Delhi District Court
Sandhya Jain (Dar) vs Hem Kar(562/16Svr) on 12 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Old MACT No.813/2017,
originally registered on 11.10.2017
New MACT no. 486/24
FIR No. 562/2016
PS : Sarita Vihar
U/s 279/338/304A IPC, 146/196/185/56/192
MV Act
CNR NO. DLSE01 002362-2024
Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha
Claim of deceased Mukul Jain, aged about 26 years
1. Suresh Jain (Father of deceased)
2. Sandhya Jain (Mother of deceased)
R/o Lohapatti, Ramna Road, Post HP Gaya,
Bihar.
..Claimants
Versus
Hemkar Jha
S/o Udit Narayan Jha
R/o 360/2019
Haddu Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar
New Delhi.
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 1 of 35
.....driver cum owner/ respondent No. 1
Date of accident : 09.12.2016
Date of filing of DAR : 11.10.2017
Date of Decision : 12.03.2024
AWARD
1. In this case, a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter
referred as DAR) was filed by police official concerned and in
terms of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, same is treated as
Claim Petition under Section 166 (1) read with Section 166 (4)
MV Act. It pertains to alleged accident of victim Mukul Jain
(hereinafter referred as deceased), by vehicle bearing (Ecco Car)
Reg. No. DL 1YE 0578 (hereinafter referred as offending
vehicle), driven & owned by Hemkar Jha (hereinafter referred as
R-1).
2. Preliminary information regarding accident in question
was received at PS Sarita Vihar recorded and assigned vide DD
no. 26A on 09.12.2016, upon receipt of which, SI Benkatesh
Kumar along with Ct. Pramod rushed to the spot of accident near
Sant Giri School, B-Block, Sarita Vihar where HC Jitender along
with HC Maharaj Singh and Ct. Rohtash were found present at
the spot who informed that the injured persons have already been
shifted to the hospital. On the spot itself, were found one Ecco
Car white colour, bearing Reg. No. DL 1YE 0578 and a cycle
rickshaw in accidental condition on one side of the road. Ct.
Rohtash submitted that he had witnessed the accident and also
produced driver of Ecco Car called as Hemkar Jha to SI
Benkatesh who recorded his statement that the driver of the Ecco
Car vehicle drove the car in a rash and negligent manner
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 2 of 35
eventually hitting the cycle rickshaw very forcefully from front
on account of which the two passengers on the cycle rickshaw
were literally thrown in air before falling on the road sustaining
serious injuries apart from another pedestrian who was also hit
by the said vehicle and also sustained injuries. FIR was registered
on the basis of statement of HC Rohtash. Spot was photographed.
IO reached at the Apollo Hospital. There were four injured
persons found admitted in Apollo Hospital, identified as Mr.
Bharat Bagat, Harender Srivastava who were declared unfit for
statement whereas Sh. Pijus Bera and Mukul Jain were declared
brought dead on the MLC with alleged history of RTA as
recorded there. Their Post Mortem examination was got
conducted. Any eye witness was not found at the hospital as per
the investigation report. The Ecco Car, hereinafter called the
offending vehicle, as well as the accidental cycle rickshaw were
photographed and taken into police possession. Both the
accidental vehicles were got mechanically inspected by the
competent team. Site plan was prepared. Driver of offending
vehicle Sh. Hemkar Jha also sustained minor injuries in the
accident and appeared to be in drunken state as noted in the
investigation report and accordingly was sent for investigation
and treatment to AIIMS. His blood samples were obtained and
were sent for examination to FSL Rohini. As per the report, his
blood sample was found to contain Ethyl Alcohol 327.9 mg/100
ml of blood. Driver of offending vehicle was subsequently
arrested. During investigation, it was revealed that the vehicle
was not insured and without valid fitness, however, RC as well as
permit of the offending vehicle were found to be valid on the date
of accident. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet U/s
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 3 of 35
279/338/304A IPC, 146/196/185/56/192 MV Act was filed before
concerned Ilaka MM whereas DAR was filed in this Tribunal on
11.10.2017.
Proceedings:
3. On the very first date of hearing, counsel representing legal
heirs of the two deceased persons and one of the injured were
present along with driver cum owner of the offending vehicle. It
was reported that the offending vehicle was with the police.
Driver cum owner/ respondent was directed to file FDR for a
sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as security deposit. He was further directed to
file Affidavit in Form 16A Appendix E u/O 22 Rule 41 (2) CPC
as also an affidavit in form attached as Annexure A in compliance
of directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. One DAR was
filed for two death cases and for two grievous injured persons
and all the cases have been treated separately in the case
proceeding sheets. Since the compensation amount in respect
of death of Mukul Jain is being decided in this award, the
proceedings undertaken qua victim Mukul Jain are being
reproduced and discussed hereunder.
4. It is noted that the case pertaining to injured Bharat Bhagat
was dismissed vide order dated 22.03.2018 whereas cases of
injured Harender and deceased Pijus were dismissed in default as
well as for want of prosecution vide order dated 02.12.2021.
Case of deceased Mukul Jain was also dismissed vide order dated
29.03.2022. However, an application was filed under Order IX
Rule 9 CPC on 18.07.2022 which was allowed vide order dated
12.12.2023 and the case was restored to its original number with
respect to compensation claim of deceased Mukul Jain.
Subsequently, an application was filed by counsel for injured
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 4 of 35
Harender Srivastava and LRs of deceased Pijus Bera to restore
the matter. Since the application for restoration was allowed on
behalf of one of the claimant/ LRs of deceased Mukul Jain, there
was no reason why compensation ought not be granted to the
other claimants on parity. Counsel requested that the matter may
be decided on the basis of material available on record including
DAR and the evidence already adduced in the matter. The said
application was allowed vide separate order and the matter was
restored in respect of compensation claims of deceased Pijush
Bera and Injured Harender Srivastava to the original number and
the same stage. Although, there was no representation on behalf
of injured Mr. Bharat Bhagat, however, there is a service report
available on record wherein he stated that he would come to
court only if he gets money as he was a rickshaw puller as per
record of DAR and had no money to come to the court or to
contest this matter and therefore, his case was dismissed way
back in the year 2018 itself. Considering that the accident claim
is being decided for all the other affected in the same accident,
there is no reason why compensation should be denied to injured
Bharat Bhagat. Therefore, his claim as presented in the form of
DAR has also been restored to the same number and being
decided by separate Award.
5. Driver cum owner Hemkar Jha appeared on the first date
on 11.02.2017 when he was supplied copy of DAR and stopped
appearing from the subsequent date and was eventually
proceeded ex parte vide order dated 17.01.2018. Subsequently
when application for restoration was moved by counsel for LRs
of deceased Mukul Jain, notice of said application was directed
to be issued to Hemkar Jha who was duly served but chose not to
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 5 of 35
appear before the court for filing of any reply to the restoration
application. Even after restoration of the matter, court notice was
issued upon driver cum owner of the offending vehicle to appear
or make representation as well as for contesting the matter
however, despite service, he chose not to appear before the Court.
Therefore, he is not deemed ex parte in this matter as he was
again granted positive opportunities to appear before the court.
Further from the proceedings sheet, it is apparent, he chose not to
file affidavits in terms of order dated 11.10.2017 to declare his
assets and liabilities. He also chose not to furnish the security
deposit as directed in the aforementioned order. He also chose
not to even file reply or any representation to DAR and did not
appear despite granting him opportunity to do so and despite
service having been effected upon him several times and even
after restoration of the matter of deceased Mukul Jain, therefore,
Respondent Evidence was also closed. As cases of injured
Harender Srivastav, Bharat Bhagat and LRs of Pijush Bera were
subsequently, restored within few days of the matter of deceased
Mukul Jain wherein notice was issued and duly served upon
respondent Hemkar Jha, it was deemed unnecessary for re-
issuance of notices pertaining to cases of the other claimants
considering that respondent had the notice of restoration of the
matter already and still chose not to answer or respond to the
same.
Issues:
6. Issues were framed on the basis of pleadings of parties
vide order dated 08.05.2018 which are as under:
1. Whether the victim Sh. Piyush Bera and Sh. Mukul
Jain Singh suffered fatal injuries and the injured Sh.
Harender Srivastav and Sh. Bharat Bhagat suffered
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 6 of 35
injuries in a road traffic accident dated 09.12.2016
involving vehicle bearing no. DL 1YE 0578 owned
and driven by R-1 due to rash and negligent driving
of R-1? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is
entitled to claim and from whom?OPP
3. Relief.
Evidence:
7. Matter was then listed for petitioner evidence. Parents of
deceased Mukul Jain appeared as PW-2 & PW-3 in the matter
who tendered their evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW2/A &
Ex.PW3/A respectively. They also relied upon the following
documents:
With regard to PW-02: Sh. Suresh Jain (father of deceased):
i. Ex.PW2/A- Copy of I Card, Salary Slip, Death Certificate/
MLC and Aadhar Card of deceased Mukul Jain (OSR).
ii. Ex.PW2/B- Copy of PAN Card (OSR)
iii. Ex.PW2/C- /Copy of Aadhar Card of father of deceased.
iv. Ex.PW2/D- Joint Bank Passbook (OSR)
With regard to PW-03: Smt. Sandhya Devi (mother of
deceased):
i. Ex.PW3/A- Copy of I Card, Salary Slip, Death Certificate/
MLC & Aadhar Card of deceased Mukul Jain.
ii. Ex.PW3/B- Copy of her PAN Card.
iii. Ex.PW3/C- Copy of he Aadhar Card.
iv. Ex.PW3/D- Joint Bank Passbook.
8. Their financial needs were also duly noted. They were not
put to cross examination as driver cum owner did not appear.
Petitioner's Evidence was closed vide order dated 15.10.2019
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 7 of 35
upon request of the LRs of deceased Mukul Jain. Noting that the
affidavit as well as security amount was not furnished by
respondent, his right to contest was closed and opportunity to
lead RE was denied.
Final Arguments:
9. Brief submissions advanced by counsel for the claimant.
She argued that driver of the offending vehicle was solely
responsible for the violent accident which caused death of two
young persons. She also pointed that the respondent had little
regard for the legal provisions considering that he was driving
the vehicle without basis mandatory insurance and with no valid
fitness and that too in a heavily drunken state. She argued that
matter may be decided as per law. No arguments were advanced
by/ on behalf of Respondent Hemkar Jha.
10. On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
final arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 1
Whether the victim Sh. Piyush Bera and Sh. Mukul Jain
Singh suffered fatal injuries and the injured Sh. Harender
Srivastav and Sh. Bharat Bhagat suffered injuries in a road
traffic accident dated 09.12.2016 involving vehicle bearing
no. DL 1YE 0578 owned and driven by R-1 due to rash and
negligent driving of R-1? OPP
11. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle was responsible for
sustaining injury by injured.
12. It has been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the
proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 8 of 35
proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are
not applicable (support drawn from the case of Bimla Devi &
Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors [(2009) 13
SC 530,[ in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
Assurance Company Limited, [2001 ACJ 421 SC[, in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as [2009 ACJ 287].
13. Further, in the present case, police after investigation had
filed charge-sheet against respondent/ driver cum owner under
Section sections are to be added U/s 279/338/304A IPC,
146/196/185/56/192 MV Act which is also suggestive of gross
negligence on the part of respondent in causing the accident.
Including in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa
Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it has been laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court that completion of
investigation and filing of chargesheet are sufficient proof of
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
14. It is also settled that if driver of offending vehicle does not
enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against
him as observed by Hon'ble High Court of India in the case of
Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009
(3) AD Delhi 310. In the present matter respondent has not even
filed reply to DAR and chose not to enter the witness box despite
repeated opportunities. Further, he chose not to be present even
for cross examination of the petitioners witnesses. Despite having
been proceeded against ex parte, it is settled that he could have
joined the proceedings at any point of time but it is clear from his
conduct that he deliberated and did not represent or contest.
Therefore, a tacit adverse inference is sustainable against him
that he did not have anything to contest or deny or represent
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 9 of 35
against that he simply evaded the opportunity provided by the
process of law to defend himself. Thus there is not even basic
denial of any accident having taken place or any dispute
regarding involvement or identification of offending vehicle or
that he was not driving the said offending vehicle in a rash or
negligent manner.
15. The process of ascertaining the compensation statutorily
payable to the claimants was initiated on the basis of DAR filed
in the Tribunal. The copy of charge sheet has been filed along
with DAR by Investigating Officer SI Benkatesh Kumar.
Detailed investigation undertaken in this matter has been
elaborately explained by IO in his investigation report. The
criminal law was put into motion almost immediately after the
accident. FIR was registered on the basis of statement of eye
witness Ct. Rohtash who was present at the spot of accident
performing his duty. The accidental cycle rickshaw as well as the
offending vehicle were found at the spot moments after the
accident in the custody of police officials already present at the
spot who handed over the same to the Investigating Officer
assigned in the matter. Even the driver of offending vehicle was
apprehended at the spot by the police officials including
Constable Rohtash and others on police duty who handed him
over to the Investigating Officer.
16. Ct. Rohtash who was the eye witness in the matter was not
examined as part of petitioner evidence and therefore upon
perusal of the record, as earlier also the evidence was permitted
to be opened at the stage of final arguments for the purpose of
examination of eye witness, that notice was issued for
examination of eye witness by the Court. Ct. Rohtash appeared
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 10 of 35
upon receipt thereof and deposed that he witnessed the accident
having taken place while being on beat police duty. He testified
that that he was present at about 07.10 PM to 07.15 PM at
Mother Dairy, B Pocket, Sarita Vihar, Agrasen Marg, when he
spotted the offending vehicle speeding from Noida Road to
Madanpur Khadar Road near Sant Giri Public School and hit
cycle rickshaw, carrying two passengers, plying from Madanpur
Khadar to Noida from the front because of which the cycle
rickshaw puller as well as the two passengers riding thereupon
were literally thrown in the air due to the forceful sudden impact
and then fell straight on to the road sustaining serious injuries.
17. It is noted that Mukul Jain and Pijus Bera were two
passengers on the cycle rickshaw as per the statement of PW HC
Rohtash Ex.A, who were brought dead on arrival in Apollo
Hospital. PW Ct. Rohtash further deposed that the offending
vehicle did not stop at that rather ended up hitting another
pedestrian after which the vehicle eventually hit bricks lying
stacked on one side of the road and stopped. He has not been put
to cross examination by the respondent despite opportunity. His
statement was recorded by Investigating Officer few moments
after the accident. His statement before the police and his
deposition before the court is consistent and there is no reason
with the court to doubt his testimony. He was an independent
person on public duty who was incidentally present in the course
of his official duty at the spot and witnessed the accident and also
brought the legal course into action.
18. Report of blood sample of the driver has been filed along
with the charge sheet and DAR as per which his blood was found
to contain Ethyl Alcohol 327.9 mg per 100 ml of blood for which
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 11 of 35
he was charge sheeted under Section 185 MV Act. Alcohol
content exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml of blood detected in the
laboratory blood test report is considered worth penalizing as per
Sec. 185 MV Act. Therefore, it is evident that the alcohol
exceeded about 11 times the prescribed limit as per law. PW HC
Rohtash Malik has also testified that the respondent was heavily
drunk, so much so that he did not reflect any coherence and any
control over his physical and mental self. Therefore, respondent
is taken to be a drunken person at wheels at the time of accident.
This also explains that he was unable to control the vehicle and
therefore, hit the cycle rickshaw from the front unable to
maintain the lane discipline and even then could not stop the
vehicle and ended up hitting another person before crashing into
the bricks stacked near the pavement.
19. Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending vehicle as
well as the accidental rickshaw also show fresh damages on
account of accidental impact on both the vehicles. Offending
vehicle has been recorded to have suffered extensive damages on
the front and left side. Similarly accidental cycle padal rickshaw
also suffered intensive damage of the complete frontal part
including wheel rims, spikes, pedal, handle bar and front brakes,
chain of the pedals. It also had its brakes and seat damaged as the
vehicle was no longer road worthy on account of accident. The
site plan also lent support to the testimony of eye witness as well
as the other circumstances of the accident. It is evident from the
testimony of the only eye witness produced in this matter and
other circumstances noted in the DAR including the blood report
of respondent that the offending vehicle was no less than a death
machine in the hands of a person in a heavily drunken state
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 12 of 35
having no sense of control on his mind as well as his body. This
also explains that he had no sense of lane driving and any control
over the speed of his vehicle or any concern towards the safety of
fellow commuters on a public road. The discussion made above
leads to an inevitable conclusion that the respondent as driver of
the offending vehicle was utterly reckless in driving the vehicle
and caused the accident, having failed in its duty of reasonable
care while plying any motor vehicle on a public road and the
seriousness of consequences which it might entail for the other
fellow commuters and their respected families. It is held that the
accident was solely caused by rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle being driven by Respondent No. 1 at the time
of accident. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the
claimant and against the respondent.
ISSUE NO.2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation,
if so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP.
20. Section . 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold
an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the
application to the insurer and after giving the parties
(including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold
an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of
the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162
may make an award determining the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying
the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 13 of 35
and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or
driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or
any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such
application makes a claim for compensation under section
140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of
any person, such claim and any other claim (whether
made in such application or otherwise) for compensation
in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of
the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in
any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of
the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person
who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award
shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the
award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount
awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may
direct.
21. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
22. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 14 of 35
23. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and
Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the
compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza;
not a source of profit but the same should not be a
pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the
various factors and quantify the amount of compensation,
which should be just. What would be "just" compensation
is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule
applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human
life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by
precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon
the particular facts and circumstances, and attending
peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode
adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered
in the background of "just" compensation which is the
pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression
"which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is
vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be
rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the
outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. ..."
24. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has
actually incurred and which are capable of being
calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary
damages are those which are incapable of being assessed
by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two
concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 15 of 35
incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss
of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other
material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or
likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate
for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety
of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not
be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of
expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal
longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv)
inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment,
frustration and mental stress in life."
25. In The Landmark Case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others (2017 SCC Online SC
1270), decided by constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, regarding the concept of 'just compensation' it was held
:
"................55. 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
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 16 of 35
Sarla Verma and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari . 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. In such
an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the courts is difficult
and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for
standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of future
prospects on the proven income at present..................."
26. Further about the principles relating to Assessment of
compensation in case of death, it was held in Pranay Sethi (supra)
that detailed analysis of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (2009 Scc Online Sc
797) is necessary as in the said case, the Court recapitulated the
relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in case
of death. In fact , Hon'ble SC in Pranay Sethi (supra) mainly
relied and approved the earlier judgment of Sarla Verma( Supra)
read with Reshma Kumari[( 2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC
(Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826 ], with some modification,
regarding all the aspects like aspect of multiplier,the steps and
guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of
compensation in cases of death, future prospects, deduction to be
made towards personal and living expenses.
27. In the present case, as per record, deceased was about 26
years of age at the time of accident, having been borne in the year
1990 as per his Aadhar Card placed on record by his father as
PW-2 as Ex.PW2/A. PW-2 as well as PW-3, in the capacity of
parents and legal heirs of deceased Mukul Jain deposed that their
son Mukul Jain was employed with the National Small Industries
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 17 of 35
as an Accounts Officer on the date of accident. They filed copy of
his ID Card containing his designation as an account officer along
with the employment number, his salary slip for the month of
November 2016, his Identity Card as an Account Officer issued
on 10.08.2015. These documents have been filed as part of DAR
Ex.PW1/A also. There is no dispute about the employment status
of the deceased Mukul Jain. The salary slip is placed on record
Ex.PW2/A forms the basis of his monthly earning as the basis for
the calculation. Thus, his income is calculated in the following
manner:
Rs. 12,360/- (Basic) + Rs. 14869/- (DA) + Rs. 3,708/- (HRA) +
Rs. 1,000/- (medical allowance) = Rs. 31937/- per month.
As such, his income is calculated as Rs. 31,937/- per month.
28. Birth year of deceased as per Aadhar card (Ex.PW2/A) of
deceased was 1990 as such he was around 26 years old. As
deceased was under the age of 40 years (at the time of accident)
and was self employed, thus having regard to ratio and direction
in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and other case laws, the percentage
towards future prospect is taken to be @ 40 % upon application
of category of ''self-employed or on a fixed salary''
Step No- -1 : Ascertainment of Multiplicand:
29. Further, the deceased was unmarried and survived by his
old parents. Therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses
shall be 50%.
Step No- -2 : Ascertainment of Multiplier:
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 18 of 35
30. In the present case age of the deceased was about 26 years
as per record. Thus, having regard to the table mentioned in para
- 40 of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 17 is applicable.
Step No- -3 : Actual Calculation ( actual loss/loss of
dependency):
31. In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation in
the present case is as under:
31.1. Annual income of the deceased.
(Rs.50,000 per annum) = Rs. 3,83,244/-
31.2. Future prospect (40%) = + Rs.1,53,297/-
===========
31.3. Total = Rs. 5,36,541/- 31.4. Deduction for personal expenses (50%): = Rs. 2,68,270/-
Multiplicand: (Rs. 5,36,541 - Rs. 2,68,270/-) = Rs. 2,68,271/-
31.5. As such, the total loss of dependency is: Rs. 2,68,270/- ( multiplicand) x 17 (multiplier) = Rs. 45,60,607/-
Grant Of Loss Of Estate, Loss Of Consortium And Funeral Expenses:
32. In this regard in Pranay Sethi (supra) it was held :
''...............46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.....
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 19 of 35 .
.
52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi , it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation.
There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The cour290000t cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us 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. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.
.
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 20 of 35 .
59.8. 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. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years...............''
33. Thus in view of such finding in Pranay Sethi (Supra), in which Hon'ble Supreme Court wanted to avoid immense variations and instead ensure consistency, the claimants are also entitled to certain sums towards grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
34. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"This Court interpreted "consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit.
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 21 of 35 Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents.
The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).
At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 22 of 35 as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head."
35. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) is 31/10/2017. Further it was stated in such judgment itself that the amount that Hon'ble Supreme Court quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. As such a sum of Rs.18,150/- for cremation expenses; and Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate is also payable.
36. Further, on the date of accident, deceased had left behind his old aged parents i.e. mother and father. As such in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, both of them would further be entitled Rs. 48,400/- each towards loss of consortium.
Total Award Amount
37. Thus the total award amount comes to Rs. 45,60,607/- Rs. (+) Rs 18,150/-( Loss to estate) + Rs. 18,150/-( funeral expenses) + Rs 96,800/- ( loss of consortium) = Rs. 46,93,707/-.
38. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no. 433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022 it was noted regarding rate of interest:
"25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Geological MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 23 of 35 Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the following was held while interpreting section 171 of the MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of the law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec. 4-A(3) of MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 24 of 35 Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal of the High Court as indicated above."
39. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, including in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case.
Liability:-
40. In this case, as per material on record, R-1 was the driver cum Registered Owner of the offending vehicle and he drove vehicle without insurance and without valid fitness for which he was charged U/s 279/338/304A IPC, 146/196/185/56/192 MV Act. No reply DAR has been filed by R-1/ driver cum owner.
Further he chose not to comply order dated 11.10.2017 for filing of FDR in sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and also not filed affidavit to declare his assets and liabilities. He has not led any evidence despite opportunities. As such, keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 25 of 35 abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, entire liability falls on his shoulder and respondent no.1/ driver cum owner is held to be liable to pay compensation and award amount in question to the claimant as held above.
41. Hence the compensation will be payable by the driver cum owner Hemkar Jha with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realisation. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount. Additionally, as the matter was dismissed in default, no interest shall be payable for the period when the matter was dismissed and subsequently till the matter was restored). Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
42. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING, A/c No. 00000042706870765, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 26 of 35 Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
43. This Tribunal is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD (Motor MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 27 of 35 Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
44. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 28 of 35 livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 29 of 35 some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice....."
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 30 of 35
45. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, apportionment of award amount for injured is given as under:
i. Share of father of deceased: Out of the total award amount, Rs. 10,00,000/- is awarded to father of deceased. Out of which Rs. 8,00,000/- is kept in monthly FDR of Rs. 15,000/-. Remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is released in favour of claimant in his bank account near his place of residence along with interest.
ii. Share of mother of deceased: Out of the total award amount, Rs. 36,93,707/- is awarded to mother of deceased. Out of which Rs. 30,00,000/- is kept in monthly FDR of Rs. 30,000/-. Remaining amount of Rs. 6,93,707/- is released in favour of claimant in her bank account near her place of residence along with interest.
46. The following directions are also given to the bank for compliance:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 31 of 35 near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not 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 debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 09.12.2016
2. Name of deceased Mukul Jain
3. Age of the deceased 26 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Private Job
5. Income of the deceased Rs. 31,937/-
Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 32 of 35 S No. Name Relation
(i) Suresh Jain Father
(ii) Sandhya Jain Mother Computation of compensation:-
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased per year Rs. 3,83,244/-
2 B. Add-Future Prospects (40%). Rs. 1,53,297/-
3 C. Total Rs. 5,36,541/-
4 D. Less-Personal Expenses of the deceased Rs. 2,68,270/-
1/ 2 of (C)
5 E. Yearly loss of dependency [C -D] Rs. 2,68,271/-
6 F. Multiplier. 17
7 G. Total loss of dependency (E x F = G) Rs. 45,60,607/-
8 H. Medical Expenses Nil
9 I. Deduction ,if any Nil
10 J. Total loss of dependency after Rs. 45,60,607/-
deduction, if any
11 K. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.96,800/-
12 L. Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 18,150/-
13 M. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses
14 N. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 46,93,707/-
total of J+K+L+M =N
15 O. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED: @ 9% per annum
from date of filing of DAR till actual realization of principal amount awarded.
16 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 36,00,000/- 17 Award amount released Remaining principal award of Rs.8,93,707/-
MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 33 of 35 PLUS interest @ 9% p.a. on total principal award amount from date of filing DAR till actual realization of principal amount awarded.
18 Mode of disbursement of the award i. Share of father of amount to the claimant (s). (Clause 29) deceased: Out of the total award amount, Rs.
10,00,000/- is awarded to father of deceased. Out of which Rs. 8,00,000/- is kept in monthly FDR of Rs. 15,000/-. Remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-
is released in favour of claimant in his bank account near his place of residence along with interest.
ii. Share of mother of deceased: Out of the total award amount, Rs.
36,93,707/- is awarded to mother of deceased. Out of which Rs. 30,00,000/-
is kept in monthly FDR of Rs. 30,000/-. Remaining amount of Rs. 6,93,707/-
is released in favour of MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 34 of 35 claimant in her bank account near her place of residence along with interest.
19 Next Date for compliance of the award 15.04.2024 (Clause 31)
47. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be sent to the DLSA and Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
48. Put up on 15.04.2024 for compliance.
(Pronounced in the open court on 12.03.2024) (Shelly Arora) PO-MACT-01 (South-East) Saket Court/ New Delhi 12.03.2024 MACT No. 486/24 Sandhya Jain & Anr. Vs. Hemkar Jha page 35 of 35