Delhi District Court
Meena Ors vs Fareen Ors on 6 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF DR. TARUN SAHRAWAT
PRESIDING OFFICER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 774/2016
Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors.
1. Meena
W/o late Sh. Shiv Kumar
2. Shrestha
D/o late Sh. Shiv Kumar
(Petitioner no.2, being minor, represented through
her mother/ natural guardian/ petitioner no.1).
Both R/o 119, Circular Road, Janta Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
3.Malti Devi
W/o late Sh. Dayaram Singh
R/o 102, Gali no.3, Shibban Pura, Ghaziabad, U.P. ..........Petitioners
Versus
1. Fareen (Driver)
S/o Sh. Nazar
R/o Village Narada, PS Kharkhoda, District Meerut, U.P.
2. Said Khan (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Najju Khan
R/o 456, Sarai Bahalim, Lisari Gate, Meerut, U.P.
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
C-1, District Centre, Saket, Delhi-110017. ........Respondents
Date of institution : 04.08.2015 Final arguments heard : 22.08.2023 Date of Award : 06.09.2023
________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 1 of 23 Pages AWAR D
1. The present claim petition under section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was filed on behalf of the petitioners/ legal heirs of deceased Shiv Kumar, who died due to injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident.
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the claim petition are that on 04.05.2015, at about 01:05 a.m., Shiv Kumar (since deceased) along with his friend Manoj was travelling on the pillion seat of motorcycle bearing no. UP14AX-9155, being driven by Manoj at normal speed with due precaution from Meerut side towards Delhi. When they reached at Sihani Gate Tiraha, Meerut Road, near Sihani Chungi, Ghaziabad, U.P, a truck bearing registration no. UP15BT-5144, (in short "offending vehicle"), being driven by respondent no.1 at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came from Meerut side and hit their motorcycle from behind. As a result, both the motorcyclists fell down and sustained multiple injuries. They were removed to MMG (Govt) Hospital, Ghaziabad, U.P., where Shiv Kumar was declared brought dead. In connection with the accident, FIR no.558/2015, under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC was registered at PS Sihani Gate. It has been alleged that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The said offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3 at the time of accident. With these submissions, petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.90 lakhs along with interest @ 12% per annum from date of the accident till its realization.
3. On service of notice, all the three respondents marked appearance ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 2 of 23 Pages and filed their written statements.
3.1 Respondent no.1 and 2 in their joint written-statement stated that the offending vehicle had been falsely implicated in this case as no accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. It is further stated that the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 and therefore, liability to pay compensation to the petitioners, if any, should be borne by the insurance company.
3.2 Respondent no.3 (insurance company) in its written statement admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it on the date of accident, however, stated that its liability is subject to compliance of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and took general defences.
4. On the basis of pleadings, on 27.01.2016, my learned predecessor framed the following issues:-
i). Whether respondent no.1 was driving vehicle bearing no.
UP15BT-5144 on 04.05.2015 at 01:05 a.m. at Meerut Road, Sihani Chungi Chowki, U.P. at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against motorcycle bearing no. UP14AX-9155, being driven by Manoj with Shiv Kumar as a pillion rider, as a result Shiv Kumar fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries? OPP
ii). Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, for what amount? OPP
iii). Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed for.
5. Evidence was led by the parties. In order to prove their case, petitioners examined four witnesses, as under:
________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 3 of 23 Pages 5.1 PW1 Meena, wife of the deceased, deposed on the strength of her affidavit Ex.PW1/P regarding the manner of accident, age, employment and income of deceased at the time of accident. Further, she relied upon the following documents:
i). Aadhaar Card of petitioner no.1 and 3 and birth-certificate of petitioner no.2 as Ex.PW1/1 (colly) (OSR).
ii). Office identity card of the deceased as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
iii). Certified copies of criminal case record as Ex.PW1/3 (colly).
iv). Photocopy of salary slip of deceased of April, 2015 as Mark-A.
v). Photocopies of RC, Cover Note of insurance, Permit and Fitness Certificate of offending vehicle as Mark-X (colly).
5.2 PW2 Sh. Manoj Kumar, resident of 65, Baujha-1, Shibbanpura, Ghaziabad, U.P., was examined as eye-witness of the accident. He deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW2/X and relied upon his election identity card and driving license as Ex.PW2/A (colly).
5.3 SI Shyam Sunder (PIS no. 28800463), posted at HACR, East District, Delhi was also inadvertently examined as PW2. He produced the promotion guidelines in respect of deceased as Ex.PW2/A (colly) and attested copy of service and character record of deceased as Ex.PW2/B (colly).
5.4 PW3 ASI Nanak Chand (PIS no.28860857), posted at Accounts Branch, East District, Delhi, produced the salary slips of deceased SI Shiv Kumar and proved the same as Ex.PW3/C. He testified that deceased SI Shiv Kumar (PIS no. 16100192) was employed with Delhi Police and his ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 4 of 23 Pages last drawn salary for April 2015 was Rs.40,600/-.
6. In rebuttal, the insurance company examined following three witnesses:
6.1 R3W1 Ct. Amit Kumar (2014/East, HAE Branch, Delhi Police) produced record of family pension benefits as Ex.R3W1/1. He testified that as per office record, Smt. Meena, wife of deceased Shiv Kumar received a sum of Rs.9,23,738/- as family pensioner benefits besides monthly pension of Rs.4,563/- per month since 05.05.2015 along with DA as admissible.
6.2 R3W2 Sh. Prakash Chand Pathak, Sr. Assistant, RTO, Ghaziabad, U.P. produced the record pertaining to driving license of respondent no.1 Manoj Kumar as Ex.R3W2/1 (OSR).
6.3 R3W3 SI Jagmender (no.972290443), Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, U.P. produced the record pertaining to accident and FIR and also produced the copy of charge-sheet and proved the same as Ex.R3W3/1 (colly.
7. Thereafter, the evidence was closed. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the opposite parties and gone through the evidence and other material placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1 :
Whether respondent no.1 was driving vehicle bearing no. UP15BT-5144 on 04.05.2015 at 01:05 a.m. at Meerut Road, Sihani Chungi Chowki, U.P. at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against motorcycle bearing no. UP14AX-9155, being driven by Manoj with Shiv Kumar ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 5 of 23 Pages as a pillion rider, as a result Shiv Kumar fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries? OPP
8. On this issue, the eye-witness PW2 Manoj Kumar deposed that on 04.05.2015 at about 01:05 a.m., he along with his friend Shiv Kumar (deceased) (pillion rider) was returning from Meerut side towards Delhi on his motorcycle bearing no. UP14AX-9155 and when they reached at Sihani Gate Tiraha, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, U.P, a truck bearing registration no.
UP15BT-5144, being driven by respondent no.1 at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came from Meerut side and hit their motorcycle from behind. As a result, both the motorcyclists fell down and sustained multiple injuries and they were removed to MMG (Govt) Hospital, Ghaziabad, U.P., where Shiv Kumar was declared brought dead. PW2 categorically deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no.1.
9. Having gone through the testimony of eye-witness (PW2), I find that his testimony remained consistent and unshaken during the cross- examination. Thus, evidence of eye-witness on the aspect of rash and negligent act of respondent no.1 while driving the offending vehicle has remained unimpeached and hence, the same is to be accepted on its face value itself.
10. However, learned counsel for respondent no.3/ Insurance Company disputed the genuineness of driving license of Manoj Kumar (PW2) and contended that admittedly, as per evidence of PW2, the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident and therefore, deceased himself was responsible for the accident. In support of its ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 6 of 23 Pages contentions, the Insurance Company examined R3W2, the official from RTO, Ghaziabad, who produced driving license register pertaining to the details of driving license issued to Manoj Kumar. He proved the said details as Ex.R3W2/1. During cross-examination, he admitted that DL register did not contain any authorized stamp and issuing direction and that there was over writing in the number/ digit of date of birth but he denied the suggestion that DL register was unauthorized and that details were manipulated later on or that no DL had been issued to Manoj Kumar as per said details. Further, during cross-examination by learned counsel for petitioner, this witness categorically stated that Driving License Ex.PW2/A was issued to Manoj Kumar and as per their record, same was correct. Thus, considering the testimony of this witness and as per the record of driving license produced by him, I am of the view that insurance company has not been able to prove that the driving license issued to Manoj Kumar was not genuine.
11. Even otherwise, if it is accepted that Manoj Kumar was driving the motorcycle without valid driving license and the deceased sitting on pillion seat was not wearing helmet, that itself is not sufficient to assume that they were responsible for causing the accident in any manner, particularly when it has already been established above that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. At the most deceased might have been held liable for violation of the traffic rules but could not be said to have contributed in causing the accident. On this aspect, reliance can be placed on the decision given in the case titled as Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC (CRI) 819, wherein it was held that in absence of ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 7 of 23 Pages evidence about the vehicle of victim being driven negligently, that fact cannot be assumed.
12. Further, learned counsel for the insurance company contended that PW2 Manoj Kumar (driver of the victim's motorcycle) did not give any reason as to why he did not accompany the deceased to hospital or did not take him for the treatment of his injuries, if any, suffered by him in the accident. On this, I may note that during his cross-examination, PW2 categorically denied the suggestions that he did not accompany the deceased on the day of accident and/ or that he did not witness the accident. Besides, on perusal of the FIR, it is observed that complainant Amit Kumar, brother of deceased Shiv Kumar got recorded his statement to the effect that after the accident, police officials of Police Post Sihani Gate took his brother Shiv Kumar and Manoj Kumar to MMG Govt. Hospital, Ghaziabad, where Shiv Kumar was declared brought dead. It is evident that FIR was registered on the same day and the fact that Manoj Kumar did not accompany the deceased to the hospital cannot be considered to be relevant since he himself had sustained injuries due to accident and as per FIR, they both were taken to the hospital by the police officials. During cross-examination, PW2 also made it clear that he did not file any claim petition but he would file the same. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the aforesaid plea taken by the insurance company and same is therefore, rejected.
13. Further, I may observe that the respondent no.1, driver of the offending vehicle was also a material witness of the accident, who could have thrown light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 8 of 23 Pages the accident had taken place. However, he preferred not to enter into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending by him in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
14. Furthermore, it is evident from certified copies of the criminal case record Ex.PW1/3 (colly) that FIR was registered without any delay on the date of accident itself and registration number of the offending vehicle finds its clear mention in the FIR itself. The site plan of the place of accident depicting the manner of accident also supports the case of petitioners.
15. Moreover, it is not disputed that respondent no.1 was charge- sheeted under sections 279/338/427/304A IPC in the criminal case by the police after detailed investigation and in a motor vehicle accident claim case, the contents of charge sheet are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of Delhi Motor Accident Tribunal Rules, 2008, which support the version of petitioners regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.
16. Thus, the facts that FIR has been registered and charge-sheet has also been filed against the respondent no.1 by the police, are sufficient proof to conclude that respondent no.1 was negligent. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Shabina v. Satvir & Ors. MAC. APP. 980/17 dated 24.01.2020, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that in so far as FIR has been ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 9 of 23 Pages registered, criminal case has been initiated against driver of offending vehicle and vehicle was seized, the requirement of proving the preponderance of probability of accident having been caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle has been established. In the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to the judgment titled as National Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. (2008) 101 DRJ 645, wherein it was observed:
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal: 2007 (5) SCALE 269. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, 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 of the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of driver."
17. Also, on perusal of certified copy of the postmortem report which is part of Ex.PW1/3 (colly), I may observe that multiple antemortem injuries were observed by the doctor on the dead body of deceased Shiv ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 10 of 23 Pages Kumar and the cause of death was opined as shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries.
18. Besides above, it is settled proposition of law that in an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
19. In view of above, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, it is held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and that had resulted into fatal injuries to Shiv Kumar. Issue no.1 is answered, accordingly, in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
20. On the basis of findings upon issue no.1 above, it is clear that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 11 of 23 Pages offending vehicle by the respondent no.1, resulting into death of deceased. Hence, it is held that the claimants who are legal heirs of deceased, are entitled to get the compensation in this case.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
21. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.
22. In Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the relevant guidelines were laid down for death cases, which have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
These issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 12 of 23 Pages
iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step-3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the head of loss ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 13 of 23 Pages of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters:
PECUNIARY DAMAGE Assessment of Income of deceased
23. A perusal of service record Ex.PW2/B and salary slips Ex.PW3/C (colly) show that deceased Shiv Kumar was working as Sub-Inspector (Ex) with Delhi Police, East District, Delhi and his last drawn salary for the month of April-2015 was Rs.43,687/-. However, petitioner no.1, at the stage of final arguments produced Form no.16 for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16, issued by the employer of deceased i.e. Delhi Police, under the signature and seal of Drawing & Disbursing Officer/ Assistant Commissioner of Police, East District, Delhi. As per said Form no.16, the gross salary of deceased for the assessment year 2015-16, was Rs.5,78,184/- on which income tax of Rs.17,299/- was deducted. Thus, the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing loss of dependency is determined as Rs.5,60,885/- (5,78,184-17,299) per annum.
Application of Multiplier
24. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 14 of 23 Pages SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:
Multiplier Age Group of Deceased
M-18 Age group between 15 to 20 & 21 to 25 years)
M-17 Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
M-16 Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
M-15 Age group between 36 to 40 yrs
M-14 Age group between 41 to 45 yrs
M-13 Age group between 46 to 50 yrs
M-11 Age group between 51 to 55 yrs
M-9 Age group between 56 to 60 yrs
M-7 Age group between 61 to 65 yrs
M-5 Age group between 66 and above
The service record Ex.PW2/B (colly) and salary slips Ex.PW1/3 (colly) show the date of birth of deceased SI Shiv Kumar as 15.03.1986, which would mean that deceased was 29 years of age on the date of accident (04.05.2015). Therefore, multiplier of 17, as applicable to age group between 26-30 years, would be applicable.
Future Prospects
25. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 15 of 23 Pages future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
It is not disputed that the deceased was a government servant, employed as Sub Inspector with Delhi Police. Following the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157), an addition of income of deceased (being below 40 years of age) to the extent of 50% has to be considered.
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses
26. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 16 of 23 Pages towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :
Deductions out of earning of the Number of deceased dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six) The present claim petition has been filed by three petitioners i.e. the wife, one minor child and mother of deceased, who shall be considered dependent upon deceased and therefore, one-third of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
27. In the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 31.10.2017, in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 17 of 23 Pages & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. In this case, there are three LRs of the deceased, who are petitioner nos. 1 to 3 herein. Thus, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (40,000x3+15,000+15,000) under this head.
Loss of Dependency:
28. In view of the settled guidelines as laid down in the various judgments herein above by applying the multiplier of 17, after making deduction of one-third of the income of the deceased with an addition of 50% future prospects, the loss of dependency as well as the total compensation is computed as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded
1. Annual income of deceased (A) Rs.5,60,885/-
2. Add future prospect (B) @ 50% Rs.2,80,442.50/-
3. Less 1/3rd towards personal and living Rs.2,80,442.50/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Annual loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs.5,60,885/-
C=D 5. Multiplier (E) 17
6. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE=F) Rs.95,35,045/-
7. Medical expenses (G) Nil
8. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
(I) (40,000x3)
9. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.15,000/-
10. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
(K)
11. Total compensation (Rs.) Rs.96,85,045/-
________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 18 of 23 Pages On perusal of the record, it is noted that vide order dated 27.01.2016, an interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% was awarded to the petitioners and thereafter the said amount was also released, which is required to be adjusted herein. Accordingly, after deducting this amount, the total compensation in the instant matter comes to Rs.96,35,045/- (96,85,045-50,000).
29. However, learned counsel for the insurance company argued that wife of deceased (petitioner no.1) has already received family pensioner benefits from the employer of deceased and therefore, that amount is required to be deducted from the award amount. In support of his contention, he relied upon the evidence of R3W1 Ct. Amit Kumar, from the office of employer of deceased, who testified that as per the office record, Smt. Meena, wife of deceased has received a sum of Rs.9,23,738/- as family pension benefit and she has also been receiving monthly pension of Rs.4,563/- per month along with admissible dearness allowance. On this aspect reference can be made to the decisions given in the cases of "Lal Dei & Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. [2008 ACJ 1107 (Supreme Court of India)"] and "Meena & Ors. vs. Sube Singh & Ors.; Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Meena & Ors. [IV (2012) ACC 725 (Delhi High Court)"], wherein it was held that family pension amount cannot be deducted while computing the loss of dependency. Likewise in the present case also, the family pension benefits/ allowances paid to the wife of deceased after his death cannot be adjusted in the future loss of income.
________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 19 of 23 Pages INTEREST
30. On perusing the record, it is seen that petitioners have conducted the proceedings diligently and thus, they shall be entitled to the interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of accident till realization.
LIABILITY
31. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. As insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured and in this case, insurance company has not been able to prove on record that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/ violated by insured, therefore, respondent no.3/ insurance company is held liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount.
RELIEF
32. In view of above findings, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.96,35,045/- (Rs. Ninety Six Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Forty Five Only) to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accident till realization to be paid by the insurance company. The respondent no.3/ insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code: UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. The insurance company is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners and their counsel.
________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 20 of 23 Pages Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement
33. It is held that all the three petitioners i.e. wife, minor daughter and mother of deceased, shall be entitled to the compensation and the total award amount of Rs.96,35,045/- along with interest shall be shared by them, as under:
Petitioner Name of Petitioner Share in Award Amount (Rs.) No.
1. Meena Rs.46,35,045/-
(wife of deceased) along with the respective
interest amount
2. Shreshtha Rs.35,00,000/-
(minor daughter of along with the respective
deceased) interest amount
3. Malti Devi Rs.15,00,000/-
(mother of deceased) along with the respective
interest amount
34. Manager, UCO Bank is directed to release forthwith a sum of Rs.6,35,045/- only to the petitioner no.1 by way of transferring the said amount into her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount out of her share, amounting to Rs.40,00,000/- along with the interest on her entire shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 120 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 120 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 21 of 23 Pages
35. Further, Manager, UCO Bank is directed that entire share of petitioner no.2 (minor daughter of deceased), amounting to Rs.35,00,000/- along with the interest on this amount shall be secured in the form of an FDR in her name for the period till she attains the age of majority.
36. Manager, UCO Bank is also directed that share of petitioner no.3, amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- along with the interest on this amount shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 100 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Otheres v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
37. The amount of aforesaid FDRs on maturity would be released in respective MACT saving bank account of petitioner(s) without any further orders to that effect.
Directions to the Claimants
38. The petitioner(s) is/ are directed to get opened their saving bank account near the place of their residence. The Bank of petitioner(s) is/ are directed to comply with the following conditions:
(a). The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e., the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 22 of 23 Pages
(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(s).
(c). The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) 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(s) near the place of their residence.
(e). No loan, advance, 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 card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g). The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) 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(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
39. With these directions, the the present claim petition is disposed of. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court Court on 06.09.2023 (Dr. Tarun Sahrawat) Presiding Officer: MACT (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT no.774/16, Meena & Ors. v. Fareen & Ors. 23 of 23 Pages