vehicle i.e. Santro car and Yash Pal is the registered owner of the offending vehicle which was insured Petition No.: 476463/2016 Page No. 2 of 17 with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No.3).
5. No written statement was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and their defence was struck off vide order dt. 19.12.2014.
6. In the Written statement filed by respondent No.3, it was claimed that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of driver and owner of road roller qua which the IO had filed a separate kalandra. Thus, even though the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR55PT8031 was insured in the name of respondent No.2 Yash Pal vide insurance Policy bearing No.215300/31/2014/10913 valid for the period from 28.12.2013 to 27.12.2014 including the date of the accident, the Insurance Co. was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
7. The perusal of the order sheet dt. 19.12.2014 reveals that inadvertently issues pertaining to some other case were framed by the learned predecessor of this Court on 19.12.2014. The said inadvertence came to the notice of this Court while dictating the award. Hence, the issues which were framed vide order dt. 19.12.2014 were struck off and were de novo framed vide order dt. 25.11.2017 as under:
1. Whether the deceased Sourabh Gulati sustained fatal injuries in a vehicular accident on 21.03.2014 at about 4:10 pm near Metro Pillar No.497, involving a Santro car bearing registration No. HR55PT8031 driven by Vipin Kumar/respondent No.1 due to wrongful act or negligence of respondent No.1/Vipin Kumar, driver of the car? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If yes, what would be the amount and who would be liable to pay?
3. Relief.
8. In support of her claim, petitioner No.1/Anju Gulati (mother of the deceased) Petition No.: 76931/16 Page No. 3 of 17 examined herself as PW1. Petitioners also examined the following witnesses:
(i) Raj Kumar Yadav, Medical Record Technician, Max Hospital as PW2 who proved medical bills of deceased as Ex. PW2/1 (colly) and medical treatment record as Ex. PW2/2 (colly).
(ii) Ms.Preeti Pathak, HR Manager, Accenture Services Pvt.Ltd. examined as PW3 who proved offer/appointment letter issued to deceased as Ex. PW3/2 and salary slip for the months of Dec.'13 to March'14 as Ex. PW3/3 (colly).
(iii) Mohd. Rafi @ Abu Rafi examined as PW4 who was the driver of road roller which was hit by the offending vehicle.
9. No evidence was led by the respondents.
10. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned Counsels for the parties and have meticulously gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the court record.
11. My findings on various issues are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether the deceased Sourabh Gulati sustained fatal injuries in a vehicular accident on 21.03.2014 at about 4:10 pm near Metro Pillar No.497, involving a Santro car bearing registration No. HR55PT 8031 driven by Vipin Kumar/respondent No.1 due to wrongful act or negligence of respondent No.1/Vipin Kumar, driver of the car? OPP
12. Since the present claim petition has been filed under the provisions of 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LT6441 at the time of accident.
13. In support of their claim, petitioners examined Mohd.Rafi @ Abu Rafi Petition No.: 476463/2016 Page No. 4 of 17 (complainant in FIR No.317/14, PS Tilak Nagar), driver of the road roller as PW4, who was also the eye witness to the accident. He deposed that on 21.03.2014 he was driving a road roller at Tilak Nagar. At about 4:00 am near Metro Pillar No.497, in front of Mukand Lal Katyal School, one car came from behind and struck against his road roller. He testified that driver of the said car was driving the car at a high speed i.e. at 80 Km/h in a rash and negligent manner. He further stated that due to impact, the car turned around. He categorically stated that the FIR was registered at his behest and that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the car. In his crossexamination, PW4/Mohd.Rafi stated that he was driving his road roller on the left side of the road. He denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred due to his negligence and that he was not the eye witness to the accident.
14. The testimony of PW4/Mohd.Rafi is supported by the MLC of the deceased as per which the deceased was removed to DDU hospital with alleged history of Road Traffic Accident with history of positive loss of consciousness and positive nasal bleed. The deposition of PW4 is further supported by the site plan filed along with DAR as per which the accident took place at point 'B' and the offending vehicle was found at point 'A' after it turned around consequent to its collision with road roller. The fact that the offending vehicle turned around, establishes the claim of PW4 that the offending vehicle was being driven at a high speed of 80 km/h by respondent No.1/driver Vipin Kumar in a rash and negligent manner.
15. To ascertain if driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled in Kaushnumma Begum and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 421 SC, held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or Petition No.: 76931/16 Page No. 5 of 17 involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under Section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
16. Further, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana reported as 2009 ACJ, 287, held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo on the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
17. In a case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors. in MAC App.No.200/2012 decided on 23.07.2012, Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.P. Mittal reiterated the aforesaid view and held as under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been Petition No.: 476463/2016 Page No. 6 of 17 applied."
18. Considering all the facts and circumstances and the dictum of the judgments cited above, it is established that respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Otherwise also, considering the fact that the road was under construction, respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle ought to have been more cautious while driving the offending vehicle. The circumstances required that he should not have sped the car owing to the under construction road.
19. Issue No.1 is, thus, decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Finding on Issue No.2:
Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If yes, what would be the amount and who would be liable to pay?
20. Since issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners, they are entitled for compensation.
21. In Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, which has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors decided on 31.10.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principals for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
This issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
Petition No.: 76931/16 Page No. 7 of 17(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following wellsettled steps:
Step1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
Therefore, in view of the afore cited judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters: Age of the deceased
22. PW1/Anju Gulati, mother of the deceased Sourabh Gulati in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) had stated the date of birth of her deceased son as 23.12.1994. Thus, the deceased was 29 years old as on the date of the accident.
The age of the deceased was neither disputed nor controverted by learned Counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Co. in the crossexamination of PW1.
Petition No.: 476463/2016 Page No. 8 of 17Income of the deceased
23. It was claimed by PW1/Anju Gulati in her affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that her deceased son was a permanent employee of Accenture Services Pvt.Ltd., Noida (U.P.) and was drawing a salary of Rs.20,943/ per month. To support their claim regarding the employment of the deceased, petitioners also examined PW3/Ms.Preeti Pathak, HR Manager, Accenture Services Pvt.Ltd. who proved the offer letter issued to the deceased as Ex. PW3/2 and the salary slip of the deceased for the months of Dec.'13 to March 2014 as Ex. PW3/3 (colly). She also proved Form 16 for the Assessment Years 201415 and 201516 as Ex. PW3/4 and Ex. PW3/5 respectively. The scrutiny of these documents reveal that last drawn gross monthly salary of deceased for the month of March 2014 was Rs.33,959/ and that of months of Dec. to Feb. 2014 was Rs.20,943/ per month. The salary slip of March 2014 reflects that an amount of Rs.12,992/ towards Variable Pay Local and an amount of Rs.24/ towards Exgratia has been added in the gross salary of Rs.20,943/. When PW3/Preeti Pathak in her cross examination was questioned about Variable Pay Local/incentive, she stated that it was an incentive which is a component of pay of the employee and is not constant. She also explained that it varies as per the performance of the employee. If the performance is not satisfactory, the incentive would be zero and the maximum incentive would be 25% of fixed pay. Since the gross salary of deceased was Rs.20,943/ p.m., he was exempted from payment of Income Tax. Hence, considering the explanation given by PW3/Preeti Pathak regarding the incentive/variable pay local, the net salary of the deceased is assessed as Rs.20,143/ p.m. (Rs.20,943 (gross salary) - Rs.800 (conveyance) = 20,143/).
Number of Dependants
24. In her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), petitioner No.1 (PW1) Anju Gulati has stated that the deceased is survived by his (i) mother Anju Gulati aged Petition No.: 76931/16 Page No. 9 of 17 about 55 years, (ii) father Harish Pal Gulati aged about 60 years, (iii) brother - Gaurav Gulati aged about 26 years and that the deceased had been taking care of the entire family. It was also claimed that petitioner No.3 i.e. brother of the deceased is a physically disabled person and was dependent on the deceased for his tuition fees and other requirements. During the course of arguments, it was also submitted by the petitioners that the father of deceased Harish Gulati was also dependent upon the deceased.
25. The claim of the petitioners that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were dependent on the deceased is without any merit. The petitioners failed to place any document on record to show that Gaurav Gulati (brother of deceased) was physically disabled and hence, was dependent on Sourabh Gulati. Qua the father of deceased, it was admitted by PW1/Anju Gulati in her crossexamination that her husband was doing a private job at Gurgaon. In Sarla Verma case (supra), it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
"Further subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant...........
Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant."
Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, for the purpose of the present claim petition, only petitioner No.1 i.e. Anju Gulati, mother of the deceased is held to be the surviving dependant LR of the deceased.
Addition in the income towards future prospects
26. This issue was recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra). It was held that:
"While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospectus, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 4050 years. In case the deceased was between 5060 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as "Actual Salary less Tax"."Petition No.: 476463/2016 Page No. 10 of 17
27. In view of the ratio of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra), an addition of 50% of Rs.20,143/ can be made towards future prospects in the income of the deceased Sourabh Gulati as he was below the age of 40 years and had a permanent job.
Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased
28. It is not in dispute that deceased Sourabh Gulati was unmarried at the time of accident and that he is survived by two LRs i.e. his mother and father. In judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), it was held as follows:
"31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically.............
32. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to onethird and contribution to the family will be taken as twothird."
Applying the citation laid down in the aforecited judgment, deduction in the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses would be 1/2 (half) of his income.
Selection of multiplier
29. As the age of the deceased was 29 years at the time of the accident, keeping in view the criteria laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra), multiplier applicable according to age of deceased would be 17 (seventeen).
Loss of financial dependency
30. On the basis of facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, total loss of financial dependency of the LRs of the deceased would be:
Petition No.: 76931/16 Page No. 11 of 17Rs.20,143 + (50% of Rs.20,143) x 1/2 x 12 x 17 = 30,81,879/ Thus, total loss of financial dependency is assessed as Rs.30,81,879/ Rupees Thirty Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Nine only).
Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:
31. In the judgment Pranay Sethi & Ors (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with the view expressed in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others reported as (2013)9 SCC 54 and held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/, Rs.40,000/ and Rs.15,000/ respectively. It also observed that "The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be factcentric or quantumcentric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three year and the enhancement should be @ 10% in a span of three years." Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards loss of estate.
32. The total compensation is assessed as under:
SN Heads Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of Financial Dependency 30,81,879
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000
3 Loss of Estate 15,000
TOTAL 31,11,879
Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs.31,11,900/ (rounded off) (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Only).
Petition No.: 476463/2016 Page No. 12 of 17Liability
33. It is admitted by Insurance Company (Respondent No.3) that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.HR55PT8031 was duly insured vide Policy No.215300/31/2014/10913 valid from 28.12.2013 to 27.12.2014, including the date of accident i.e. 21.03.2014. However, it is stated in WS filed by respondent No.3 that it is a case of contributory negligence of driver and owner of road roller and consequently, IO had filed a separate Kalandra against the owner and driver of road roller. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
34. The onus to prove that the accident was caused due to contributory negligence of the driver of road roller was on the Insurance Company/respondent No.3. The scrutiny of the evidence led by respondent No.3 reflects that respondent No.3 failed to produce any witness to this effect and failed to lead any evidence qua its claim. Hence, the claim of the Insurance Co. remains disproved.
35. Therefore, all the respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. But, since the offending vehicle was duly insured to cover the third party risk, respondent No. 3/Insurance company is under the statutory liability to pay compensation to the petitioners.
RELIEF
36. In view of above findings on Issue Nos. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.31,11,900/ (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Only) as compensation to Petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 04.09.2014 till realisation. Amount of Interim Award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount.
Petition No.: 76931/16 Page No. 13 of 17Apportionment
37. Share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:
SN Name Relationship with deceased Share in the award amount 1 Harish Pal Gulati Father 50% 2 Smt.Anju Gulati Mother 50% Mode of payment and disbursement
38. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioners under intimation to the petitioners and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, respondent/Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
39. While making the deposit, Insurance Company shall mention the particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision on the back side of the cheque. Insurance Company shall also file copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank at the time of deposit. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to the petitioners in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc. in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
40. Out of total award amount of Rs.Rs.31,11,900/, deposited by Respondent No.3/Insurance company, a sum of Rs.1,11,900/ (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand and Nine Hundred only), be released to the petitioners immediately.
41. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, balance amount of Rs.30,00,000/ (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) as per share of money as mentioned above would be kept in FDRs in the following manner in accordance Petition No.: 476463/2016 Page No. 14 of 17 with the order dt. 13.02.2017 passed by HMJ J.R. Midha in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jasbir Singh & Ors. :
(i) Rs. 15,00,000/ be kept in 100 FDRs of Rs.15,000/ each in the name petitioner No.1/Smt.Anju Gulati (mother of the deceased) for the periods 1 month to 100 months respectively with cumulative interest.
(ii) Rs.15,00,000/ be kept in 100 FDRs of Rs.15,000/ each in the name petitioner No.2/Hari Pal Gulati (father of the deceased) for the periods 1 month to 100 months respectively with cumulative interest.
42. Petitioners shall open their accounts in State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi. Manager of the Bank shall comply and release the award amounts to the petitioners in terms of the Award.
Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of cost.
Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 08.01.2018.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 29th November, 2017 (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Petition No.: 76931/16 Page No. 15 of 17 FORM - IV COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MONITORED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of Accident 21.03.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal 29.08.2014 (Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company 29.08.2014 (Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate 29.08.2014 (Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer 29.08.2014 before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 04.09.2014 Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) 04.09.2014 (Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects?
Yes (Clause 16)
9. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No whether any action/direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 04.09.2014 by the Insurance Company (Clause 19)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh.Ram Bilas Sharma, Designated Officer of the Insurance Company Counsel (Clause 19)
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 21) Petition No.: 476463/2016 Page No. 16 of 17
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the No compensation in accordance with law (Clause
22)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the Claimant(s) to the offer of the Insurance Company (Clause 23)
18. Date of Award 29.11.2017
19. Whether the Award was passed with the No consent of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the Claimant(s) examined at the time of passing of the Award to ascertain his/their Yes financial condition? (Clause 26)
21. Whether the photographs, specimen signatures, proof of residence and particulars of bank account of the injured/legal heirs of the Yes deceased taken at the time of passing of the Award? (Clause 26)
22. Mode of disbursement of the Award amount to SBI/Tis Hazari Courts the Claimant(s) (Clause 28) Branch
23. Next date for compliance of the Award 08.01.2018 (Clause 30) (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ////.11.2017 Petition No.: 76931/16 Page No. 17 of 17