Delhi District Court
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 1 Of 29 on 24 December, 2018
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 1 of 29
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL , PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No. 4974308
MACT PETITION No. : 743/08
UNIQUE ID No. : 02404C0129842008
1. Smt. Guddi w/o Late Sh. Suresh Chand
(Widow of deceased Suresh Chand)
.....Petitioner No.1.
2. Smt. Laxmi w/o Sh. Tuhi Ram
(mother of deceased Suresh Chand)
....... Petitioner no. 2
3. Sh. Tuhi Ram S/o Sh. Mohan Lal
(father of deceased Tuhi Ram)
R/o 324, Jatav Basti, Bhukaravali, Teh. Hindaun, District Karouli, Rajasthan.
Versus
1. Sh. Mohan Sharma S/o Sh. Jagdamba Sharma
R/o H. No. 1750, Gali No. 50, Bengali Colony, Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi.
.... (Driver /R1)
2. Sh. Hari Ram S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o Khasra No. 10/15, Harit Vihar, Uttranchal Colony,
Kamal Pur, Burari, Delhi.
.... (Owner /R2)
3. The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd.
4th & 5th Floor, Iffco Tower, Plot no. 3,
Sector29, Gurgaon, Haryana.
......... (Insurance/R3)
..... Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.09.2008
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 24.12.2018
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.12.2018
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 1 of 29
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 2 of 29
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN CLAUSE 4.3 OF THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003
RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. & SOBAT SINGH VS
RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR., MAC.APP 422/2009 VIDE
ORDER DATED 15.12.2017
1. Date of the accident 27.07.2008
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the No provision of DAR
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal was at that time.
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the No provision of DAR
investigating officer to the insurance company. was at that time.
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 No provision of DAR
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate was at that time.
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information No provision of DAR
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before was at that time.
Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance No provision of DAR
Company (Clause 11) was at that time.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). No provision of DAR
(Clause 11) was at that time.
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? No provision of DAR
(Clause 16) was at that time.
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed No provision of DAR
later on? was at that time.
10. Whether the police has verified the documents No provision of DAR
filed with DAR? (Clause 4) was at that time.
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No provision of DAR
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, was at that time.
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer No provision of DAR
by the insurance Company. (Clause20) was at that time.
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 2 of 29
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 3 of 29
13. Name, address and contact number of the No provision of DAR
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. was at that time.
(Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No provision of DAR
Company submitted his report within 30 days of was at that time.
the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No provision of DAR
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of was at that time.
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No provision of DAR
the part of the Designated Officer of the was at that time.
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer No provision of DAR
of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24) was at that time.
18. Date of the Award 24.12.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 01.06.2018
directed to open saving bank account (s) near
his place of residence and produce PAN Card
and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank
not issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 16.11.2018
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s) (Clause 27)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner no. 1 Smt.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Guddisavings bank
IFSC Code (Clause 27) a/c no.
7283000100099881
Petitioner no. 2 Smt.
Laxim savings bank
a/c no.
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 3 of 29
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 4 of 29
7283000100099863
with PNB, Station
Road, Rajasthan
petitioner no. 3 Sh.
Tuhi Ramsavings
bank account no.
61196508469 with
State Bank of Bikaner
and Jaipur, Suroth,
Karauli Branch,
Rajasthan.
IFSC : PUNB0728300
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award. (Clause 27)
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427,
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to SBIN0010323, SBI,
be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. A claim petition U/s 166/140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act) was filed in this case on 02.09.2008 with reference to FIR No. 396/2008 U/s 279/337 IPC PS Shalimar Bagh and subsequent charge sheet U/s 279/338 IPC PS Shalimar Bagh which was filed in respect of grievous hurt to the injured Mr. Suresh Chand in a road accident which occurred on 27.07.2008, who subsequently expired on 04.10.2011.
2. The record would show that R1 and R2 filed a joint written statement to the original petition. The insurance co./R3 also filed its written statement to the original petition. The issues were framed on 25.05.2009 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. The injured petitioner Mr. Suresh Chand examined himself as PW1, Mr. S.S. Rawat, M.R.T, Safdarjung Hospital was examined as PW2 and Dr. Nirankar Singh, HOD, Department of Orthopedics and Rehab. of Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini was examined as PW3. The driver of the 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 4 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 5 of 29 offending vehicle (R1) examined himself as R1W1. No other witness was examined by any other respondent.
3. An Award dt. 20.03.2012 was passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court on the original petition treating the matter as an injury case.
4. The said Award was challenged by R3/Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide MAC.APP.638/2012. The said appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide judgment dt. 02.12.2016. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said judgment remitted the matter to the Tribunal for appropriate proceedings in accordance with law by holding that the above said judgment dt. 20.03.2012 was nonest on account of death of the claimant even during the inquiry. It was further directed that the legal representatives of the deceased claimant would be entitled to move appropriate application for incorporating amendment bringing on record subsequent events including about the death of the deceased claimant.
5. Thereafter, an application U/o XXII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of legal heirs of the petitioner, who had since expired on 04.10.2011. They also moved one application U/o VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC alongwith the amended petition U/s 166/140 of M.V. Act for grant of compensation mentioning that the petitioner expired on 04.10.2011 at about 8:30 pm due to bed sores and grievous injuries sustained by him in the case accident dt. 27.07.2008. Both the said applications were allowed vide order dt. 07.07.2017. The LR's of late petitioner were taken on record and the amended petition was also taken on record.
6. On 07.07.2017, the parties to the matter submitted that earlier all the evidence as recorded prior to the death of the petitioner may also be read in evidence and on that date itself additional issues were also framed.
7. The facts as mentioned in the amended petition U/s 166/140 M.V. Act are that on 27.07.2008 the late petitioner Mr. Suresh Chand (hereinafter referred to as injured/deceased) was going on by paddling his bicycle with his 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 5 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 6 of 29 cousin Mr. Ram Dayal sitting on the carrier and they were proceeding towards BU Block, Pitampura from Prashant Vihar side via Outer Ring Road, Delhi. At about 3:30 pm when they reached at outer ring road, Income Tax Colony Red Light, Pitampura, Delhi then Sh. Ram Dayal alighted from the bicycle. When the deceased Sh. Suresh Chand was going on paddling his bicycle then a Tempo bearing registration no. DL1LJ1733 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle) which was being driven by its driver Sh. Mohan Sharma/R1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without blowing any horn came from behind and violently hit the bicycle of deceased with great force and then overturned. Sh. Suresh Chand (injured/deceased) came under and was pressed under the tempo. As a result of this forceful hit, Sh. Suresh Chand received serious/grievous injuries all over his body. He was removed to Dr. Baba Saheb Amebedkar hospital, Rohini, Delhi, where he was admitted and he remained under continuous treatment till his death. It has been stated that the said accident took place solely and entirely due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle Mahindra Champion no. DL1L/J1733 by its driver Sh. Mohan Sharma/R1.
Injured was removed to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar hospital, Rohini, Delhi from the place of accident and from there he was referred to RML hospital. From there he was again referred to Safdarjung hospital and remained admitted there. On 01.08.2008 the family members and relatives took the injured/deceased to their home at Jatav Basti, Teh. Hindaun, Distt. Karoli, Rajasthan. It has been stated in the amended petition that on 09.10.2008 he was again admitted in Dhanvantri hospital & Research Centre at Jaipur and was discharged on 20.10.2008. It has been stated that in the said hospital the back bone of the deceased was operated upon by fixing two plates and four pedicle screws in it. It has been stated that thereafter he visited the OPD of Dhanvantri Hospital & Research Centre for about 8 to 10 times for regular check up. It has been stated that he also took treatment from Hakim Sh. Hazari Lal at Ganga Pur City and Hakim Sh. Parsadi at Mala Khera, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan. It has been stated that he also sustained 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 6 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 7 of 29 permanent disability to the extent of 100% due to accident, his both lower limbs did not work and he became paralytic. It has been stated that he took continous treatment from various doctors and Hakims at Rajasthan. On 28.09.2011 he took treatment from Rajkiya Chiktsalya, Hindaun City, Karoli, Rajasthan and on 04.10.2011 at about 8:30 pm he ultimately died due to bed sore and due to grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident.
It was mentioned in the petition that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was about 24 years, he was working as a Stone Mechanic and was earning about Rs. 7,500/ per month. Petitioners have claimed Rs. 30,00,000/ along with interest @ 12/ p.a from the respondents from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
8. R1/Mohan Sharma/driver and Sh. Hari Ram/owner of the offending vehicle did not file any written statement to the amended petition. They, as per record, filed written statement to the unamended petition wherein they have stated that the petitioner in connivance and collusion with the police officials mentioned the number of alleged vehicle of respondents in order to hide the wrongs done by other vehicle. They have stated that the vehicle in question was insured with the respondent no. 3 i.e. The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd at the time of the alleged accident vide cover note no. 35264957 with its validity from 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2008. They have stated that the R1 was coming/driving with valid driving licence from Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini, Delhi on the fateful day, when all of a sudden, on the green light for crossing the ring road from Prashant Vihar side, the petitioner ignoring the red light, negligently crossed the red light and in the process was hit by some other vehicle which fled away from the spot. They have stated that in the meantime the respondent no. 1 had to apply sudden brakes to save the life of the petitioner and as a result the vehicle of R1 over turned due to sudden application of brakes. They have stated that the vehicle which hit the bicycle of the petitioner was let off by the police despite his repeated requests to find out that vehicle. They thus stated that their vehicle was in no way concerned with the accident and they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 7 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 8 of 29The record would, however, show that R1 and R2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.09.2018.
9. R3/Iffco Tokio General Insurance co. Ltd filed its written statement to the unamended petition wherein it has admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 37688111 in the name of Mr. Hari Ram/R2 w.e.f 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2008 i.e. covering the date of accident of 27.07.2008.
Insurance co./R3 has also filed its written statement to the amended petition wherein it has been submitted that the applicants have not filed any postmortem report, treatment record or any other document to show that the injured/petitioner had died due to the injuries sustained in the accident as the accident date was 27.07.2008 and injured had died on 04.10.2011. It was stated that the injured had died a natural death and death of injured has no relation with the injuries sustained in the accident. It was also mentioned that the claimants did not disclose the fact of death of injured prior to the earlier award which would amount to concealing of material facts.
10. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues regarding injuries were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 25.05.2009 and after remanding back of the matter, additional issues regarding death of deceased were framed on 07.07.2017: (1) Whether on 27.07.2008 at about 3:30 pm at outer Ring Road, Pitampura Tempo no. DL1L/J1733 which was driven rashly and negligently hit petitioner and caused injuries to him? OPP 1(A) Whether injured/petitioner Suresh Chand had expired due to injuries sustained by him in the case accident i.e. 27.07.2008? OPP (2) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
2.A Whether LR's of deceased are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (3). Relief.
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 8 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 9 of 2911. The petitioners in support of their case have examined Mr. Suresh Chand (deceased) as PW1, Mr. S.S. Rawat, M.R.T, Safdarjung Hospital was examined as PW2, Dr. Nirankar Singh, HOD, Department of Orthopedics and Rehab. of Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini was examined as PW3 . The claimants after remanding back of the matter have further examined Smt. Guddi (wife of deceased) as PW4 and Dr. Deep Chand Kohli, Senior Medical officer, Community Health Centre, Hindon City, Karoli, Rajasthan as PW5. The driver of the offending vehicle (R1) examined himself as R1W1.
Other respondents did not lead any evidence in support of their respective case.
12. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioner and ld counsel for insurance co/R3. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
13. Issue wise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1 &1A both the said issues are inter connected and hence are being taken up together for disosal.
The onus to prove both these issues beyond preponderance of probabilities is upon the petitioners/claimants.
The injured Mr. Suresh Chand prior to his death was examined as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that on 27.07.2008 he was going by paddling his bicycle with his cousin Mr. Ram Dayal sitting on the carrier and that they were proceeding towards BU Block, Pitampura, Delhi from Prashant Vihar side via outer ring road. He deposed that at about 3:00 pm when they reached at outer ring road, income tax colony, red light, Pitampura, Delhi then his cousin alighted from the bicycle. He deposed that when he started crossing the income tax colony chowk on his bicycle then a Mahindra champion tempo no. DL1LJ1733 (offending vehicle) being driven by R1 at a very high speed, rashly and by violating the traffic rules came from behind and hit his bicycle with a great force, due to which he along with bicycle fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 9 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 10 of 29 due to the overturning of the tempo upon his back. He deposed that the crowd gathered there and some one from the crowd informed the police upon which the ambulance van came and his cousin removed him to Dr. BSA hospital from the place of accident. He deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle namely Mr. Mohan Sharma also accompanied with them in the ambulance and was handed over to the policy by him at Dr. BSA hospital. He deposed that the said accident took place solely and entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
In cross examination, PW1 denied the suggestion of ld counsel for respondents that the accident took place due to his fault while he was crossing the red light from Prashant Vihar. He further denied the suggestion that the accident took place with some unknown vehicle and not by the offending vehicle. He further denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle overturned due to the application of sudden brakes while it was crossing on its green signal or that the injured/deceased was crossing the road on the red signal.
Nothing substantial has appeared in the cross examination of PW1 to discredit his testimony. The case of R1 and R2 is that some unknown vehicle had hit the bicycle of the deceased/injured, however, they have failed to mention any registration number of such unknown vehicle.
R1 also examined himself as R1W1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. R1W1/A. He deposed to the effect that on 27.07.2008 he was driving the offending vehicle with a valid driving licence. He deposed that he was coming from near Jaipur Golden hospital, Rohini, Delhi and was going towards bypass side and there was a green light for the vehicle going towards bypass side and red light for the vehicles crossing the ring road from Prashant Vihar side. He deposed that the injured with a pillion rider ignored the red light on his bicycle due to which one other vehicle hit his bicycle and fled away. He deposed that he had to apply sudden brakes to save the injured due to which his tempo over turned. He deposed that the police let off the said vehicle and 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 10 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 11 of 29 falsely implicated the offending vehicle.
R1W1 in his cross examination has admitted that he was facing criminal trial. He deposed that he had not filed any complaint in writing before any higher authority either police or judicial. He deposed that neither he knew the injured nor he had any enmity with him or any police official of PS Shalimar Bagh. He has further denied the suggestion which were put to him by the ld counsel for petitioner.
The testimony of R1W1 does not inspire any confidence as he had admittedly failed to file any complaint to any higher authority regarding his false implication in the present matter. He has also admitted that neither he knew the injured or any police official of PS Shalimar Bagh before the accident nor he had any enmity with them. In the said circumstances, he has failed to show as to why he would be falsely implicated in the present case either by the injured or by the police officials of PS Shalimar Bagh. He has also failed to disclose the registration number of any alleged unknown vehicle which according to him had hit the bicycle of the injured.
The copy of FIR no. 396/08 PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 279/337 IPC is also on record wherein the registration number of the offending vehicle and name of R1 as the driver of the offending vehicle has been specifically mentioned. R1 has thus been specifically named in the FIR. The copy of charge sheet u/s 279/338 IPC in FIR no. 396/2008 PS Shalimar Bagh against R1 is also on record and he has admitted that he is facing trial in that matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the copy of FIR and charge sheet against R1 can also be looked into to determine the negligence of R1 in the case accident.
As mentioned above, nothing has appeared in the cross examination of PW1 to discredit his testimony. The testimony of PW1/injured can thus be relied upon. PW1 has specifically that on 27.07.2008 at about 3:30 pm, the offending vehicle being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner hit his bicycle causing him serious and grievous injuries.
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 11 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 12 of 29In the said circumstances, it has been clearly proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused at the above said date, time and place and in the above said manner by the rash and negligent driving of R1 by which he drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and thereby caused grievous injuries to the injured.
It is an admitted position that the injured petitioner expired on 04.10.2011. The death certificate Ex. PW4/1 is already on record showing his date of death as 04.10.2011.
The ld counsel for the LR's of late petitioner i.e. claimants argued that the injured suffered 100% permanent disability with traumatic paraplegia with neurogenic bladder and bowel as per testimony of PW3 Dr. Nirankar Singh and the disability certificate as Ex. PW3/1. He also referred to the medical record Ex. PW1/1 (colly) and argued that the injured suffered from compression with fracture of D 12 vertebra with bed sore with no sensation in his lower limb. He argued that PW5 Dr. Deep Chand Kohli who lastly examined the petitioner before his death has deposed that he was a case of fracture D 12 vertebra with paraplegia and bed sores and that he died on 04.10.2011 due to septicemia as a result of paraplegia with bed sores and injuries suffered in the accident. He also referred to the testimony of PW4 and argued that she has specifically deposed that the injuries of the late petitioner had not healed up properly from the date of accident till his death and that he took continuous treatment after the accident till his death. He argued that PW4 (wife of deceased) has specifically deposed that she could not keep and collect all the medical record and bills due to awareness and illiteracy. He also referred to the medical prescription slip dated 28.09.2011 of the injured of Rajkiya Chikitsalya, Hindaun City, Karoli, Rajasthan and the medical bill dated 28.09.2011 of Narain Medical store, Rajasthan which have been proved as Ex. PW4/2 and Ex. PW4/3 respectively. He argued that the medical record of the injured of Dhanvantri hospital, Jaipur, Sawai Maan Singh hospital, Jaipur, Safdarjung hospital, New Delhi, Dr. BSA hospital, Rohini etc. are on record. He also referred to the following judgments:
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 12 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 13 of 291. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anthony (since deceased) & Ors., IV (2015) ACC 750(Mad.).
2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Suma Singh & Ors, MAC.APP.755 & 1176 of 2011 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, date of decision 03.02.2016.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Munni Devi & Ors, MAC.APP 884/2015 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, date of decision 16.09.2016.
4. Rajani Sharma vs Bodhu, MAC.APP 887/2010of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, date of decision 15.10.2012.
The ld counsel for insurance co/R3 on the other hand argued that there was no proximity between the accident and death as the deceased expired about three years after the accident and even no postmortem was conducted. He also argued that the testimony of PW5 is also doubtful in view of his cross examination.
PW1/petitioner proved the documents from Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/25. The medical record of the injured of different hospitals was proved as Ex. PW1/1. The said record would show that due to the accident the injured suffered compression with fracture of D 12 vertebra with bed sores and no sensation in lower limbs with advise of passive mobilisation of lower limb. The record would show that the pedicle screw was fixed in T11 and L1. The medical bills have been proved from Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/24.
PW2 from Safdarjung hospital deposed that the injured was admitted in their hospital on 27.07.2008 and was discharged on 01.08.2008 as (LAMA) and treatment record has been proved as Ex. PW2/A. PW3 Dr. Nirankar Singh from Dr. BSA hospital has proved the disability certificate of the petitioner as Ex. PW3/A and deposed that as per the certificate the patient was a case of traumatic paraplegia with neurogenic bladder and bowel involvement with 100% permanent physical disability.
PW4 who is wife of the deceased has inter alia deposed that 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 13 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 14 of 29 immediately after the accident the injured was removed to Dr. BSA hospital from where he was referred to Dr. RML hospital and from there he was referred to Safdarjung hospital where he was admitted. She deposed that on 01.08.2008 the family members took the injured to their native village at Rajasthan. She deposed on 09.10.2008 her husband was again admitted at Dhanvantri hospital at Jaipur and was discharged on 20.10.2008 where his backbone was operated by fixing two plates and four pedicle screws in it. She deposed that thereafter he visited in the OPD of said hospital various times for regular check up. She deposed that he also took treatment from two Hakims. She deposed that on 28.09.2011 her husband took treatment from Rajkiya Chikitsalya, Hindaun City, Karoli, Rajasthan. She deposed that her husband received serious injuries in the accident and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 100% , his both lower limbs were not working, he became paralytic and also developed bed sores. She deposed that he took continous treatment from the date of accident till his death from various doctors and Hakim at Rajasthan. She specifically deposed that on 04.10.2011 at about 8:30 pm her husband ultimately expired due to septicemia as a result of paraplegic with bed sores and grievous injuries with 100% permanent disability sustained by him in the accident. She deposed that the injuries had not been heeled up properly from the date of accident till his death. She also deposed that he took treatment continuously till he died and she being unaware due to illiteracy did not keep and collect all the medical record. The death certificate dated 08.10.2011 of the deceased issued by PW5 has been proved as Ex. PW4/1 mentioning that the deceased expired on 04.10.2011 at 8:30 pm by septicemia as a result of paraplegic with bed sores. The medical record of Rajkiya Chikitsalya, Hindaun City, Karoli dated 28.09.2011 mentioning fracture of D 12 vertebra with paraplegia and bed sores has been proved as Ex. PW4/2 and the medical bill dated 28.09.2011 as Ex. PW4/3.
PW4 deposed in her cross examination that she did not have treatment record to show that deceased remained under treatment after 08.11.2008 till his death on 04.10.2011 Ex. PW4/2. She deposed that she could not collect 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 14 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 15 of 29 and retain the treatment record of the deceased. She deposed that she could not tell the date wise treatment of the injured/deceased but that he got treatment from Dhanvantri hospital, Jaipur, local vaids, Rajkiya Chikitsalya, Hindaun and from Dr. Deep Chand Kohli. She deposed that the body of the deceased was not subjected to postmortem nor the information regarding the death of injured was given to the police.
PW5 Dr. Deep Chand Kohli, Sr. Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Hindaun City, Karoli, Rajasthan proved the copy of OPD register containing the name of injured at Sl. No. 180120 as Ex. PW5/A. He deposed that he had examined the injured on 28.09.2011 and found that he was a case of RTA with fracture of D 12 vertebra with paraplegia with bed sores. He deposed that as per death certificate Ex. PW4/1 issued by him, the patient died on 04.10.2011 due to septicemia as a result of paraplegia with bed sores and injuries suffered by him in the accident.
In cross examination PW5 inter alia deposed that the history of RTA on 27.07.2008 was mentioned as told and he could not certify that the position of the patient was due to any such accident dated 27.07.2008. He volunteered that he had mentioned the general condition of the patient as poor and admitted that in case condition is poor then the patient is advised to get admitted in the hospital but it was not so advise in the present case. He deposed that the patient did not come to him after 28.09.2011. He deposed that he did not make any report or examination to ascertain as to how and why the patient had died. He volunteered that the condition of the patient was serious and he has mentioned the reasons on the death certificate.
It is evident that PW4 i.e. wife of the deceased has specifically deposed that her husband took continous treatment from the date of accident till his death but she could not keep and collect all the medical record due to illiteracy. The testimony of PW1 and PW3 would prove that the injured was a case of traumatic paraplegia with neurogenic bladder and bowel movement and suffered 100% permanent physical disability. The medical record Ex.
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 15 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 16 of 29PW1/1 and Ex. PW2/A would also show that the injured suffered compression with fracture of D 12 vertebra and had no sensation in his lower limbs. The testimony of PW5 i.e. doctor who issued the death certificate Ex. PW4/1 does not seem to be fully reliable, however, it would be pertinent to note that the OPD card dated 28.09.2011 Ex. PW4/2 would mention that the injured was suffering from fracture of D 12 (written as D 2 in Ex. PW4/2) vertebra with paraplegia with bed sores. Even if the death certificate Ex. PW4/1 mentioning the cause of death is not reliable, however, the document Ex. PW4/2 is reliable. The medical record Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW2/A and OPD card Ex. PW4/2 dated 28.09.2011 would show that the injured suffered from fracture of D 12 vertebra and bed sores which at least continued till 28.09.2011 i.e. the last date of medical examination of the injured as mentioned in Ex. PW4/2.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Munni Devi (Supra) has inter alia held as follows:
" 4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that there was no proximity between the accident and the death, as the deceased died after ten months of discharge from the hospital. There is no merit in this contention as the deceased suffered quadriplegia with bladder and bowel involvement and he never recovered from the same till his death.............."
This judgment is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case.
As held in the case of Anthony (Supra), the postmortem report was also not compulsory as the reason for the death can be inferred from the medical record including Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW2/A and OPD card Ex. PW4/2 as his ailment of fracture of D 12 vertebra with paraplegia and bed sores with bladder and bowel involvement continued after his accident till his death.
In view of above said discussion, testimony of witnesses and medical record available, it can be safely held that the deceased died on 04.10.2011 due to the above said injuries suffered by him in the accident dated 27.07.2008.
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 16 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 17 of 29Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents accordingly. Issue no. 1A is also decided in favour of the claimants by holding that the injured Suresh Chand had expired on 04.10.2011 due to the injuries sustained by him in the case accident.
14. Issue No. (2) In view of my findings on issue no.1A, the issue no. 2 has become infructuous as the relevant issue is issue no. 2A. The issue no. 2 is disposed of accordingly as infructuous.
15. Issue No. (2A) In view of my findings on issue no. 1 & 1A, it is held that the claimants i.e. LR's of deceased are entitled to compensation.
(a) PW4 Smt. Guddi (wife of the deceased) has deposed through her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW4/A. She has proved the original death certificate of deceased as Ex. PW4/1, one OPD card as Ex. PW4/2, one medical bill as Ex. PW4/3 and copies of aadhar card of parents of deceased and herself as Ex. PW4/4. The copy of Madhyamic Purak Pariksha 1998, Rajasthan board certificate (10th class) of the deceased is on record which shows his date of birth as 05.08.1980. It would show that the deceased was aged about 27 years 11 months at the time of his accident. ( date of accident is 27.07.2008 date of death is 04.10.2011 ).
It is pertinent to note that as per testimony PW3 Dr. Nirankar Singh and Ex. PW3/A the injured suffered 100% permanent physical disability and was a case of traumatic paraplegia with involvement of neurogenic bladder and bowel movement.
PW1/injured deposed that at the time of accident he was working as a Dholpur Stone Mechanic (mistri) and was earning Rs. 7500/ per month.
During cross examination as conducted by respondents, PW1 denied the suggestion that neither he was working as a mistry nor was earning Rs. 7500/ per month.
PW4 deposed in her cross examination that she did not have any 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 17 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 18 of 29 document to show the earning and employment of deceased.
The claimants have not examined any witness to properly prove the salary or monthly income of the deceased.
The copy of Madhyamic Purak Pariksha 1998 , Rajasthan Board (10 th class) of the deceased is on record which shows that deceased was 10th pass.
The amended petition and testimony of PW1 and PW4 is silent as to where the deceased actually working for gain. PW4 in her cross examination has specifically deposed that she did not have any documentary proof that deceased ever resided in Delhi.
Deceased was stated to be working as a dholpur stone mechanic (mistry) and was also a matriculate, hence, I am inclined to notionally assess the income of the deceased as on the date of the accident (27.07.2008) on the basis of minimum wages of a semi skilled worker as fixed by the Govt of Rajasthan as he was admittedly a permanent resident of Rajasthan.
The minimum wages of a semi skilled worker of Govt of Rajasthan at the relevant time on the date of accident was admittedly Rs. 107/ per day. By taking four holidays in a month, the total working days per month are taken as 26 days. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of petitioner as Rs. 2782/ (107x26) per month on the date of accident in question.
(b) Addition of future prospects If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made In this regard, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017.
In the said judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(i).........................................................................................
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 18 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 19 of 29(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards 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 selfemployed 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.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future 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. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied) 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 19 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 20 of 29 In the case in hand, the deceased was a self employed person and in terms of above said judgment, while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
It is pertinent to note that as per testimony PW3 Dr. Nirankar Singh and Ex. PW3/A the injured suffered 100% permanent physical disability and was a case of traumatic paraplegia with involvement of neurogenic bladder and bowel movement.
The age of the deceased, as discussed above, in the present case was about 27 years & 11 months at the time of his accident (he suffered 100% disability due to the accident). In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the deceased would be entitled to an addition of 40% of the established income as he was below the age group of 40 years at the time of his death.
The monthly income of the deceased is thus calculated as Rs. 2782/+40% of 2782/ which comes to Rs.2782/+ Rs. 1128/ (after rounding of). = Rs. 3894/.
(c) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
Deceased was married and petitioners being his wife and parents were legal heirs of deceased. In the absence of any other evidence on record, the petitioner no. 3 being father of deceased would not be considered as a dependent upon the deceased. In view of said discussion, there were total 2 dependents upon the deceased at the time of his death.
In the said circumstances, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd in view of the settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298: (2009) 6 SCC 121 which has been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 20 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 21 of 29 (Supra) in paragraph no 61 (v) of the judgment.
(d) Selection of multiplier:
As discussed above, the age of the deceased was about 31 years 1 month at the time of his death (date of birth is 05.08.1980 and date of death is 04.10.2011). In view of paragraph no. 61(vii) of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the age of deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. As per the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the multiplier of 16 is to be adopted when the age of the victim is between 31 years to 35 years.
Accordingly, the relevant multiplier would be "16" as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61 (vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
(e) Loss of financial dependency In the light of aforesaid facts, loss of financial dependency of the petitioner comes to Rs. 4,98,432/ [i.e. Rs. 3894/ ( per month income of the deceased) X12 X16 (multiplier) X2/3 (dependency)].
16. Compensation under nonpecuniary heads/conventional heads:
In view of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), as held in paragraph number 61 (viii) of the said judgment, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/ towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/ towards funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/ is also granted towards loss of consortium.
17. LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the latest case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pooja & Ors, MAC Appeal 798/2011, date of decision 02.11.2017 after referring to the judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17 delivered by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, accepted the submissions of the ld counsel for the insurer that nonpecuniary heads of damages would have to be restricted to the total of Rs. 70,000/ only, in view of the dispensation in Pranay Sethi 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 21 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 22 of 29 (Supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said case further held that the Constitution Bench decision did not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages (except loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses). In view of above said discussion, the petitioners would not be entitled to any amount under the said head of loss of love and affection.
18. Medical Expenses PW1/deceased and PW4/Smt. Guddi has proved the medical bills qua the deceased as Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/24 and Ex. PW4/3. Their total comes to Rs. 35,404/. Therefore, the said amount of Rs. 35,404/ is granted to the petitioners towards medical bills/expenses.
19. Attendant charges The date of accident in this case is 27.07.2008 and date of death is 04.10.2011. It would seem that the injured expired after about 3 years and 2 months (38 months) of the accident. It is pertinent to note that as per testimony of PW3 Dr. Nirankar Singh and Ex. PW3/A the injured suffered 100% permanent physical disability and was a case of traumatic paraplegia with involvement of neurogenic bladder and bowel movement. It is evident that injured (since deceased) would have required the service of an attendant as he suffered from 100% disability and was not having any senses in his lower limbs. In the said circumstances and taking the monthly expenditure on attendant to be Rs. 2500/, the total attendant charges are calculated at Rs. 95,000/ (Rs. 2500X38 months).
20. Special Diet and conveyance.
PW4 has deposed that her deceased husband had deposed that he had spent about Rs. 20,000/ on conveyance and Rs. 20,000/ on special diet. She further deposed that after his testimony, her husband remained under treatment till his death and further incurred Rs. 10,000/ on conveyance and Rs. 15,000/ on his special diet. No document in this regard has been proved on record. The petitioner was alive for about 38 months after the accident and as mentioned above suffered 100% disability. In view of said discussion, a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/ is awarded under this head.
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 22 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 23 of 2921. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 4,98,432/
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/
Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/
Medical Expenses Rs. 35,404/
Attendant Charges Rs. 95,000/
Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 50,000/
________________
Total Rs. 7,48,866/
________________
[Rounded off to Rs. 7,49,000/]
(Rupees Seven lakhs Forty Nine Thousand only)
The claimants/petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. for the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f 02.09.2008 till realisation of the compensation amount. The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) .
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
22. Liability In the case in hand, the Iffco Tokio General Insurance company/R3 has not been able to show anything on record that R1, who was the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit of offending vehicle was not valid and as per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
23. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Iffco Tokio General Insurance company/R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 23 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 24 of 29 Rs.7,49,000/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3/Insurance co to the petitioners and their advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3/insurance co further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank alongwith the name of the claimants mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
24. Statement of petitioners in terms of clause 27 MCTAP was recorded. I have heard the petitioners and ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, on realization, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ each be given to petitioners namely Smt. Laxmi and Sh. Tuhi Ram who are parents of deceased and from the same an amount of Rs. 50,000/ each be released to them in their savings bank account a/c no. 7283000100099863 (in the name of Smt.Laxmi ) with PNB, Station Road Branch, Hindaun City, Rajasthan and in saving bank a/c no. 61196508469 (in the name of Sh. Tuhi Ram) with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Suroth, Karauli Branch, Rajasthan as per rules i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 24 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 25 of 29 clause 27 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in their names in 24 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 24 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
Remaining amount be given to Smt. Guddi who is widow of deceased, out of which an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ be released to her in her savings bank account a/c no. 7283000100099881 with PNB, Station Road, Hindaun City, Rajasthan as per rules i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in his name in 48 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 48 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
It shall be subject to the following further directions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(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 maturity amount of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the saving bank account of the claimant(s) in a nationalised bank near the place of his residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 25 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 26 of 29 before the disbursement of the award amount.
(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.
25. Relief As discussed above, R3/Insurance co is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 7,49,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 02.09.2008 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and their advocates failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today.
A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioners was also recorded 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 26 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 27 of 29 wherein they had stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to the insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
26. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules. The insurance co./R3 is also directed to obtain the copy of PAN card of the petitioners from the record.
Digitally signedAMIT by AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2018.12.24 18:09:43 +0530 Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL) on 24th December 2018 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi. 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 27 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 28 of 29 FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 27.07.2008
2. Name of deceased: Suresh Chand
3. Age of the deceased: 27 years
4. Occupation of the deceased: Self employed/private job
5. Income of the deceased: 3894/ per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Guddi Devi 27 years Wife
(ii) Smt. Laxmi 62 years Mother
(iii) Sh. Tuhi Ram 65 years Father
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 2782/ .
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 40%= Rs. 1112/
9. LessPersonal expenses of the 1/3
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency 2596/
{ (A+B) - C =D}
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) 31,152/
12. Multiplier (E) 16
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE Rs.4,98,432/ = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 35,404/
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H) 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 28 of 29 743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 29 of 29
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 40,000/ consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 15,000/
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/ expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 7,49,000/ (including (F+G+H+I+J+K =L) Rs.95,000/ towards attendant charges and Rs.
50,000/ towards special
diet & conveyance)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9%
21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 6,90,951/
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 14,39,951/
(L+M)
23. Award amount released Rs. 2,00,000/
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 12,39,951/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms amount to the claimant (s) (Clause of clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 11.02.2018.
award. (Clause 31)
Digitally signed
by AMIT
AMIT BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2018.12.24
18:10:22 +0530
(AMIT BANSAL)
PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
24.12.2018
743/08 Suresh Chand vs Mohan Sharma Page 29 of 29