Delhi District Court
( vs (1). Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq (Driver) on 3 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -1 + MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM
TRIBUNAL (NW) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
_____________________________________________________________
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-000489-2013
MACT CASE No. 449692/16/2013
[old case:- 7 years old]
Deceased: Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto, Aged about-27 years
In Re :
(1). Sh. Ram Vilas Bhagat (Father )
S/o Late Sh. Subh Lal Bhagat
R/o A-281 to 358, J. J. Colony,
Shakur Pur Delhi,
Also at:-
Vilalge Ratanpura & P.O. Ratvada,
P.S. Bajpatti, Distt. Sitamarhi, Bihar
(2). Smt. Krishna Devi (Wife)
W/o Late Sh. Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto
(3). Baby Kusum (Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto
(4). Master Niraj Kumar (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto
(Petitioner no. 3 and 4 are minor and are represented through their
natural mother/guardian Smt. Krishna Devi (petitioner no. 2)
All R/o:-B-424, Singh Adarsh Enclave,
Prem Nagar-II, Kirari Suleman Nagar Delhi
Also at:-
R/o Village Ratnapura, P.O. Ratvada,
P.S. Bajpatti, Distt. Sitamarhi, Bihar.
.........Petitioners
Vs.
(1). Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq (Driver)
S/o Noor Mohammad
R/o Village & P.O. Jhajhihat,
P.S. Pupri, Distt. Sitamarhi, Bihar,
Also at:- 2, Bararuddin Street,
Kolkata-700013
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2020.10.03
GUPTA 17:04:16 +0530
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.1/30
(2) Sh. Md. Asraf (Owner)
S/o Uday Singh
R/o Village & P.O. Jhajhihat,
P.S. Pupri, Distt. Sitamarhi, Bihar,
(3). The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
T.P. Hun F-14, Cannought Place, New Delhi.
(Insurer)
..........Respondents
Date of filing of the petition : 06.09.2013 First date before the undersigned : 18.04.2019 Date of Arguments : 22.09.2020 Date of Decision : 03.10.2020 APPEARANCE (S): Sh. Pitamber Singh Advocate, Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
Sh. Kuldeep Singh Advocate, LD. Counsel for R-1 and R-2.
Ms. Neeru Garg Advocate, Ld. Counsel for R-3/insurer.
FORM - V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (EFFECTIVE W.E.F. 01.01.2019) TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS.
1. Date of the accident 18.04.2012
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the This is a claim petition investigating officer to the Claims filed by the petitioners Tribunal. and accident in question took place outside Delhi.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the This is a claim petition investigating officer to the insurance filed by the petitioners company. and accident in question took place outside MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH Delhi.
KUMAR GUPTAKUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03
17:04:28 +0530
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.2/30
4. Date of filing of Report under section ___
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan
Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident This is a claim petition Information Report (DAR) by the filed by the petitioners investigating Officer before Claims and accident in question Tribunal. took place outside Delhi.
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance This is a claim petition Company. filed by the petitioners and accident in question took place outside Delhi.
7. Date of service of DAR on the This is a claim petition claimant(s). filed by the petitioners and accident in question took place outside Delhi.
8. Whether DAR was complete in all This is a claim petition respects? filed by the petitioners and accident in question took place outside Delhi.
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR This is a claim petition removed later on? filed by the petitioners and accident in question took place outside Delhi.
10. Whether the police has verified the This is a claim petition documents filed with DAR? filed by the petitioners and accident in question took place outside Delhi.
11. Whether there was any delay or This is a claim petition deficiency on the part of the filed by the petitioners Investigating Officer? If so, whether any and accident in question action/direction warranted? took place outside Delhi.
12. Date of appointment of the Designated This is a claim petition Officer by the insurance Company. filed by the petitioners Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR GUPTA Date:
2020.10.03 17:04:42 +0530 and accident in question MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.3/30 took place outside Delhi.
13. Name, address and contact number of This is a claim petition the Designated Officer of the Insurance filed by the petitioners Company. and accident in question took place outside Delhi.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the This is a claim petition Insurance Company submitted his report filed by the petitioners within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 22) and accident in question took place outside Delhi.
15. Whether the insurance company This is a claim petition admitted the liability? If so, whether the filed by the petitioners Designated Officer of the insurance and accident in question company fairly computed the took place outside compensation in accordance with law. Delhi.
16. Whether there was any delay or This is a claim petition deficiency on the part of the Designated filed by the petitioners Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, and accident in question whether any action/direction warranted? took place outside Delhi.
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to No legal offer has been the offer of the Insurance Company. filed.
18. Date of the Award. 03.10.2020
19. Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to Yes open saving bank account(s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open saving bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce 16.07.2019 Digitally signed PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the MUKESH KUMAR by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Date:
direction to the bank not issue any GUPTA 2020.10.03 17:05:00 +0530 cheque book/debit card to the MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.4/30 claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the passbook of their saving bank 01.10.2020 account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above. Claimant(s).
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and the address of the bank Smt. Krishna is having with IFSC Code. her saving bank account bearing No. 39693060446, State Bank of India, Rohini Court Complex, Delhi.
Petitioner Baby Kushum
and Master Niraj Kumar
are having their
respective saving bank
accounts bearing no.
39693071348 and
39694889272, State
Bank of India, Rohini
Court Complex, Delhi.
Petitioner Ram Vilas
Bhagat is having his
saving bank account
bearing no.
3789985001, Central
Bank of India, Branch
Shakti Vihar, Pitampura,
Delhi.
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03
17:05:09 +0530
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.5/30
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC State Bank of India, Code, name and branch of the bank of Rohini Courts, Delhi. the Claims Tribunal in which the award IFSC code no.
Digitally signed by MUKESHamount is to be deposited/transferred. SBIN0010323.
MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
2020.10.03
GUPTA 17:05:19
+0530
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.6/30
PETITION UNDER SECTION 166 & 140 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION JUDGMENT / AWARD:-
1. By way of present judgment/award, I shall conscientiously dispose of the claim petition U/s 166 (4) of M. V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation filed by the petitioners/LR's of deceased Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mahto.
2. The brief material facts relevant to decide the present claim petition as averred are that on 18.04.2012 at about 07:00 p.m., deceased Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto along-with one Sh. Happy Mehto was going on motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SAQ-9106 to attend a marriage ceremony from his native village Ratanpur (Bihar). The motorcycle was being driven by deceased Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto and when they reached near Khoonia Pool, Village Shiv Nagar, Benipatti, Distt.
Madhubani Bihar, suddenly one tempo (TSR) bearing registration no. BR-30P-2243 which was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from village Baiseth side and hit the motorcycle of the deceased with great force from the back side. As a result of which, deceased Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto fell on the road and sustained fatal injuries, resulting into the unfortunate death of Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto. A case U/s 279/337/338/304-A IPC has been registered with P.S. Benipati Distt. Madhubani, Bihar against respondent no. 1 with respect to the accident in question.
3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and as per the postal report, R-2 has refused to receive the summon, failed to appear before the tribunal and was accordingly proceeded ex-parte vide order dated Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Date:
15.01.2014.
GUPTA 2020.10.03
17:05:30 +0530
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.7/30
4. Reply on behalf of R-1 and R-2 not filed. Initially, the petitioners no. 2 to 4 were made as proforma respondents (no. 4, 5 & 6) being the wife and children of deceased. Subsequently, they have been represented by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and being the beneficiaries and legal heirs of deceased, they have been later shown as petitioner no. 2 to 4. They have filed their formal written statement where they have not denied any averments but have also claimed compensation being the legal heirs of deceased. On transposition as petitioners, an amended petition was filed and accepted by the tribunal on 15.01.2019.
5. Respondent no. 3/insurance company filed its reply where it has admitted that the offending vehicle bearing no. BR-30P-2243 (Auto Rickshaw) was duly insured with it vide policy No. 332105/31/2012/5047 valid from 16.02.2012 to 15.02.2013 in the name of Md. Asraf (respondent no. 2 herein). It is also contended that as per route permit issued to offending vehicle, the offending vehicle bearing no. BR-30P-2243 was allowed to ply as a Auto Rickshow taxi for carrying passenger on roads of Sitamarhi town and only within the radius 16 k.m. of Sitamarhi Headquarter whereas the accident took place near Khoonia Pool, Village Shiv Nagar, PS Bhannipatti District Madhubani (Bihar) beyond 16 k.m. and the act of driver and owner of the offending vehicle is violation of route permit and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation on this ground. It has been further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid DL to drive the TSR at the time of accident. It is also contended that the deceased Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident but the petitioner has failed to produce any driving license of the deceased. The insurer (R-3) has accordingly claimed absolving it from liability to pay on account of breach of policy.Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03
17:05:40 +0530
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.8/30
6. On perusal of the pleadings and documents, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of the tribunal on 08.08.2017:-
ISSUES.
1. Whether deceased Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto S/o Sh. Ram Vilas Bhagat expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 18.04.2012 at about 07:00 a.m., near Khoonia Pool, village Shiv Nagar, PS Benipati, District Madhubani (Bihar) due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle A.R. Tempo bearing no. BR-30P-2243 which was being so driven by driver Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq s/o Noor Mohammad and hit motorcycle bearing no. DL-8SQ-9106 driven by above named deceased on the said date, time, and place? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. To substantiate their claim, petitioner Smt. Krishna Devi (widow of the deceased) examined herself as PW-1 and Sh. Happy Mehto @ Doma Mahtro as PW-2 (eye witness of the accident). No other witness was examined and PE was closed vide statement dated 20.04.2019.
8. In rebuttal, Respondent no. 1 & 2 on their part, did not lead any evidence. However, respondent no. 3/ insurance company examined Ms. Neelam Rani, Assistant, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as R3W1, Sh. Sourav Bhattacharya, Head Asstt., Public Vehicles Department Kolkata, West Bengal as R3W2 and RE was closed vide statement dated 18.02.2020. Pertinent to mention here that the report of Joint Commissioner cum Secretary Transport, Regional Transport Office, Mujjafarpur sent to the court was accepted as Ex. C-3 in view of the nature of document being sent MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA directly to the court in response to its summon and the proceedings being KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03
17:05:49 +0530
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.9/30
inquiry proceedings under a beneficial legislation.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record including the pleadings and the documents. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the same. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1" Whether deceased Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto S/o Sh. Ram Vilas Bhagat expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 18.04.2012 at about 07:00 a.m., near Khoonia Pool, village Shiv Nagar, PS Benipati, District Madhubani (Bihar) due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle A.R. Tempo bearing no. BR-30P-2243 which was being so driven by driver Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq s/o Noor Mohammad and hit motorcycle bearing no. DL-8SQ-9106 driven by above named deceased on the said date, time, and place? OPP?OPP."
10. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue is on the petitioners. To prove the said issue the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Krishna Devi examined herself as PW-1, who in her testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A deposed on the lines of averments made in the claim petition. She deposed about the mode and the manner in which the accident has taken place resulting into death of her deceased husband Sh. Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto. She relied upon the following documents: -
S. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. petition Ex. PW-1/p (colly.)
2. Photocopy of her election I Card Ex. PW-1/1
3. Photocopy of election I card of deceased Ex. PW-1/2
3. DL of deceased Shambhu Bhagat @ Ex. PW-1/3 Shambhu Mehto
4. Death certificate of deceased Ex. PW-1/4
5. Bank Passbook of deceased Ex. PW-1/5
6. Aadhar Card of petitioner Niraj Kumar Ex. PW-1/6
7. Aadhar card of petitioner Kushum Ex. PW-1/7
11. PW-1 Smt. Krishna Devi was duly cross examined by the Ld. Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Counsel for the insurance company where she has deposed that she is not Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03 17:05:58 +0530 MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.10/30 an eye witness of the accident in question and she has no documentary proof of income of deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- per month and she has no appointment letter which may show that his deceased husband was doing private job with Jaswant Singh, Prop. of Bharat Dhaba/Hotel 26A/Gali No.1, Sri Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034. She has denied the suggestion that her deceased husband was not working/earning at the time of the accident. She has further deposed that her deceased husband had studied upto 8 th class. She has admitted that she has not filed any documentary proof of education of her deceased husband. She has denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to own negligence of her deceased husband or that her deceased husband was driving motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident or that R-1 was not driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
12. PW-2 Sh. Happy Mehto @ Doma Mahto in his testimony (by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A) has deposed that he is an eye witness of the accident in question. He deposed that on the day of accident, he alongwith the deceased was going on motorcycle bearing No. DL-8SAQ-9106 to attend the marriage ceremony from his native village Ratanpura (Bihar) which was being driven by the deceasd with due care and he was sitting as pillion rider. He deposed that at around 7 PM, when they reached near Khoonia Pool, Village Shive Nagar, Benipatti, Distt. Madhubani, all of a sudden the offending vehicle i.e. tempo bearing registration no. BR-30P-2243, which was being driven by its driver in a rash negligent manner at a very fast speed hit the motorcycle of deceased with great force from behind. He deposed that due to heavy impacts they fell down on the road, which resulted the unfortunate and premature death of deceased Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambho Mahto. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for insurance company where he has deposed that on 18.04.2012, he alongwith MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH deceased started their journey from their village Mohammadpur, Distt.
KUMAR GUPTAKUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03
17:06:07 +0530 MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.11/30
Sitamadi and were going towards Madhuban. He has further deposed that they were wearing helmet. He further deposed that he does not remember whether police recovered helmet from the spot or not. He has admitted that he was the pillion rider over the said motorcycle and his face was towards ahead at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that the deceased was not working and residing in Delhi. He further denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of deceased.
13. Neither the respondent no. 1 & 2 filed their replies nor led any evidence in rebuttal. However, respondent no. 3 examined Ms. Neelam Rani, Assistant, Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. as R3W1 and relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of policy Ex. R3W1/A (OSR)
2. Copy of DL Ex. R3W1/B (colly.)
3. Verification report of driving license Ex. R3W1/C
4. Copy of permit Ex. R3W1/D
5. Copy of google map Ex. R3W1/E
6. Copy of notice U/o 12 rule 8 CPC served Ex. R3W1/F upon owner
7. Postal receipts in respect of notice Ex. R3W1/G & H
8. Tracking report in respect of notice U/o 12 Ex. R3W1/I & J rule 8 CPC The testimony of R3W1 remained unrebutted, before the tribunal.
14. R3W2 Sh. Sourav Bhattacharya, Head Assistant, Public Vehicles Department, 38, Beltola Road, Kolkata, West Bengal-700020 in his testimony has deposed that he has been authorized to depose in the court by Sh. Gautam Chakraborty, Deputy Director (Licensing Authority), PVD Kolkata-20. He proved on record his authorization letter as Ex. R3W2/1. The witness Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03 17:06:19 +0530 MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.12/30 has brought the record of driving licence bearing no. DL no. WB01 19990294606 (Old no. 413315T) of Md. Safique. He has further deposed that the DL was valid under category NT (LMV) from 22.08.1999 to 05.12.2025 and under category T (LMV-TR & LMV CAB) from 05.12.2005 upto 15.12.2020. He proved on record the attested true copy of the Extract of DL as Ex. R3W2/2. He has further deposed that the said DL is not authorized to drive any Auto Rickshaw and the abovesaid DL category are not authorized or covered to drive TSR (Auto Rickshaw). Neither the witness was cross examined by the Ld. counsel for R-1 & R-2 nor examined any witness to rebut the testimony of R3W2.
15. Now adverting to the statutory position, describing the nature of proceedings before a claims tribunal the Hon'ble Supreme court in State of Mysore Vs. S.S. Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943 has held :
"That tribunal exercising Quasi-Judicial function are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can unlike courts, obtain all information for the points under the inquiry from all sources and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in Courts"
16. Needless to mention here that the petitioners are required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to the proceedings before the tribunal.
Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date: GUPTA 2020.10.03 17:06:28 +0530 MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.13/30
17. In Bimla Devi and Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, Supreme Court held that:-
" 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 an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. 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 applied."
18. In National Insurance Company Pvt. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors., 2008 II AD (DELHI) 269. Hon'ble Delhi High court observed that "...on perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (1) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2001, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A, IPC against the driver, (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down."
19. It is an undisputed fact that FIR No.59/12, U/s 279/337/338/304- A IPC PS: Benipatti was registered with regard to the accident in question. Record shows that the FIR was registered promptly and without any unnecessary delay. The certified copy of Post Mortem report of deceased filed on record shows the cause of death to be Road Traffic Accident. Further, the testimony of PW-2 Happy Mehto (eye witness of the accident), proves that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. It has been duly proved that the alleged accident has taken place due to rash, reckless and negligent driving Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA of the offending tempo bearing no. BR-30P-2243 which was being driven by Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03 17:06:37 +0530 MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.14/30 respondent no. 1. Further, the respondent no. 1 who could only rebut the testimonies on the point of rashness and negligence has neither examined himself nor cross examined any witness. Hence, an adverse inference can also be drawn against him. Even otherwise, nothing contrary has come on record. All this cumulatively proves that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. BR-30P-2243 was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 Shafikul in a rash and negligent manner resulting into the death of the deceased Shambhu Mehto on the aforesaid date, time and place.
20. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.2 "Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP."
21. It is to be borne in mind that Motor Vehicle Act 1988 does not stipulate holdings a trial for petition preferred u/s. 166 of the Act. U/s. 168 of the MV Act, the Claims Tribunal holds an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just and reasonable. Rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal stricto sensu.
22. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2012 (10) JT 484 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Despite many a pronouncment in a field, it still remains a challenging situation warranting sensitive as well as dispassionate exercise how to determine the incalculable sum in calculable terms of money in cases of personal injuries. In such assessment, neither sentiments nor emotions have any role. There should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation"
which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance. However, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a MUKESH Digitally signed precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2020.10.03 determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of "just GUPTA 17:06:45 +0530 compensation" should be inhered.MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.15/30
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while analyzing the entire law for grant of just compensation in fatal cases has recently in a judgment reported as 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. has held :-
57. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of "just compensation" and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect.
The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum.
24. The petitioners are legal heirs of deceased Sh. Shambhu Mehto Petitioner no. 1 is father of deceased, petitioner no. 2 is the wife of deceased and petitioner no. 3 and 4 are the children of the deceased and consequent upon the death of deceased they have suffered a lot mentally as well as monetarily. As such petitioners are required to be compensated by way of just and reasonable compensation which under the various heads is Digitally signed determined as under:-
MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03
17:06:52 +0530
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.16/30
LOSS OF DEPENDECY
25. The petitioners have claimed that the deceased Shambhu Mehto was doing private job with Sh. Jaswant Singh Prop. Of Bharat Dhaba/Hotel 26A, gali No.1, Sri Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034 and was earning Rs.
15,000/- per month. To prove the same, neither petitioners have placed on record his appointment letter, salary slip or even any statements of account. Petitioners have failed to examine any witness from the said Hotel/Dhaba to prove the occupation or monthly income of deceased. Even, the petitioners has not placed on record any educational qualification certificate of the deceased Shambhu Mehto. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal is left with no other yardstick to determine the monthly income of the petitioner except minimum wages of unskilled person and accordingly consider the income of petitioner to be Rs. 7020/-per month (minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident for unskilled person in Delhi).
26. The deceased Sh. Shambhu Mehto survived by his wife and two children i.e. one minor son and minor and his father. Therefore, it is held that there were only four dependents upon deceased Sh. Shambhu Mehtro at the time of accident. Therefore, the loss of dependency is to be taken as 3/4 th of the income of the deceased. As such a deduction of 1/4 th is to be made from the income of the deceased accordingly and in terms of 2009 ACJ 1298 SC titled Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.
27. The date of birth of deceased as per the DL of the deceased is shown as 10.09.1984. As such he was aged about 28 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, the age of the deceased has been considered as 28 years and the multiplier of 17 would be applicable as per Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra).
Further, there would be an addition of 40% on the income of MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH deceased for the purpose of the future prospects as the deceased was self-
KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2020.10.03
GUPTA 17:07:02 +0530
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.17/30
employed. Reliance placed upon Pranay Sethi (Supra).
Therefore, the calculation for compensation shall be:-
(7020 + 40%= 2808) = (7020+2808) = 9828.
Monthly Loss of dependency after deductions in terms of Sarla Verma (Supra) would be Rs. = 9828X3/4= 7,371.
Thus, the total loss of dependency on account of death of deceased comes to Rs. 7371X12X17= 15,03,684/- (rounded off to Rs. 15,03,700/-) (Rupees Fifteen Lac Three Thousand Seven Hundred) Only, which is awarded as compensation under this head.
COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF NON PECUNIARY LOSSES
28. Apart from above, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) is awarded under the head of loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) is awarded towards Funeral expenses. Reliance is placed upon Praney Sethi (Supra). The petitioners are also entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of progenial/filial consortium for loss of company, care, help, solace and affection of the deceased. There has been divergence and abashment regarding loss of love and affection in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 SCC Online SC 1546 which has later been discussed by the Hon'ble High Court in case MAC. APP. 831/2018 titled Badal & Ors. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. decided on 08.04.2019 and also in judgment passed in case MAC. APP. 729/2019 titled Navin Parcha & Ors.
Ors. decided on 06.09.2019. However, the entire controversy is set at rest by a full bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ltd. V. Satinder Kaur, Kaur, 2020 SCC online SC 410 decided on 30.06.2020 where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the loss of consortium in itself is a comprehensive terms to include loss of love and affection and there is no Digitally signed by MUKESH justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03 MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.18/3017:07:15 +0530 separate head.
29. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under :
1. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY Rs. 15,03,700/-
2. COMPENSATION ON Rs.15,000/- + ACCOUNT OF NON- Rs.15,000/- + PECUNIARY LOSS Rs. 1,60,000/- + 1,90,000/-
Total = Rs. 16,93,700/-
30. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
LIABILITY
31. Now the liability is to be fixed as to which of the respondents shall pay the amount of compensation and to what extent. The offending vehicle was admittedly insured at the time of accident with respondent no. 3/ the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy bearing no. 332105/31/2012/5047 valid from 16.02.2012 to 15.02.2013 in the name of Md. Asraf. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3/insurance company has argued that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation on the ground the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of permit and as such has also violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy besides the driver of the offending vehicle was also not holding a DL to driver the TSR on the date of the accident. The insurance company has examined Ms. Neelam Rani, Assistant, Oriental insurance Co.
Ltd. as R3W1 who has relied upon the following documents:-
Digitally signedMUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03
17:07:24 +0530
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.19/30
S. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of policy Ex. R3W1/A (OSR)
2. Copy of DL Ex. R3W1/B (colly.)
3. Verification report of driving license Ex. R3W1/C
4. Copy of permit Ex. R3W1/D
5. Copy of google map Ex. R3W1/E
6. Copy of notice U/o 12 rule 8 CPC served Ex. R3W1/F upon owner
7. Postal receipts in respect of notice Ex. R3W1/G & H
8. Tracking report in respect of notice U/o 12 Ex. R3W1/I & J rule 8 CPC
32. The witness in her testimony has deposed that the respondent no. 1 & 2 have failed to produce the requisite documents like DL and documents to drive beyond permissible limit of jurisdiction despite service of notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC. She has proved on record the permit of the offending vehicle as Ex. R3W1/D which permits the offending vehicle to be driven within the radius of 16 K. M. of the Sitamarthi (HQs.) but the place where the accident has taken place is around 42 K. M. away from Sitamarhi (HQs.). To prove the same, the witness has placed on record the google map as Ex. R3W1/E. The respondent no. 3/insurer has further examined Sh.
Sourav Bhattacharya, Head Assistant, Public Vehicles Department, 38, Beltola Road, Kolkata, West Bengal-700020 as R3W1 who in his testimony has deposed that the driving licence bearing no. DL no. WB01 19990294606 (Old no. 413315T) was valid under category NT (LMV) from 22.08.1999 to 05.12.2025 and under category T (LMV-TR & LMV CAB) from 05.12.2005 upto 15.12.2020. He has further deposed that the said DL is not authorized to drive any Auto Rickshaw and the above said DL category are not authorized or covered to drive TSR (Auto Rickshaw). Neither the witnesses were cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for R-1 & R-2 nor examined any witness to rebut the testimony of R3W1 and R3W2. Finally, the report of Joint Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2020.10.03 Commissioner cum Secretary Transport, Muzaffarpur, Bihar bearing no.
GUPTA 17:07:39 +0530 MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.20/30 956/TPT/MZF dated 23.11.2019 (Ex. C-3) clearly mentions that the permit no. 2547/12 was not authorized to ply in village Shiv Nagar, PS Benipatti, Distt. Madhubani, Bihar (place of accident), thereby clearly indicating violation of permit conditions. In fine there is a clear violation of both DL and permit conditions proved in this case, leading to violation of insurance policy (Ex. R3W1/A). However, since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 at the time of accident. Therefore, the insurance company is, thus, liable to indemnify the insured u/s 149(1) of MV Act and initially liable to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal to the petitioners. However, the respondent no. 3/insurance company shall have the recovery rights to recover the awarded amount with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of petition from the date of filing of DAR/petition till its realization from respondent no. 1 & 2.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
33. In view of the discussion and findings of this Tribunal on issue no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.16,93,700/- (Rupees Sixteen Lac Ninety Three Thousand Seven Hundred) Only, including interim award, if any, along-with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioners and against respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 06.09.2013 till the date of its realization. Respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit the award with upto date interest within 30 days from today i.e. the date of passing the award. Reliance is placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors., bearing MAC APP 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016.
APPORTIONMENT
34. Examination of petitioners to ascertain their financial Digitally signed condition/needs, mode of disbursement and amount to be kept in fixed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: deposits in terms of clause 26 (now clause 29 of MCTAP) was recorded on GUPTA 2020.10.03 17:07:48 +0530 MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.21/30 01.10.2020. The Bank Manager (s) of the concerned bank where the petitioners have opened their MACT Claims SB Account (s) were also directed not to issue any cheque book (s) or Debit Card/ATM card against the said account (s) and shall make an endorsement on the passbooks of the petitioners to this effect. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present claim petition and in view of the said statements of the petitioner and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby ordered that out of the total awarded amount, 60% of the compensation shall be released to the petitioner Smt. Krishna, 15% each to the petitioner Kushum and Niraj Kumar and remaining 10% shall be released to petitioner Ram Vilas Bhagat. Out of the respective share of petitioner Smt. Krishna, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- be released to her through her saving bank account bearing No. 39693060446, State Bank of India, Rohini Court Complex, Delhi and rest of the amount with proportionate interest be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD). In case, the MACAD Scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be converted into FDR's of Rs. 20,000/- each for the period of three-months, six months, nine months, one year and so on so forth having cumulative interest in the name of petitioner Smt. Krishna.
It is further ordered that entire amount of compensation qua petitioner Baby Kushum and Master Niraj Kumar be kept in FDR's till they attain the age of majority. On attaining majority, they be released a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each through their respective saving bank accounts bearing no. 39693071348 and 39694889272, State Bank of India, Rohini Court Complex, Delhi and rest of the amount with proportionate interest be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD). In case, the MACAD Scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be converted into KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03
17:07:57 +0530 FDR's of Rs. 15,000/- each for the period of three-months, six months, nine
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.22/30
months, one year and so on so forth having cumulative interest in the name of petitioners Baby Kushum and Master Niraj Kumar.
It is further ordered that the entire amount of compensation with proportionate interest qua petitioner Ram Vilas Bhagat be released to him through his saving bank account bearing no. 3789985001, Central Bank of India, Branch Shakti Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi.
DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT IN TERMS OF THE CLAUSE 31 OF MCTAP
35. The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant(s) through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO 842/2003 titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir & Ors." However, till the time MACAD scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioners are not put to any undue inconvenience , the fixed deposit may be opened subject to following conditions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the saving bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioners.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the bank in their safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the petitioners.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant (s) as stipulated aforesaid.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by electronic clearing system (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant (s) as mentioned Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA aforesaid. KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03
17:08:07 +0530
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.23/30
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the tribunal.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall freeze debit card (s) issued in respect of the account of the claimant (s).
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
36. The respondent no. 3 i.e. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and shall file a compliance report with this Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant (s) with a copy of their counsel within 30 days of the award. The names and address of the claimant(s) are mentioned at page No. 1 of this award and the name and address of their counsel is as under:-
Sh. Pitamber Saini, Advocate En. No. 1408/05, 129, West wing Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. M. No. 9211321127
37. It is made clear that at the time of deposit of award amount with the bank, the respondent no. 3 shall specifically mention the Case No., title of the case, date of award and the name of the court on the backside of the cheque and the respondent no. 3 shall also file the attested copy of the award, attested by its own officer, to the bank at the time of deposit of the Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA amount with the bank. The Manager concerned of the bank is directed to KUMAR Date:
2020.10.03 GUPTA 17:08:14 +0530 MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.24/30 comply the award and further directed to release the award amount to all the petitioners through bank accounts. Till the amount is released through the said accounts, the concerned banks shall keep the money in FDR's to avoid any loss of interest.
38. R-3 i.e. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days after sending notice of deposit to the petitioners.
39. Copy of this judgment/award be given to petitioners and Ld. counsel for R-3 for compliance. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DSLSA as per clause 35 (ii) and 36 of MCTAP.
40. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. However, separate miscellaneous file be prepared for compliance of award in terms of clause 34 of MCTAP which is to be put up by Nazir of the tribunal along-with his report on 02.11.2020.
41. Copy of this award be also sent to the Nodal Officer State Bank of India, through e-mail ID i.e. [email protected] in terms of the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in case FAO No. 842/03 titled "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir & Ors.
Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 03.10.2020.
MUKESH Digitally signed
by MUKESH
KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2020.10.03
GUPTA 17:08:23 +0530
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
ADJ-1 + MACT (N/W),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.25/30
FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident: - 18.04.2012
2. Name of the deceased: - Shambhu Bhagat @ Shambhu Mehto.
3. Age of deceased: - 28 years (at the time of the accident).
4. Occupation of the deceased: - Deceased Shambhu Mehto was doing a private job with Sh. Jaswant Singh Prop. Of Bharat Dhaba/Hotel, Sri Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi.
5. Income of the deceased: - Rs. 7020/-.
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Sh. Ram Vilas Bhagat 60 years Father
(ii) Smt. Krishna Devi 32 years Wife
(iii) Baby Kusum 10 years Daughter
(iv) Master Niraj Kumar 8 years Son
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) 7020/- p.m.
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03
17:08:32 +0530
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.26/30
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) = 7020X40%=2808/-
= (7020 + 2808) = 9828/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/4 deduction deceased (C) 9828 X 1/4 = 2457
10. Monthly loss of dependency 9828 - 2457 [(A+B) - C =D] = 7371
11. Annual loss of dependency 7371X12= 88,452/-
(Dx12) 12. Multiplier (E) 17
13. Total loss of dependency 88,452 X 17 =15,03,684/-
(Dx12xE = F) (Rounded off Rs. 15,03,700/-)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil.
15. Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,60,000/-
consortium & loss of love and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of estate(I) Rs. 15,000/-
17. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/-
expenses (J)
18. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 16,93,700/-
(F+G+H+I+J=K)
19. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% P. A.
20. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 10,79,142.12p.
award (L) 21 Total amount including interest Rs. 27,72,842.12p.
(K+L) Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2020.10.03 GUPTA 17:08:39 +0530 MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.27/30
22. Award amount released 1. Rs. 2,00,000/- to petitioner no.2 Smt. Krishna.
2. Entire amount of compensation with proportionate interest qua petitioner Ram Vilas Bhagat be released to him through his saving bank account.
23. Award amount kept in FDRs It is hereby ordered that out of the total awarded amount, 60% of the compensation shall be released to the petitioner Smt. Krishna, 15% each to the petitioner Kushum and Niraj Kumar and remaining 10% shall be released to petitioner Ram Vilas Bhagat. Out of the respective share of petitioner Smt. Krishna, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- be released to her through her saving bank account bearing No. 39693060446, State Bank of India, Rohini Court Complex, Delhi and rest of the amount with proportionate interest be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD). In case, the MACAD Scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.10.03 17:08:48 +0530 MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.28/30 amount be converted into FDR's of Rs. 20,000/- each for the period of three-months, six months, nine months, one year and so on so forth having cumulative interest in the name of petitioner Smt. Krishna.
It is further ordered that entire amount of compensation qua petitioner Baby Kushum and Master Niraj Kumar be kept in FDR's till they attain the age of majority. On attaining majority, they be released a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each through their respective saving bank accounts bearing no. 39693071348 and 39694889272, State Bank of India, Rohini Court Complex, Delhi and rest of the amount with proportionate interest be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD). In case, the MACAD Scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be converted into FDR's of Rs. 15,000/- each for the period of three-months, six months, nine months, one year and so on so Digitally signed forth having cumulative interest in the by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.29/302020.10.03 GUPTA 17:08:57 +0530 name of petitioners Baby Kushum and Master Niraj Kumar.
It is further ordered that the entire amount of compensation with proportionate interest qua petitioner Ram Vilas Bhagat be released to him through his saving bank account bearing no. 3789985001, Central Bank of India, Branch Shakti Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi.
24. Mode of disbursement of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award amount to the claimant(s).
Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in terms of clause 32 of MCTAP.
25. Next Date for compliance of the 02.11.2020.
award.
Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2020.10.03
GUPTA 17:09:05 +0530
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
ADJ-01+MACT (NW).
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 449692/16 Ram Vilas Bhagat Vs. Md. Shafikul @ Shafiq Page No.30/30