Delhi District Court
Smt. Sushila Devi (Mother) vs Yasin & Ors. Mact No. 339/202 on 23 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DR. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 339/2020
CNR No. DLCT010035832020
Vikas Panwar (Deceasedthrough LRs)
1. Smt. Sushila Devi (Mother)
W/o Sh. Narender Kumar,
R/o198/18A, Gali No. 2,
Shri Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
2. Sh. Narender Kumar (Father)
S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh
R/o198/18A, Gali No. 2,
Shri Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
3. Smt. Neetu Chaudhary (Sister)
W/o Sh. Yogesh,
R/o RZ68, Saiyad Village,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi110087.
4. Smt. Monika Chaudhary (Sister)
W/o Sh. Deepak,
R/o H. No. 555, Gali No. 10,
West Kanti Nagar, Krishna Nagar,
East Delhi110051.
5. Prince Pawar (Brother)
S/o Sh. Narender Singh,
R/o 198/17C, Gali No. 2,
Shri Ram Nagar, Shahdara,
East Delhi110032.
......Petitioner
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020
Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 1 of 42
Versus
1. Yasin (Driver)
S/o Allah Mehar,
R/o 23 Sankroadh,
Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Antony Road Transport Solution Pvt. Ltd. (Owner)
Cluster Depot No.7,
Seema Puri, Delhi.
3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer of offending
vehicle)
R.G. City Center, IInd & IIIrd Floor,
LSC Block B, Lawrence Road, Delhi110035
Legal Hub, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi110092.
4. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer of
accidental vehicle)
7th Floor, Kailash Building,
23, Barakhamba Road, Delhi.
....... Respondents
Date of filing the DAR: 17.03.2020
Arguments concluded on: 24.03.2022/ 18.04.2022
Date of Award: 23.04.2022
A W A R D:
(1) The present Detail Accident Report (DAR) has been filed on
17.03.2020 and has been registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition
in respect of an accident which took place on 25.11.2019 at about 4:40
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020
Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 2 of 42
PM, at Vikas Marg, Near Delhi Sachivalya, Towards ITO, Delhi
wherein Vikas Panwar sustained fatal injuries.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The Facts in Brief as emerged from the DAR are that on 25.11.2019 at about 4:40 PM, the deceased Vikas Panwar alongwith his friend Radhika Yadav was going on a Scooty bearing registration No. DL6SAU1631 (which belongs to Radhika Yadav) towards ITO, New Delhi and when they reached near Delhi Sachivalaya due to heavy traffic, the deceased Vikas Panwar applied sudden breaks and fell down on left side. At the same time a cluster Orange Bus bearing registration No. DL 1PD3043 came from behind at a very high speed driven most rashly and negligently, ran over Vikas Panwar as a result of which Vikas Panwar expired at the spot and Radhika Yadav also sustained injuries. On the basis of complaint of Radhika Yadav an FIR bearing No. 254/2019, under Section 279/337/304A IPC was registered at Police Station I.P. Estate.
(3) A detailed reply has been filed by the respondent no.1 Yasin (Driver) wherein it is pleaded that the petitioners have filed a false case for compensation by suppressing the material facts and the respondent no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner as the present false and frivolous case has been lodged by the complainant against the respondent no.1 only to extract money or to harass him. It is further pleaded that the vehicle of the respondent no.2 bearing No. DL1PD Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 3 of 42 3043 was driven by the respondent no.1 as per the Traffic Rules AND there is no question raised regarding the accident. It is further pleaded that the respondent no.1 was not present on the spot at the time of incident and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the respondent no.1, as per the statement of the complainant recorded on 25.11.2019 heavy traffic jam was moving from Delhi Sachivalya to ITO due to which it is not possible to drive the bus with high speed and rash negligent manner because of heavy traffic jam. It is further pleaded that the driver of the scooty suddenly applied break of his scooty due to which reason his scooty got imbalanced and it was the driver of the scooty who was driving the scooty in zigzag manner in heavy traffic jam with no fault of the respondent no.1 in the alleged accident. It is also pleaded that at the time of the alleged incident, the vehicle of the respondent no.2 was insured with the respondent no.3 vide policy No. 12140031180100002499 valid upto 6th March, 2020 by New India Insurance Company Ltd. therefore the respondent no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that at the time of the alleged incident the respondent no.1 was having a valid driving license vide UP1720088566577 valid upto 20.01.2024. It is also pleaded that on 02.10.2019, the Investigating Officer of this case had collected the CCTV Footage of the alleged incident and after seeing the said footage, it was revealed that no accident had happened with the Cluster Bus bearing Registration No. DL1PD3043 on 25.11.2018. It is further pleaded that the respondent no.1 is falsely implicated in the present case and there is no eye witness of such incident and also there Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 4 of 42 is no mobile location of the respondent no.1. It is pleaded that no incident had taken place due to rash and negligence manner by the respondent no.1 and the petitioner in connivance with the police official filed a false case against the respondent no.1. (4) A brief reply/ written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 i.e. Owner of the offending vehicle wherein it is pleaded that the vehicle in question was seized by the police in the present case and the respondent got it released and so far as the involvement of the vehicle in question is concerned, the respondent no.2 is unable to say anything due to want of knowledge. It is also pleaded that the offending vehicle is insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(5) A detailed written statement / reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. wherein it is pleaded since two vehicles were involved in the alleged accident and hence, the owner, drivers and insurers of both the vehicles must be made parties to the DAR otherwise the DAR/ petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed. It is also pleaded that as per the charge sheet, even the CCTV footage of the place of alleged accident does not show occurrence of any accident caused by the insured vehicle bearing registration No. DL1PD3043 and suddenly an alleged eye witness namely Sh. Rajesh Gupta came into picture and his statement was recorded on 18.12.2019 i.e. after one month of the alleged accident he mentioned that the alleged offending bus bearing registration No. DL1PD3043 hit the scooty from behind and caused Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 5 of 42 the accident whereas, as per the statement of Ms. Radhika Yadav, Vikas Panwar applied sudden breaks and lost control of the scooty which led to the alleged accident and therefore, there is discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses as to the manner of occurrence of alleged accident. It is pleaded that primafacie the insured vehicle bearing registration No. DL1PD3043 has been falsely implicated in the alleged accident only to extort money from the respondents. It is also pleaded that the respondent no.3 cannot be held liable to pay any compensation to the claimant until and unless it is proved that their insured vehicle bearing registration No. DL1PD3043 was involved in the said accident and there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further pleaded that in case it is proved that the vehicle bearing no. DL1PD3043 was involved in any accident even then the respondent no.3 shall not be liable until and unless it is proved by the owner/ insurer that the driver who was driving the alleged accidental vehicle at the time of the accident was doing so with the prior consent/ permission of insured, holding a valid and effective license with all the necessary endorsements thereon as per Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder for the category of vehicle in question, was not disqualified to hold and obtain the same, and was not driving the offending vehicle in contravention of the M.V. Act Rules, Regulations, condition and limitations of the Insurance Policy on the date of the accident. It is further pleaded that the owner/ insured must further prove that the vehicle in question had valid permit, authorization and Fitness Certificate for the area where the alleged accident took place, failing Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 6 of 42 which the Insurance Company shall not be liable to pay any compensation. The respondent no.3 has taken all the pleas available under law including those under Section 56, 66, 134 (c), 147, 149, 158 (6) of the M.V. Act and under Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, available to it. It is further pleaded that without prejudice to Section 149 (2) of the M.V. Act, as per Chapter 5.11 (4) of the Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure, the respondent no.3 prayed that the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 be granted to the respondent no.3 to contest the case on all grounds available to the alleged driver and owner / insured of the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL1PD3043 in case he failed to contest the claim or if there is any collusion between the claimant and other respondent i.e. the driver and owner of the alleged offending vehicle.
(6) A brief written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent no.4 IFFCOTokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer of the accidental vehicle) wherein it is pleaded that the policy/ cover note as supplied by the police bearing No. M9988789 valid from 17.09.2019 to 16.09.2020 in the name of Sanjeev Kumar was issued by the company for Scooty bearing registration No. DL6SAU1631. It is further pleaded that as per the DAR the offending vehicle is the bus bearing registration No. DL1PD3043 and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver and no negligence on the part of deceased/ driver of the Scooty bearing Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 7 of 42 registration No. DL6SAU1631 has been shown by the Investigating Officer and hence, the petition against the respondent no.4 is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties since the driver and owner of the scooty bearing registration No. DL6SAU1631 has not been made parties to the present petition. It is also pleaded that the victim was himself driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident and thus, stepped into the shoes of the insured as such and hence, he or his legal heirs are not entitled to claim compensation from the respondent no.4 in the capacity of a third party because the victim is not a third party in the present case.
ISSUES SETTLED:
(7) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 28.01.2021 the following issues were settled by this Court/ Tribunal: i. Whether the DAR / Claim petition is bad for misjoinder of respondent no.4 Iffco Tokio General Insurance (Insurer of the accidental vehicle)? (OPR4) ii. Whether the DAR / Claim petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and driver of the accidental vehicle, as alleged by the respondent no.3 in its written statement? (OPR3) iii. Whether the accident in question had taken place on account of negligence of the deceased Vikas Panwar as alleged by Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 8 of 42 respondent no.1 in para 4 of his Written Statement? (OPR1) iv. Whether the deceased Vikas Panwar had expired in a Motor Vehicular accident which took place on 25.11.2019 at 4:00 PM at Vikas Marg, Near Delhi Sachivalya towards ITO, Delhi on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. DL1PD3043 by the respondent no.1 Yasin?
(OPP) v. Whether the LRs of the deceased are entitled to any compensation? If yes, from whom and to what extent? (OPP) vi. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
(8) In order to prove their case, the LRs of the deceased have examined only one witness i.e. Smt. Sushila Devi (mother of the deceased) as PW1. In so far as the respondents are concerned, the respondent no.2 Antony Road Transport Corporation was proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.11.2021. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.3 and 4 have closed their evidence whereas the respondent no.1 Yasin stopped appearing before this Court/ Tribunal and his evidence was closed by vide order dated 22.02.2022. (9) For the sake of convenience, the testimony of Smt. Sushila Devi (PW1) is put in a tabulated form as under:
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 9 of 42 S. Witness Deposition No.
1. Smt. Sushila PW1 Smt. Sushila Devi is the mother of the deceased Devi (PW1) Vikas Panwar who in her examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A has corroborated the version of the Investigating Agency in the DAR. She has placed her reliance on the following documents:
1. Copy of her Voter I.D. Card which is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of her Aadhar Card which is Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Photocopies of Bank Passbook and EPF passbook of the deceased Vikas Panwar which are Ex.PW1/3 (Colly, 5 pages).
4. Photocopies of temporary passes of Ministry of Home Affairs of deceased Vikas Panwar which are Ex.PW1/4 (Colly, 3 pages).
5. Photocopy of Statement of Marks of MBA (1st and Final years) of the deceased Vikas Panwar which are Ex.PW1/5 (Colly, 2 pages).
6. Photocopy of death certificate of deceased Vikas Panwar which is Ex.PW1/6.
In her cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for the respondents the witness has deposed as under: That she has not seen the accident.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that since she was not an eyewitness to the accident, she cannot say whether the factum of accident narrated by her in her affidavit is right or wrong. That the witness has further denied the suggestion that the accident did not take place with Bus bearing registration No. DL1PD3043.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that the deceased was earning Rs.19,522/ per month.
That she is a housewife and has four children namely Nitu (aged about 31 years), Monika (aged about 30 years) and Prince (aged about 25 years) and has voluntarily explained that the deceased Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 10 of 42 Vikas Panwar was her eldest son.
That Radhika Yadav and Vikas Panwar were known to each other.
That at the time of the accident Vikas was driving the scooty of Radhika Yadav.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that the documents filed by her with her affidavit are false and fabricated documents.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that the present case has been filed in connivance with the police only to extract money from the respondent no.3.
That the witness has further denied the suggestion that at the time of the alleged incident, the respondent no.1 was not present at the spot, therefore, no CCTV Footage of the alleged place of incident was collected by the Investigating Officer of the case and the Cluster Bus bearing registration No. DLIPD3043 reached after the alleged accident.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that no incident had taken place due to the rash and negligent manner by the respondent no.1 i.e. Driver of the offending vehicle.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(10) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for the petitioners and the respondents no.3 and 4. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and also given my thoughtful consideration to their contentions. My findings on the various issues are under:
Issue No.1: Whether the DAR / Claim petition is bad for mis joinder of respondent no.4 Iffco Tokio General Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 11 of 42 Insurance (Insurer of the accidental vehicle)? (OPR4) (11) Onus of proving the above issue was upon the respondent no.4 IffcoTokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. the Insurer of the accidental Scooty bearing No. DL6SAU1631. The case of the respondent no.4 IffcoTokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. is that no negligence has been shown by the Investigating Officer on the part of the deceased/ driver of the scooty and hence the petition against the respondent no.4 is not maintainable against them (respondent no.4). (12) In this regard, I may observe that the respondent no.4 Insurance Company has not led any evidence to discharge the onus upon them.
Even in their written memorandum of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4 has not pressed this issue and appears to have abandoned the same.
(13) The issue is accordingly disposed off as not pressed.
Issue No.2: Whether the DAR / Claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and driver of the accidental vehicle, as alleged by the respondent no.3 in its written statement? (OPR3) (14) Onus of proving this issue was upon the respondent no.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. the Insurer of the alleged offending Cluster Bus bearing No. DL1PD3043. The case of the respondent no.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is that the present DAR/ Claim Petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and driver of the Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 12 of 42 accidental scooty bearing No. DL6SAU1631. (15) In this regard, I may observe that the respondent no.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has not led any evidence to discharge the onus upon them. Even in their written memorandum of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 have not pressed this issue and appears to have abandoned the same.
(16) The issue is accordingly disposed off as not pressed.
Issue No.3: Whether the accident in question had taken place on account of negligence of the deceased Vikas Panwar as alleged by respondent no.1 in para 4 of his Written Statement? (OPR1) Issue No.4: Whether the deceased Vikas Panwar had expired in a Motor Vehicular accident which took place on 25.11.2019 at 4:00 PM at Vikas Marg, Near Delhi Sachivalya towards ITO, Delhi on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. DL 1PD3043 by the respondent no.1 Yasin? (OPP) (17) Both the issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion. Onus of proving the issue no.3 was upon the respondent no.1 Yasin and that of the issue no.4 upon the petitioners.
(18) The case of the petitioners is that on 25.11.2019 at about 4:40 PM, Vikas Panwar (since deceased) alongwith his friend Radhika Yadav was going on a Scooty bearing registration No. DL6SAU1631 (belongs to Radhika Yadav) towards ITO, New Delhi and when they Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 13 of 42 reached near Delhi Sachivalaya due to heavy traffic, the deceased Vikas Panwar applied sudden breaks and fell down on left side. At the same time a cluster Orange Bus bearing registration No. DL1PD3043 came from behind at a very high speed driven most rashly and negligently and ran over Vikas Panwar as a result of which Vikas Panwar expired at the spot and Radhika Yadav also sustained injuries. (19) On the other hand, the respondent no.1 Yasin, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing No. DL1PD3043 claimed that no accident had taken place on account of his rash and negligent driving and he was not even present at the spot at the time of accident. It is also the case of the respondent no.1 that the Investigating Officer of the case has collected the CCTV Footage of the spot but no accident was found to have been caused by the cluster bus bearing No. DL1PD 3043.
(20) In order to prove their case the LRs of the deceased Vikas Panwar have examined Smt. Sushila Devi (mother of the deceased) as PW1. On the other hand the respondent no.1 Yasin has not examined any witness and rather, stopped appearing pursuant to which his evidence was closed by this Court/ Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2022.
(21) I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record including the DAR and the documents attached along with the same. I have also gone through the testimony of Smt. Sushila Devi (PW1). My observations and findings are as under:
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 14 of 42 Identity of the respondent no.1 as Driver of the offending vehicle and rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1:
(22) Coming first to the identity of the respondent no.1 Yasin as the Driver of offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing No. DL1PD3043, I may note that the respondent no.1 Yasin has disputed the involvement of the alleged offending bus in the accident in question. In this regard, I may observe that the present case has been registered on the basis of complaint of Ms. Radhika Yadav who in her first statement made to the police, had specifically stated that Vikas Panwar applied sudden brakes of the scooty as a result of which it got imbalances and they both fell down on the road and in the meantime, an orange coloured bus came from behind in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and ran over Vikas Panwar whose head was crushed in the accident. The relevant portion of her statement is reproduced as under:
"..... Jo hum log Yamuna Bridge ko cross karke ITO ki taraf ja rahe they to Delhi Sachivalya ke sameep traffic heavy hone ke karan Vikas Panwar ne scooty ko achanak se brake lagaya jis vajah se scooty vahin santulan bigadne ke karan Vikas Panwar pata uprokt scooty ke bayen taraf road ke thik bichonbeech gir pada va main scooty ke dahine or gir padi. Jo piche se tez raftar, gaflat or laparwahi se chalti hui ek orange colour ki bus aayi va mere dost Vikas Panwar S/o Narender Kumar R/o 198/17C, Gali No.2, Shri Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 22 ko kuchalte huey us orange colour cluster bus of driver apni bus ko tez gati se chla ke aage bhaag nikla jiski vajah se Vikas Panwar pata uprokt ka sar fat kar aadha hissa alag Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 15 of 42 ho gaya jis karan Vikas Panwar ki moke par hi maut ho gayi va mujhe bhi choten aayi....".
(23) It is evident from the copy of chargesheet filed along with the DAR that the FIR was initially registered against an unknown bus driver. It was later on when CCTV footage of the Cameras installed near the spot were analyzed by the Investigating Officer that the movement of an orange coloured Cluster Bus bearing registration number DL1PD3043 was noticed. Pursuant to the same, a notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act was issued to the Depot Manager, Seemapuri, Delhi after which the Depot Manager gave a written reply to the effect that on 25.11.2019 the bus bearing No. DL 1PD3043 was being driven by Yasin who had committed the accident in question. Further, it is evident from the DAR that the Investigating Officer had obtained the GPS Record not only in respect of the offending bus bearing No. DL1PD3043 but also in respect of another bus bearing No. DL1PD3048 from Seemapuri Depot and on analysis of the same, it was revealed that the bus bearing No. DL1PD 3048 had already crossed the area at about 4:35 PM whereas the location of the bus bearing No. DL1PD3043 was of Delhi Secretariat at 16:43:20 (4:43 PM) and of ITO at 16:49:21 (4:49 PM). As per the copy of PCR Form placed on record, the first information regarding accident was received on 25.11.2019 at 4:54 PM. This rules out the allegations of false implication of the respondent no.1 Yasin. The above GPS Record & PCR Form coupled with the reply of the Depot Manager, Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 16 of 42 Seemapuri to the notice under Section 133 MV Act, defeats the case of the respondent no.1 that he was not present at the spot at the time of accident. Rather, the above documents clearly establish his identity as the driver of the Bus bearing No. DL1PD3043 at the relevant point of time. Even otherwise, the respondent no.1 Yasin has not led any evidence in rebuttal to contradict the material on record. (24) In so far as the aspect of rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 Yasin is concerned, the case of the petitioners is that the accident had taken place on account of the sole rashness and negligence of the respondent no.1. On the other hand, the case of the respondent no.1 Yasin is that the accident in question had taken place on account of negligence of the deceased Vikas Panwar since on 25.11.2019 on account of heavy traffic jam from Delhi Secretariat to Delhi it was not possible to drive the bus with high speed and it was the deceased himself who was driving the scooty in a zigzag manner and suddenly applied the brakes of his scooty due to which his scooty got imbalanced.
(25) Here, I may note that the respondent no.1 Yasin has not examined any witness to prove his case. Rather, he stopped appearing before this Court/ Tribunal pursuant to which the evidence of the respondent no.1 was closed vide order dated 22.02.2022. (26) In so far as Smt. Sushila Devi (PW1) the mother of the deceased is concerned, she is not an eye witness to the accident. As a general rule the petitioners is required to prove negligence but in certain Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 17 of 42 cases where the LRs are only able to prove the accident but are unable to prove the origin of negligence, then under the given circumstances the principle of res ipsa loquitur if found applicable, can always be considered. Sir William Erle in the case of Scott vs. London & St. Katherine Docks Co. reported in (1865) 3 HC 596 applied the said principle and observed as under:
".....Where the thing is shown is under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such, as in the ordinary course of things does not happen, if those who have the management use proper care. Then in the absence of any explanation by the defendant, it can be presumed that the accident arose for want of care. In such cases mere happening of the accident affords a reasonable evidence in the absence of any explanation by the defendant that it was due to the negligence of the defendant......"
(27) This doctrine of res ipsa loquitur squarely applies to the facts of the present case as no evidence to the contrary has come on record. In the present case, apart from Radikha Yadav, the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of an eye witness namely Rajesh Gupta S/o Sh. Sundar Lal under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he had stated that on 25.11.2019 at about 4:30 PM to 5:00 PM while he was going to Pragati Maidan from his house and reached near ITO, he saw that an orange coloured bus no. 3043 of route no. 85 had hit a white coloured scooty on its right rear side as a result of which the scooty fell down and driver of the scooty came under the tyres of bus and expired at the spot. In this Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 18 of 42 regard, I may note that this witness Rajesh Gupta had not made any call to the PCR regarding the accident. Further, the version given by Rajesh Gupta is contrary to the first statement of another injured/ eye witness Radhika Yadav who had stated that while they were going on the scooty, Vikas Panwar applied sudden brakes of the scooty due to traffic jam as a result of which the scooty got imbalanced and they both fell down on the road. She has explained that while she fell down on the right side, Vikas Panwar fell down on the left side of the scooty in the middle of the road and in the meantime, an orange coloured bus came at a fast speed in a rash and negligent matter and ran over Vikas Panwar and then fled away. This version of Radhika Yadav finds due corroboration from the Mechanical Inspection Report of the scooty bearing No. DL6SAU1631 which shows that the left side body beading was scratched and left side read body dented & scratched. The version put forth by Ms. Radhika Yadav also finds due corroboration from the photographs of the spot of accident showing that the dead body of the deceased with crushed head was lying in the middle of the road with a damaged helmet and the accidental Scooty bearing No. DL6SAU1631 was found parked near the spot. Further, the skid marks are also seen in the photographs (original photographs seen in the file of criminal case of FIR No. 254/2019, PS I.P. Estate under Sections 279/337/304A IPC). The circumstances of the case speak for themselves. The rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent no.1 Yasin is evident from the fact he did not maintain due Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 19 of 42 distance from the scooty and after the scooty got imbalanced & fell down, the respondent no.1 Yasin ran the bus over Vikas Panwar. (28) It is a settled law that a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. In a criminal case the rashness and negligence against the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas in a civil case or MACT claim for grant of compensation the principle involved is preponderance of probability. It would be sufficient if the surrounding circumstances and the material on record establishes the allegations of rashness and negligence made against the driver of the offending vehicle.
(29) In view of the circumstantial evidence on record in the form of first statement of another injured Ms. Radhika Yadav coupled with the GPS Record of the offending bus; PCR Form; Photographs of the spot of accident and Mechanical Inspection Report and by application of the above principles of Preponderance of Probabilities, I hereby hold that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 20 of 42 negligent driving of the respondent no.1 Yasin the driver of offending bus i.e. Cluster Bus bearing No. DL1PD3043.
Injuries caused to the deceased:
(30) In so far as the aspect of Injuries caused to the deceased Vikas Panwar are concerned, I have gone through the photocopy of the Death Report and Postmortem Report of the deceased. It is evident from the record that Vikas Panwar had expired at the spot itself and his body was brought to Lok Nayak Hospital Mortuary, Delhi with alleged history of RTA on 25.11.2019 at around 4:40 PM near Sachivalya, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar Road, Delhi and the deceased was run over by a DTC bus while going on his Scooty and died at the spot. There were following external injuries:
1. Crush injury of head and face, measuring 23 cm X 10 cm X cranial cavity deep involving the bilateral frontotemporo parietal regions of the scalp with crushing of underlying tissues and skull bones with extruding of brain parenchyma from the defect. Remnants of brain parenchyma, including the brain stem and parts of cerebellum was found left in the cranial cavity.
2. Multiple abrasions, red in colour, of size ranging from 1 cm X 0.5 cm upto 3 cm X 3 cm present over the face, neck and left side of upper chest.
3. Abrasion, reddish in colour, of size 5cm X 3cm present over the front of left knee on medial aspect.
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 21 of 42 (31) As per the opinion the death is due to craniocerebral injury conseuqent upon blunt force impact to the head, all injuries are antemortem in nature, caused by blunt force impact, fresh in duration and are possible in a road traffic incident.
(32) The factum of death of the deceased Vikas Panwar in the accident in question has not been disputed by the respondents nor any evidence to the contrary has come on record. Therefore, it stands established that the deceased Vikas Panwar had expired on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. (33) This being the background and coupled with the fact that the respondent no.1 Yasin has been made an accused in FIR No. 254/2019, PS I.P. Estate under Sections 279/337/304A IPC wherein he has been arrested and released on bail, I hereby hold that the deceased Vikas Panwar had expired in a Motor Vehicular accident which took place on 25.11.2019 at 4:00 PM at Vikas Marg, Near Delhi Sachivalya towards ITO, Delhi on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. DL1PD3043 by the respondent no.1 Yasin. (34) Both the issues no.3 and 4 are accordingly disposed off.
Issue no.4: Whether the LRs of the deceased are entitled to any compensation? If yes, from whom and to what extent?
(OPP) (35) Onus of proving the above issue was upon the petitioners who are the LRs of the deceased Vikas Panwar. It is the case of the LRs of Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 22 of 42 the deceased is that the deceased Vikas Panwar was a young boy of 27 years at the time of accident and was working with Ministry of Home Affairs, Shashtri Bhawan, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi as Data Entry Operator and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.19,522/ per month. The petitioners are claiming a total compensation to the tune of Rs.1,01,76,696/.
(36) In so far as the respondent no.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is concerned, they have not given any legal offer to the LRs of the deceased.
(37) I have considered the evidence on record. I may note that the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, was reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided on 31.10.2017 and laid down general principles relating to computation of compensation in death cases, which are 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.
The 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 Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 23 of 42 living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following 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 multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 24 of 42 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 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....." .
(38) Applying the settled principles to the facts of the present case, coming first to the age of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the deceased Vikas Panwar was aged about 27 years at the time of accident. In this regard, the petitioner no.1 Smt. Sushila Devi has placed on record the copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased Vikas Panwar which shows his date of birth as 07.10.1992. Accordingly, the deceased was aged 27 years, 1 month and 18 days at the time of accident on 25.11.2019. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased.
This being the background, I hold that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 27 years and hence, applying the criteria laid down in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (Supra) the multiplier applicable Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 25 of 42 according to the age of deceased would be Seventeen (17). (39) Now coming to the Income of the Deceased, I may observe that according to the petitioners the deceased Vikas Panwar was an MBA and was working as Data Entry Operator with Ministry of Home Affairs, Sashtri Bhawan, Krishi Bhawan and was getting a salary of Rs.19,522/ per month. In this regard, the petitioner no.1 Smt. Sushila Devi (PW1) has placed on record the Photocopies of Bank Passbook and EPF passbook of the deceased Vikas Panwar which are Ex.PW1/3 (Colly, 5 pages); Photocopies of temporary passes of Ministry of Home Affairs of deceased Vikas Panwar which are Ex.PW1/4 (Colly, 3 pages) and Photocopy of Statement of Marks of MBA (1st and Final years) of the deceased Vikas Panwar which are Ex.PW1/5 (Colly, 2 pages). I have gone through the above documents. I have gone through the above documents. The respondents have not led any evidence to rebut or controvert the claim of the petitioners to the effect that the deceased was working as Data Entry Operator with the Ministry of Home Affairs. Further, I note that the petitioners have not placed on record the salary slip of the deceased showing the exact amount of the salary received by the deceased. However, the copy of bank passbook of the deceased has been placed on record showing the credit of an amount of Rs.16,523/ through NEFT on 11.10.2019 and Rs.17,575/ through NEFT on 13.11.2019 from OTAMOND SECURITY. The Member Passbook of Employees' Provident Fund Organization which is Ex.PW1/3 shows that a sum of Rs.1,800/ was being deducted towards Employee Share.
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 26 of 42 By taking the last drawn salary of Rs.17,575/ and by adding a sum of Rs.1,800/ towards employee share, the total amount comes to Rs.19,375/ which is taken as the monthly income of the deceased at the relevant point of time.
(40) In so far as the aspect of Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased is concerned, I may note that the deceased Vikas Panwar had left behind five legal heirs as under:
1. Smt. Sushila Devi (Mother - aged 50 years)
2. Sh. Narender Kumar (Father - aged 56 years)
3. Sh. Prince Panwar (Younger Brother aged 25 years)
4. Ms. Neetu (Elder Sister aged 38 years)
5. Ms. Monika Chaudhary (Elder Sister aged 31 years) (41) Here, I may note that the younger brother Prince Panwar and elder sisters namely Neetu and Monika have not led any evidence to prove their dependency upon the income of the deceased. This being the background, the Future Prospects at the rate of 40% shall be added and the deceased being unmarried, the deductions in the income of the deceased towards his living and personal expenses would be 50% of his income.
(42) Coming next to the Compensation under nonpecuniary heads, I may note that the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 27 of 42 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018. After considering the Pranay Sethi's judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court pleased to award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/ to each dependent of the deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/ to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection, which I quote as under:
"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 28 of 42 causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 29 of 42 In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.....".
(43) However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
"...... The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head...".
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 30 of 42 (44) In view of the above, a sum of Rs.15,000/ each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, a sum of Rs.40,000/ each towards Loss of Consortium is awarded to the parents of the deceased.
(45) Now coming to the Computation of compensation and by applying the settled guidelines as laid down in the various judgments as herein above, the compensation is calculated as under:
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal 1. Monthly Income of deceased (A) 19,375/ per month 2. Add future prospect (B) 40% of 19,375 = 7,750/
3. Less 1/2 deduction towards personal (19,375 + 7,750) / 2 = and living expenses of the deceased 13,562.5 (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (19,375 + 7,750) -
[(A+B) - C = D] 13,562.5 = 13,562.5
5. Annual loss of Dependency (D x 12) 13,562.5 x 12 = 1,62,750/
6. Multiplier (E) 17
7. Total loss of dependency 1,62,750 x 17 =
D x 12 x E = F 27,66,750/
8. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9. Compensation for loss of love and Nil
affection (H)
10. Compensation for loss of consortium 40,000 x 2 = 80,000/ (I)
11. Compensation for loss of Estate (J) 15,000/ Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 31 of 42
12. Compensation for funeral expenses 15,000/ (K)
13. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K 28,76,750/ = L) Round Off: 28,77,000/ (46) I may note that interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy reported in 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). In the interest of justice, it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 17.03.2020 till realization.
Apportionment:
(47) In so far as the Apportionment of the awarded amount is concerned, as already discussed, there are five legal heirs of the deceased Vikas Panwar and only the parents have been held to be the dependents upon the deceased. Therefore, the mother and father of the deceased are entitled to the compensation in equal amount. For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the parents of the deceased are tabulated as under:
Sr. Name of the Relation with Percentage of Amount in No. claimant deceased award amount (Rs.) 1 Smt. Sushila Mother 50% 14,38,500/ Devi 2 Sh. Narender Father 50% 14,38,500/ Kumar Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 32 of 42 Disbursement:
(48) The Financial Statements of the petitioner no.1 Smt. Sushila Devi and petitioner no.2 Narender Kumar were recorded by this Court/ Tribunal on 16.03.2022 according to which their family comprises of themselves, two married daughters namely Smt. Neetu Chaudhary and Smt. Monika Chaudhary and one unmarried son namely Prince Panwar.
According to the petitioners, their monthly family expenses are about Rs.40,000/ to Rs.45,000/.
(49) Keeping in view the above, I hereby direct that in so far as the petitioner no.1 Smt. Sushila Devi (Mother of the deceased) is concerned on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.1,38,500/ plus half of the interest amount be released to her from her share and the balance amount of Rs.13,00,000/ (Rupees Thirteen Lacs) shall be put in One Hundred Thirty monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 130 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued and the Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 33 of 42 same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. The petitioner no.1 Smt. Sushila Devi shall have liberty to seek the release of Rs.1,38,500/ plus half of interest amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself. (50) In so far as the petitioner no.2 Sh. Narender Kumar (Father of the deceased) is concerned on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.1,38,500/ plus half of the interest amount be released to him from his share and the balance amount of Rs.13,00,000/ (Rupees Thirteen Lacs) shall be put in One Hundred Thirty monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 130 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued and the same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. The petitioner no.2 Narender Kumar shall have liberty to seek the release of Rs.1,38,500/ plus half of interest amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 34 of 42 (51) The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 35 of 42 books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.
(52) In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed FormatXV is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 25.11.2019
2. Name of the deceased: Vikas Panwar
3. Age of the deceased: 27 years
4. Occupation of the deceased: Data Entry Operator, Ministry of Home Affairs
5. Income of the deceased: Rs.19,375/
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
Sr. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Sushila Devi 50 years Mother
(ii) Sh. Narender Kumar 56 years Father
(iii) Sh. Prince Pawar 25 years Brother (not dependent)
(iv) Ms. Neetu 38 years Sister (not dependent)
(v) Ms. Monika 31 years Sister (not dependent)
Chaudhary
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 36 of 42 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal 7 Annual Income of deceased 19,375/ per month (A) 8 Add future prospect (B) 40% of 19,375 = 7,750/ 9 Less 1/4th deductions towards (19,375 + 7,750) / 2 = personal and living expenses of 13,562.5 the deceased (C) 10 Monthly loss of dependency (19,375 + 7,750) -
[(A+B) - C = D] 13,562.5 = 13,562.5
11 Annual loss of Dependency 13,562.5 x 12 = 1,62,750/
(D x 12)
12 Multiplier (E) 17
13 Total loss of dependency 1,62,750 x 17 =
DxE=F 27,66,750/
14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15 Compensation for loss of love Nil
and affection (H)
16 Compensation for loss of 40,000 x 2 = 80,000/
consortium (I)
17 Compensation for loss of Estate 15,000/
(J)
18 Compensation for funeral 15,000/
expenses (K)
19 Total Compensation 28,76,750/
(F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Round Off: 28,77,000/
20 RATE OF INTEREST 6%
AWARDED
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 37 of 42 21 Interest amount upto the date of 3,62,463/ award (L) (2 Years, 1 Month and 6 Days) 22 Total amount including interest Rs.32,39,463/ 23 Award amount released As per paragraphs no. 49 & 50 24 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraphs no. 49 & 50 25 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraphs no. 49 award amount to the & 50 claimant(s) 26 Next Date of compliance of the 270.05.2022 award Liability:
(53) In so far as the liability to pay the award amount is concerned, since the offending vehicle bearing No. DL1PD3043 was being driven by respondent no.1 Yasin whereas respondent no.2 Antony Road Transport Co. Ltd. is the registered owner and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
therefore all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners but since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. as on the day of accident, it is respondent no.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner under the statutory liability.
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 38 of 42 (54) Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
(55) Since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. therefore, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.28,77,000/ (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs, Seventy Seven Thousand only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 17.03.2020 till realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS to the bank account of the MACT01, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Complex Branch, Delhi and while making the payment through one of the aforementioned modes, Insurance Company shall also furnish particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision as well. Insurance Company is further directed to submit copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank along with receipt qua depositing/ transferring of award amount. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to petitioner(s) in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc., if any, in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 39 of 42 (56) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for compliance within the time granted. Respondent No.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with upto date interest with a copy to the claimants. (57) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 27.05.2022 in the event of nonreceipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(58) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 23.04.2022 PO, MACT01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 40 of 42 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 25.11.2019 2 Date of filing of FormI - First Accident Not Applicable being a case of Report (FAR) 2019 3 Date of delivery of FormII to the Not Applicable being a case of victim(s) 2019 4 Date of receipt of FormIII from the Not Applicable being a case of Driver 2019 5 Date of receipt of FormIV from the Not Applicable being a case of Owner 2019 6 Date of filing of the FormV - Interim Not Applicable being a case of Accident Report (IAR) 2019 7 Date of receipt of FormVIA and Form Not Applicable being a case of VIB from the Victim(s) 2019 8 Date of filing of FormVIII - Detail 17.03.2020 Accident Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction No warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated Not provided by the Insurance
Officer by the Insurance Company Company
11 Whether the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company admitted his report Yes
within 30 days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency
on the part of the Designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 41 of 42 13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the No legal offer given by the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company 14 Date of award 23.04.2022 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their Yes place of residence?
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) 17.03.2020 near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced 16.03.2022
the passbook of their savings bank PAN Card No. of petitioner No.1 is
account(s) near the place of their residence AMQPD5615E
alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and PAN Card No. of petitioner No.2 is
Aadhaar Card? AERPN8884J
18 Permanent residential address of the
As per Award
claimant(s).
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank
Yes
account(s) is near their place of residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at Yes, the Financial Statement of the the time of passing of the Award to petitioners no.1 and 2 were ascertain his/their financial condition? recored on 16.03.2022 (Dr. KAMINI LAU) PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 23.04.2022 Vikas Panwar (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Yasin & Ors. MACT No. 339/2020 Award dated 23.04.2022 Page No. 42 of 42