Delhi District Court
Smt. Oma vs Rudra Nand Kumar Jha on 12 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010074892018
MACT No. : 455/2018
FIR No. : 159/2017
P.S. : Patel Nagar
U/s. : 279/304A IPC
1. Smt. Oma
W/o Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar
2. Mr. Arun
S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar
3. Mr. Arvind
S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar
4. Mr. Rakesh
S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar
All R/o E-60, DDA Flats,
New Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Rudra Nand Jha
S/o Late Sh. Damodar Jha,
Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
2. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited.
At Kailash Building, 505, Fifth Floor,
K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
......Respondents
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 1 of 34
Date of filing of DAR : 31.05.2018
Judgment reserved on : 01.02.2024
Date of Award : 12.02.2024
AWAR D
The present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
31.05.2018 and was registered as a Motor Accident Claim Petition. The
Road Traffic Accident in question took place on 30.05.2017 at about
8:00 A.M. at Block-40, East Patel Nagar, Delhi wherein the petitioner
Ramesh Kumar had sustained fatal injuries. The said accident was
caused by the vehicle i.e. E-Rickshaw bearing registration No. DL
10ER-0756 which was driven and owned by respondent no.1 Rudra
Nand Jha and insured with respondent no.2, IFFCO-TOKIO General
Insurance Company Limited.
Brief facts of the case:
2. Based on the facts outlined in the DAR, it emerges that on
30.05.2017, the deceased Ramesh Kumar was going towards Gopal
Tower, East Patel Nagar and when he reached near Chawla Park, an E-
rickshaw came from behind and hit him. He fell down on the road and
got injured. He was rushed to RML Hospital and admitted vide MLC
No. E-115636/17 with the history of Road Traffic Accident at East Patel
Nagar, H/O vomiting/ENT Bleeding, nature of injury blunt and patient
not fit for statement. The site plan of the place of accident was prepared
and offending vehicle was seized by the IO. The mechanical inspection
of the offending vehicle was got done. The IO went to RML Hospital
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 2 of 34
several times to record the statement of the injured but he was
unconscious since the date of accident. The offending vehicle was found
to be in the ownership of Sh. Rudra Nath Jha who himself was driving
the vehicle at the time of the accident. The IO arrested him and since the
offence was bailable, he was released on furnishing of bail bond and
surety bond. The IO seized the documents pertaining to the offending
vehicle. The injured was discharged from the hospital on 19.07.2017 in
an unconscious state. The IO had gone to the residence of injured to
record his statement but he was found unconscious. On 28.07.2017,
when the condition of the injured Ramesh Kumar deteriorated, his
family members got him admitted again in RML Hospital. The IO went
to the hospital on 17.08.2017 but the injured was not found there and he
was informed that Ramesh Kumar has expired on 16.08.2017. However,
the hospital did not inform at the police station that he had expired and
when IO enquired from the son of the injured, he disclosed that his
father had expired on 16.08.2017 and the doctors had handed over the
dead body to them and they cremated the body. He also stated that the
doctor had not informed that postmortem of the body was to be
conducted.
3. The IO wrote letter to MRD, RML Hospital to get death
summary and other documents of the deceased. On 04.10.2017, the IO
collected the MLC of the deceased from the hospital and death
certificate of the deceased from his son Mr. Arun. The offending vehicle
was released to the registered owner on superdari as per orders of Ld.
MM. Since the postmortem of the deceased was not conducted, a
request letter was sent to RML Hospital to know the reason of death and
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 3 of 34
Dr. Sachin Mittal and Dr. Yogesh had given their opinions. On
completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against respondent
no. 1 Rudra Nath Jha under section 279/304A IPC and DAR was filed
before this Tribunal on 31.05.2018.
Written Statements:
4. Respondent no. 2/ insurance company filed its reply on
09.08.2018 stating therein that they are not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioners as the postmortem of the deceased was
not conducted.
5. Respondent no. 1 filed its written statement on 28.09.2018
wherein he denied all the allegations against him and stated that the
DAR filed by the IO is legally not maintainable against him. It is his
case that as per the discharge summary dated 19.07.2017, the claimant
had moderate head injury and was allowed oral medicines. He was
reported to be fit for all purposes and as also per the second discharge
summary, the injured died on 16.08.2017 due to cardiac arrest and
hence, there is no correlation between the cause of death and the injuries
sustained during accident, thus, respondent no. 1 is not liable.
Issues:
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
28.09.2018, the following issues were framed:
i. Whether the deceased Ramesh Kumar Had died of injuries
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 4 of 34
sustained by him in an accident which took place on 30.05.2017
within the jurisdiction of PS Patel Nagar, Delhi due to rash nd
negligent driving of vehicle E-Rickshaw bearing regn. No. DL-
10ER-0756 by respondent no. 1? (OPP.)
ii. Whether petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP.)
iii. Relief.
Evidence:
7. The petitioners examined Smt. Oma as PW-1 and Mr. Jodha
Singh as PW-2. The respondent no.1 examined himself as R1W1,
respondent no.2 insurance company examined Dr. Sachin Mittal,
Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, RML Hopsital,
Delhi as R2W1 and Ms. Sunidhi Mittal, Exucutive,Legal as R2W2.
8. Vide Award dated 29.08.2019, the Ld. Predecessor of this
Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition. However, the petitioner
approached the Hon'ble High Court against the said order. Vide order
dated 20.11.2023, Hon'ble High Court set aside the order dated
29.08.2019 and in the operative paragraphs, it was held as follows:
"22. Though in his cross examination he also stated that as
per the death summary, the deceased had died due to a
cardiac arrest, he clarified that the cardiac arrest was caused
due to the septicaemia and this fact is also mentioned in the
deathe summary.
23. The learned Tribunal has clearly not appreciated this part
of the evidence of the doctor.
24. For the above reasons, the finding of the learned Tribunal
cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. The
impugned Award is, accordingly, set aside.
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 5 of 34
25. As the learned Tribunal has, based on its above finding,
not determined the compensation that is payable to the
appellant, the Claim Petition shall stand restored to its
original number before the learned Tribunal. The learned
Tribunal shall assess the compensation payable to the
appellant based on the evidence already on record.
26. Keeping in view that the accident had occurred on
30.05.2017, the learned Tribunal shall assess the
compensation and pass its final Award within a period of four
months of the first listing of the Claim Petition on its remand.
...
29. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the respondent no. 2 also has a right to recover the compensation paid to the appelllant from the respondent no.
1. This issue shall also be determined by the learned Tribunal based on the evidence that is on record."
9. In compliance of the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, this tribunal will be deciding two aspects i.e. (i) whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom and (ii) whether the respondent no. 2/ insurance company has a right to recover from respondent no. 1.
10. The petitioner had filed the Form XIII. Financial statement of the petitioner was recorded and final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners and respondent no. 2.
Findings & Observations:
11. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2/ insurance company and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
Aspect no. 1:
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 6 of 34 Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
12. The petitioners are certainly entitled for compensation in view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The onus of proving the extent of compensation was upon the Petitioners. To prove their claim, the petitioners examined Smt. Oma, the wife of the deceased as PW-1 who in her affidavit Ex. PW1/1, has deposed as under:-
"...
4. That my late husband was working as safai karamchari in North Delhi Municipal Corporation under DEMS/Karol Bagh Zone. He was earning lastly monthly salary of Rs. 48,724/- P.M.
5. That my husband left behind me i.e. his widow, and three sons namely Arun, Arvind and Rakesh. We all the legal heirs were dependent upon the income of my deceased husband. The parents of the deceased husband have already expired. There is a married daughter of the deceased namely Poonam who is living with her husband. There is no other legal heir of the deceased.
...
7. That the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 2 i.e. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, therefore both the respondent nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the claim for compensation.
8. That duly authenticated and verified documents obtained from MCD by the IO have also been filed along with DAR which prove the designation of the deceased and the last salary drawn by hi. The petitioners rely upon those documents. The duly verified bills of chemists to the tune of Rs. 21,600/- have also been attached with DAR. ... "
13. The petitioners are claiming a total compensation to the tune of Rs. 6, 938, 830.72/- (as per form XIII) from the respondents.
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 7 of 34
14. I have considered the evidence on record and perused the entire record.
15. The general principles relating to computation of compensation in such cases were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 which were 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. The same 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 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) MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 8 of 34 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 expense. 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. 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....." .
Age determination of the deceased:
16. Applying the principles settled in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) to the facts of the present case, the first aspect to be determined is the age of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the deceased Ramesh Kumar was aged 53 years old at the time of the accident. The PAN card bearing no. BIAPK1927R of the deceased Ramesh Kumar shows that his date of birth was 25.08.1960.
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 9 of 34 Accordingly, the deceased Ramesh Kumar was precisely aged 56 years, 9 months and 05 days old at the time of accident on 30.05.2017. Thus, it is concluded that the age of the deceased was more than 56 years old at the time of accident but less than 57 years. Hence, applying the criteria laid down in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (Supra) the multiplier applicable according to the age of deceased, would be nine (9) as the deceased would fall in the bracket of 56-60 years.
Income of the deceased:
17. The petitioners have claimed that the deceased Ramesh Kumar was residing and working in Delhi as a safai karamchari in North Delhi Municipal Corporation under DEMS/ Karol Bagh Zone and was earning Rs. 48,724/- per month. In support of their claim, the petitioners filed on record the Aadhar Card of the deceased Ex. PW-1/1; Election I card Ex. PW-1/2 and original salary slip for the month of August, 2017 Ex. PW-1/4. The documents placed on record show that the deceased Ramesh kumar was working as a safai karmachari with NDMC. His salary slip shows that after deductions, he was earning Rs. 33,475/- per month. The salary slips have not been disputed by the respondents nor have they led any evidence to prove that the deceased was not working with NDMC or not earning the above stated amount. It is well settled that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an MACT enquiry, which is not even a trial. Thus, it stands proved that Ramesh Kumar (since deceased) was working with NDMC and earning Rs. 33,475/-
per month at the time of the accident i.e. on 30.05.2017.
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 10 of 34 Personal deductions:
18. As regards the aspect of deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased is concerned, it is an admitted case of the petitioners and also evident from the DAR that the deceased Ramesh Kumar had left behind four legal heirs i.e. his wife Oma (aged about 57 years); son Arun Kumar (aged about 40 years); son Arvind Kumar (aged about 37 years) and another son Rakesh Kumar (aged about 33 years).
Since, all his children had already attained the age of majority and had not claimed to be dependent upon the deceased, it is concluded that the deceased had only one legal heir who was financially dependent on him i.e. his wife. Thus, in view of the settled proposition of law as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (Supra), the deductions in the income of the deceased towards his living and personal expenses would be one half of his income (there being one dependent of the deceased i.e. his wife as all his children are major). Further by adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of the deceased Ramesh Kumar shall be 15% as he had crossed the age of 50 years at the time of accident on 30.05.2017.
Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:
19. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 11 of 34 Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was 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. The relevant portion is 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 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 MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 12 of 34 about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions 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).
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.....".
20. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 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 MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 13 of 34 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...".
21. In the Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of Estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, with enhancement at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. By applying the said principles and law laid down in Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur case (supra), a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded under each head of Loss of Estate and funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.44,000/- each is awarded to all the petitioners towards Loss of Consortium.
Medical expenses:
22. The petitioner has claimed in her Form XIII that the deceased had incurred about Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment. In this regard, the petitioner has placed reliance on medical bills, the details of which are MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 14 of 34 as under:-
Table No. 1Sr. Details of Bill Date Amount in
No. Rs.
Bill No. 27966 issued by Raj Kamal 02.06.2017 50
Chemists, Behind RML Hospital,
Delhi.
Bill No. 68918 issued by New Delhi 02.06.2017 525
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 69111 issued by New Delhi 03.06.2017 50
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 69533 issued by New Delhi 03.06.2017 51
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 28149 issued by Raj Kamal 03.06.2017 77
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 69498 issued by New Delhi 03.06.2017 23
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 70658 issued by New Delhi 04.06.2017 52
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.34184 issued by Krishna 05.06.2017 131
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 71981 issued by New Delhi 06.06.2017 975
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 72873 issued by New Delhi 06.06.2017 136
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.73385 issued by New Delhi 07.06.2017 175
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 35489 issued by Krishna 07.06.2017 125
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.73426 issued by New Delhi 07.06.2017 112
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 29934 issued by Raj Kamal 07.06.2017 450
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 15 of 34
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.30255 issued by Raj Kamal 08.06.2017 600
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.36892 issued by Krishna 09.06.2017 100
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.76026 issued by New Delhi 09.06.2017 300
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.30751 issued by Raj Kamal 09.06.2017 52
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.76625 issued by New Delhi 10.06.2017 245
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.31394 issued by Raj Kamal 10.06.2017 482
Chemists Medicos, RML Hospital,
Delhi.
Bill No.77057 issued by New Delhi 10.06.2017 300
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 76769 issued by New Delhi 10.06.2017 150
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.77440 issued by New Delhi 11.06.2017 525
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 77344 issued by New Delhi 11.06.2017 450
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.78850 issued by New Delhi 12.06.2017 325
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.78344 issued by New Delhi 12.06.2017 250
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.78457 issued by New Delhi 12.06.2017 12
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.78624 issued by New Delhi 12.06.2017 2,318
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.81731 issued by New Delhi 15.06.2017 115
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 28279 issued by 24 Hours 16.06.2017 135
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 16 of 34
Chemist Shop, NDMC Market, RML
Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.83397 issued by New Delhi 16.06.2017 637
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
IPD Bill receipt No.Collection 16.06.2017 500
22312/201718 issued by RML
Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No.83815 issued by New Delhi 17.06.2017 350
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
IPD Bill receipt No.Collection 18.06.2017 500
22636/201718 issued by RML
Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 39805 issued by Krishna 15.06.2017 50
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 85140 issued by New Delhi 19.06.2017 117
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 41174 issued by Krishna 19.06.2017 119
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 42236 issued by Krishna 21.06.2017 23
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 43010 issued by Krishna 22.06.2017 100
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 30235 issued by 24 Hours 22.06.2017 117
Chemist Shop, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 30261 issued by 24 Hours 22.06.2017 68
Chemist Shop, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 42964 issued by Krishna 22.06.2017 154
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 89966 issued by New Delhi 23.06.2017 35
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 44165 issued by Krishna 24.06.2017 50
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 37390 issued by Raj Kamal 25.06.2017 80
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 17 of 34
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 44407 issued by Krishna 25.06.2017 204
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 92360 issued by New Delhi 26.06.2017 500
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 45716 issued by Krishna 28.06.2017 35
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 38932 issued by Raj Kamal 29.06.2017 115
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 96116 issued by New Delhi 29.06.2017 100
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 46911 issued by Krishna 30.06.2017 150
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 1428 issued by SRL 02.07.2017 800
Diagnostics, Udyan Marg, Near RML
Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 98635 issued by New Delhi 02.07.2017 310
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 98872 issued by New Delhi 02.07.2017 325
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 47767 issued by Krishna 03.07.2017 115
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 100572 issued by New Delhi 03.07.2017 164
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 49749 issued by Krishna 06.07.2017 115
Chemists Medicos, RML Hospital,
Delhi.
Bill No. 104853 issued by New Delhi 07.07.2017 8
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 43803 issued by Raj Kamal 09.07.2017 490
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 000161 issued by Krishna 10.07.2017 325
Medisurg, RML Hospital, Delhi.
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 18 of 34
Bill No. 51936 issued by Krishna 10.07.2017 79
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 45237 issued by Raj Kamal 12.07.2017 318
Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 111480 issued by New Delhi 12.07.2017 117
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 111839 issued by New Delhi 13.07.2017 100
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 113261 issued by New Delhi 14.07.2017 424
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 115446 issued by New Delhi 15.07.2017 117
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 117668 issued by New Delhi 17.07.2017 350
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 118957 issued by New Delhi 18.07.2017 167
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Bill No. 120867 issued by New Delhi 20.07.2017 3,649
Medicos, RML Hospital, Delhi.
Total Rs. 21,268/-
23. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased had incurred expense up to Rs. 50,000/- on his medical treatment but only the above bills could be produced. He prayed that Rs. 50,000/- be reimbursed to him. However, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/ respondent no. 3 argued that the bills are not verified and thus, no amount be granted under this head. It is pertinent to mention here that strict rules of evidence Act are not applicable in MACT Claim inquiry. Also, the respondents have not led any evidence to prove that the bills are not genuine. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation for the bills mentioned in aforesaid Table No. 1 i.e. Rs. 21,268/-.
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 19 of 34 Therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 21,268/- towards medical expenses.
Computation of compensation:
24. It is imperative to note that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- that was awarded to the petitioner no. 1 vide order dated 09.08.2018 shall be deducted from the entire award amount. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments, the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal 1 Monthly Income of deceased (A) 33,475/- 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 15%= 5,021.25/- 3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (33,475/- + 5,021.25/) - 1/2=
personal and living expenses of 19,248.12/- the deceased (C) 4 Monthly loss of dependency (33,475+5,021.25/)-
[(A+B) - C = D] 19,248.12=19,248.13/-
5 Annual loss of Dependency 19,248.13 x
(D x 12) 12=2,30,977.56/-
6 Multiplier (E) 9
7 Total loss of dependency 2,30,977.56 x 9=
DxE=F Rs. 20,78,798.04/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 21,268/-
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of 44,000 x 4=1,76,000/-
consortium (I) to all the 05 (with 10% enhancement in petitioners terms of Pranay Sethi's MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 20 of 34 judgment).
11 Compensation for loss of Estate 15,000/-
(J) 12 Compensation for funeral 15,000/-
expenses (K) 13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 23,06,066.04/-
(Round off:-
Rs. 23,06,066/-) Minus interim award passed vide - 50,000/-
order dated 09.08.2018
Total: Rs. 22,56,066/-
25. Further, in view of the judgment of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), the claimants are held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 31.05.2018 till realization.
Apportionment:
26. It is evident from the record that the deceased Ramesh Kumar had left behind four legal heirs i.e. his wife Oma (aged about 57 years); son Arun Kumar (aged about 40 years); son Arvind Kumar (aged about 37 years) and another son Rakesh Kumar (aged about 33 years).
For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the dependents of the deceased are tabulated as under:-
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 21 of 34 S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with Amount in (Rupees) deceased
1. Oma Wife Rs. 20,80,066/-
+ Rs. 44,000/-
= Rs. 21,24,066/-
2. Arun Kumar Son Rs. 44,000/-
3. Arvind Kumar Son Rs. 44,000/-
4. Rakesh Kumar Son Rs. 44,000/-
Disbursement
27. On realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.1,24,066/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Four Thousand & Sixty Six only) along with entire interest amount be released to the petitioner no. 1 Oma (wife of the deceased) and her balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) shall be put in 50 (Fifty) monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 50 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 situated near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
28. Further, the amount of Rs. 44,000/- each as loss of consortium along with interest thereupon be released to petitioners no. 2 to 4 namely Arun Kumar, Arvind Kumar and Rakesh Kumar MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 22 of 34 immediately on receipt of the award amount.
29. It is clarified that the aforesaid amounts shall be released to all the petitioners only on submitting the copy of passbook of savings account in a bank near to their residence with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
30. 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. v. 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 MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 23 of 34 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 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.
31. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XV is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 30.05.2017
2. Name of the deceased: Ramesh Kumar
3. Age of the deceased: 56 years, 9 months and 05 days old.
4. Occupation of deceased: Safai Karamchari
5. Income of the deceased: Rs. 33,475/-
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Oma Wife
2. Arun Kumar Son
3. Arvind Kumar Son
4. Rakesh Kumar Son MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 24 of 34 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal 1 Monthly Income of deceased 33,475/-
(A) 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 15%= 5,021.25/- 3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (33,475/- + 5,021.25/) - 1/2= personal and living expenses of 19,248.12/-
the deceased (C) 4 Monthly loss of dependency (33,475+5,021.25/)-
[(A+B) - C = D] 19,248.12=19,248.13/-
5 Annual loss of Dependency 19,248.13 x 12= 2,30,977.56/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 9
7 Total loss of dependency 2,30,977.56 x 9=
DxE=F Rs. 20,78,798.04/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 21,268/-
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of 44,000 x 4=1,76,000/-
consortium (I) to all the 06 (with 10% enhancement in petitioners terms of Pranay Sethi's judgment).
11 Compensation for loss of 15,000/-
Estate (J) 12 Compensation for funeral 15,000/-
expenses (K) 13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 23,06,066.04/-
(Round off:-
Rs. 23,06,066/-) Minus interim award passed - 50,000/-
vide order dated 09.08.2018
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 25 of 34
Total: Rs. 22,56,066/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount up to the date Rs. 11,37,621.27/-
of award (5 years and 7 months
and 11 days)
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 33,93,687.27/-
(rounded off to
Rs. 33,93,687/-)
17 Award amount released As per paragraph No.27
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph No.27
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph No.27
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 14.03.2024
award
LIABILITY:
32. The offending vehicle e-rickshaw bearing registration no.
DL 10ER-0756 was being driven and owned by respondent no.1 and the same was insured with respondent no. 2 IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited.
33. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 argued that the driver/ respondent no. 1 admittedly did not hold a valid license at the time of the accident. He argued that the respondent no. 1 only had a learner's license and he was not accompanied by any person holding a valid license, thus, he cannot be said to hold a valid license. In these circumstances, respondent no. 2 submitted that if he is directed to pay the award amount to the petitioner then he should be given a right to MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 26 of 34 recover the award amount from respondent no. 1.
34. Perusal of the DAR shows that respondent no. 1 only held a learners license. Further, respondent no. 2 examined himself as R1W1 and in his cross-examination, he admitted that "At the time of the accident, I was having only a learners license. I had no other license at that time. No person was having a valid driving license to drive e- rickshaw was not accompanied me at the time of accident." Thus, from the admission of respondent no. 1 in his cross-examination and the entire record, it stands established that the respondent no. 1 had a learners license and he was not accompanied by anyone having a valid driving license.
35. In the case of Beli Ram v. Rajinder Kumar and Others AIR 2020 SC 4453, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"20. The last judgment is of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hem Raj & Ors. This was, once again, a case of an originally valid licence, which had expired, there was no question of a fake licence. It was opined that the conclusions to be drawn from the observations of the judgment in the Swaran Singh case of this Court, were that the insurance company can defend an action on the ground that the driver was not duly licensed on the date of the accident, i.e., an expired licence having not been renewed within thirty (30) days of the expiry of the licence as provided in Sections 14 & 15 of the MV Act. In this context it was observed that the Swaran Singh case did not deal with the consequences if the licence is not renewed within the period of thirty (30) days. If the driving licence is not renewed within thirty (30) days, it was held, the driver neither had an effective driving licence nor can he said to be duly licenced. The conclusion, thus, was that the driver, who permits his licence to expire and does not get it renewed till after the accident, cannot claim that it MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 27 of 34 should be deemed that the licence is renewed retrospectively.
21. The learned Judge debated the question of the consequences of the MV Act being a beneficial piece of legislation. Thus, if two interpretations were possible, it was opined that the one which is in favour of the claimants should be given, but violence should not be done to the clear and plain language of the statute. Thus, while protecting the rights of the claimants by asking the insurance company to deposit the amount, the recovery of the same from the insured would follow as the sympathy can only be for the victim of the accident. The right which has to be protected, is of the victim and not the owner of the vehicle."
36. Thus, Beli Ram (supra) clarifies the position that even if the driving license has expired and the accident takes place during the period when the license was not valid, then also the Insurance Company can avoid its liability, but at the same time Insurance Company has to deposit and recover it from the owner. However, in the present case, the driver only had a learners license. His license was not valid so as to allow him to drive the e-rickshaw without a person holding a valid driving license. The object behind the requirement of driving licenses is to ensure safety of oneself as well as public persons and society at large. Driving without an effective and valid license will only lead to more such accidents as in the present case, thus, hampering the public safety. Thus, drivers sans valid driving licenses have to be discouraged to drive without fulfilling the conditions of the MV Act. The respondent no. 1 has not only violated the conditions of the MV Act and subjected his own life to peril, he has also caused the life of another human being consequently, disrupting an entire family. It has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Beli Ram case (supra) that MV Act is a MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 28 of 34 beneficial legislation but it is the right of the injured that has to be protected and not of the owners or the offenders. Therefore, in the above circumstances and especially, in light of the admission of respondent no. 1 in his cross-examination, the respondent no. 2/ insurance company is absolved from the liability to indemnify the respondent no. 1. However, to meet the ends of justice, respondent no. 2/insurance company shall pay the award amount to the petitioners and thereafter, it may recover the award amount paid from respondent no. 1.
RELIEF:
37. In view of the above, the respondent no. 2 IFFCO-
TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,15,255/-(Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred & Fifty Five only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 31.05.2018 with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Further, as respondent no. 1/ driver did not have a valid license on the date of the accident, respondent no. 2/ insurance company can recover the award amount paid from respondent no. 1.
38. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 29 of 34 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 a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 15.03.2024 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 30 of 34 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court by RUCHI
RUCHI AGGARWAL
today i.e. on this 12th day of February 2024. AGGARWAL ASRANI ASRANI Date:
2024.02.12 18:57:16 +0530 (Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI) PO, MACT-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 31 of 34 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 30.05.2017 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 02.06.2017 (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) Not mentioned 4 Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver 31.05.2018 5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner 31.05.2018 6 Date of filing of the Form- V - Interim Accident 31.05.2018 Report (IAR) 7 Date of receipt of Form-VI from the Victim(s) 31.05.2018 8 Date of filing of Form-VIII - Detail Accident Report 31.05.2018 (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating No Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the 31.05.2018 Insurance Company 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Yes Company admitted his MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 32 of 34 report within 30 days of the DAR? 12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 13 Date of response of the No response claimant(s) to the offer of the Insurance Company. 14 Date of award 12.02.2024 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes savings bank account(s) near their place of residence? 16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank 31.05.2018 Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhar 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 the 25.07.2019 passbook of their savings bank account(s) near the place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 33 of 34 PAN card and Aadhaar Card? 18 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s). As per Award 19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is No near their place of residence? 20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the Award to Yes ascertain his/their financial condition? (Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani) PO, MACT-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. MACT No. 455/2018 Smt. Oma Vs. Rudra Nand Jha & Ors. page 34 of 34