Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Sagar (Husband Of The Deceased ... vs Arvind Kumar & Ors on 26 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 681/2019
CNR No. DLCT010122722019
Aarti Devi (Deceased - Through LRs)
1. Sh. Ram Sagar (Husband of the deceased Aarti Devi)
S/o Sh. Bhagwati Prasad
2. Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta (Son of the deceased Aarti Devi)
S/o Sh. Ram Sagar Gupta
3. Smt. Nandini Gupta (Daughter of the deceased Aarti Devi)
S/o Sh. Ram Sagar Gupta
4. Ms. Sadhana (Daughter of the deceased Aarti Devi)
D/o Sh. Ram Sagar Gupta
5. Aman (Minor Son of the deceased Aarti Devi)
S/o Sh. Ram Sagar Gupta
All Residents of :
R/o 19/233, 3rd Floor, Sarai Basti,
Subhadra Colony, Onkar Nagar,
Delhi110035.
Petitioner No.2 Vinod Kumar Gupta
Also resident of: House No. C13,
Khasra No. 22/1 (Pole No. NGLC 789),
Adhyapak Nagar, Nangloi,
Delhi 110041
......Petitioner
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019
Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 1 of 41
Versus
1. Sh. Arvind Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Khushi Ram,
R/o Village Nangla Kotia,
P.S. Naya Gaun, Distt. Etah, U.P.
2. Sh. Raju (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ram Deva,
R/o H. No. 297, Gali No.13,
Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Office at:
12th Floor, Dr. Gopaldass Bhawan,
28, Barakhamba Road,
Connaught Place, New Delhi110001.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR: 11.09.2019
Arguments concluded on: 26.04.2022
Date of Award: 26.04.2022
A W A R D:
(1) The present Detail Accident Report (DAR) has been filed on
11.09.2019 and has been registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition in
respect of an accident which took place on 08.06.2019 at about 6:00 AM,
Gali No. 10, Industrial Area Tempo Stand Anand Parbat, Delhi
wherein Smt. Aarti Devi sustained fatal injuries.
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019
Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 2 of 41
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The Facts in Brief as emerged from the DAR are that on 08.06.2019 at about 6:30 AM, Vinod Kumar Gupta alongwith his mother Smt. Aarti Devi (since deceased) and infant child in her lap was going from Nehru Nagar to Basti Subhadra Colony in a Scooty bearing registration No. DL1SAD0187. When they reached at Gali No.10, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat Red Light, one Crane bearing registration No. HR77B6752 came from opposite side from New Rohtak Road towards Gol Chakkar which crane being driven by its driver at a high speed, rashly and negligently, as a result of which Vinod Kumar applied sudden brakes but the crane hit his scooty. As a result of impact, Smt. Aarti Devi along with infant Sushant fell down. Smt. Aarti Devi sustained injuries whereas the infant did not sustain any injury. After the accident, Vinod Kumar took his mother to ESI Hospital Basaidarpur from where she was referred to Safdurjung Hospital but during the course of treatment, she expired on 12.06.2019.
(3) A common detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar and respondent no.2 Raju wherein preliminary objections have been raised that the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer is not in accordance with the actual facts and circumstances of the accident which have been suppressed in the DAR. It is pleaded that the respondent no.1 being the driver, is in possession of valid driving license bearing No. UP8220140007597 valid upto 06.05.2021 issued by the concerned State Transport Authority Etah, Uttar Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 3 of 41 Pradesh. It is further pleaded that the respondent no.2 is the owner of Hydra Crane Registration No. HR77B6752 which has been duly insured with respondent no.3 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. GE Plaza Airport Road Vardwada Pune4110006 having its Branch Office at 12th Floor, Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 29, Barakhama Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi vide policy bearing No. OG191101181100002279 valid for the period from 16.03.2019 to 15.03.2020 which was effective at the time of alleged accident. It is further pleaded that the said vehicle has a valid permit issued by Transport Department Haryana as well as had a valid Fitness Certificate and therefore, the respondent no.1 and 2 are not liable to pay any amount to the petitioners under any circumstances, as there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent no.1. According to the respondents, the accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the Scooty bearing registration No. DL1SAD0187 who himself hit against the crane and at the time of alleged accident the crane was driven by its driver in correct side at a very slow speed near Pillar Tempo Stand in front of Juice Shop, Anand Parbat, Gali No.10, Delhi but suddenly the driver of the Scooty stopped his vehicle without any indicator, without observing the traffic rules and without giving any signal/ indicator, collided against the crane. It is further pleaded that the respondents no.1 and 2 cannot be held/ made responsible for the injuries sustained by the victim since the respondent no.1 was not at fault and hence, the claim of the claimants is not maintainable. It is the case of the respondents no.1 and 2 that their vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police at the instance of the complainant only with a Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 4 of 41 view to gain an exaggerated compensation.
(4) The respondent no.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. has also filed a Reply to the DAR wherein it is pleaded that the DAR is vague, incomplete and does not disclose any cause of action. It is pleaded that that the FIR was lodged on 12.06.2019 after a gap of Four Days whereas the accident took place on 08.06.2019 and no reasonable explanation has been given in the FIR for delay in lodging the FIR and hence, there is a reasonable doubt about the involvement of insured vehicle in the alleged accident. It is also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It is further pleaded that without prejudice, the complaint made by the complainant is false and frivolous on the face of it and is only being used as a tool to extort monetary benefits from the respondents. It is also pleaded that the alleged accident took place not on account of negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle rather it was the complainant who was negligent on the road as he was on high speed therefore, he was not able to stop his vehicle and hit the crane. It is further submitted that the respondent no.3 is entitled to take all defences available under Section 147 to 149 of Motor Vehicles Act Act and Section 64 VB of Insurance Act and the liability of the respondent no.3 is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance. It is also pleaded that the respondent no.3 take all the pleas under Section 134 C, 147, 149 and 158 (6) of Motor Vehicles Act. It is pleaded that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the injured/ Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 5 of 41 complainant who had violated the traffic rules and regulations in contravention of Motor Vehicles Act.
ISSUES SETTLED:
(5) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 22.01.2020, this Court/ Tribunal settled the following issues:
i. Whether the deceased had sustained injuries in the accident. If yes, then whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation and to what extent and from whom? (OPP) ii. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased? (OPR) iii. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove their case the LRs of the deceased have examined one witness i.e. Vinod Kumar Gupta (son of the deceased) as PW1. The respondent no.3 Insurance Company has examined its Senior Executive Legal Sh. Ashit Gupta as R3W1. In so far as the respondents no.1 and 2 are concerned, they stopped appearing pursuant to which they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 08.04.2021. (7) For the sake of convenience, the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the petitioner and the respondent no.3 are put in a tabulated form as under:
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 6 of 41 S. Witness Deposition No. Petitioners Evidence:
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar PW1 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta is the son of the deceased Gupta (PW1) Aarti Devi and in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A he has corroborated the version of the Investigating Agency in the DAR. He has placed his reliance upon the following documents:
1. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of Sh. Ram Sagar which is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta which is Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of Ms. Nandini Gupta which is Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
4. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of Ms. Sadhna Gupta which is Ex.PW1/4 (OSR).
5. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of Aman which is Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
6. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of deceased Smt. Aarti Devi which is Ex.PW1/6 (OSR).
7. Photocopy of driving license of Vinod Kumar Gupta which is Ex.PW1/7 (OSR).
8. Complete set of DAR which is Ex.PW1/8 (Colly, running into 101 pages).
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3, the witness has deposed as under: That the accident had taken place on 08.06.2019 when he was going from his house situated at Sarai Basti, Subhadra Colony to Nehru Nagar on his scooty bearing No. DL1S AD 0187.
That perhaps the said scooty was not insured at the time of the accident but later on, the same was insured.
That he does not remember as to when he got the said Scooty insured.
That when he was driving the said Scooty, his mother alongwith his eleven month old child was sitting.
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 7 of 41 That he and his mother were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.
That his deceased mother was not having insurance.
That the offending vehicle was being driven at a speed of about 65 KM per hours.
That the offending vehicle was coming from his front side when it hit his scooty.
That there was no signal on the road and has voluntarily explained that the road was empty and the said road was single road.
That the speed of his scooty was about 1015 kilometers per hours.
That he applied the brake and there was mud on the road.
That the offending vehicle hit his scooty and thereafter, he fell down on left side while his mother fell down on the right side.
That the offending vehicle i.e. crane was taking right turn and due to the collusion he fell down on the left side and his mother fell down on the right side.
That he does not have any proof which shows that his mother was earning Rs.20,000/ per month. That he does not know since when his mother was working in the factory.
That his father is working in a private factory since last ten years and is earning Rs.22,000/ per month.
That Ms. Nandini Gupta is his married sister who was married three years ago i.e. in the April 2016 (approx).
That Ms. Sadhna Gupta is his younger sister who is studying in school.
That Aman is his brother who is 10 years old and studying in school.
That he did his schooling till 12th class and thereafter, he started working in a private factory Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 8 of 41 and earning between Rs.8,000/ to Rs.10,000/ per month.
That they all family members stay together but he does not know since when his mother was working in a private factory.
That due to the condition of his mother due to accident, they all family members were in a state of shock and due to this reason there was a delay in lodging the FIR.
Respondent's Evidence
2. Sh. Ashit Gupta R3W1 Sh. Ashit Gupta, is the Sr. Executive (Legal) of (R3W1) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which Ex.R3W1/A, he has stated the following aspects:
1. That there is noninvolvement of the insured vehicle in the present case.
2. That the deceased was self negligent due to which she fell on the road.
3. That there was a seizure of vehicle after six days and there is also delay in filing of FIR.
4. That no seizure memo has been filed.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the witness has deposed as under: ➢ That he has gone through the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Rajbir.
➢ That he is aware about the duties to be performed by the Insurance Company.
➢ That he does not remember the date when the DAR was served to the Insurance Company.
➢ That in the present case the reply to the DAR was filed by the Insurance Company which was signed by him being the legal officer of the Insurance Company.
➢ That he is not aware whether any Designated Officer was appointed in this case or not.
➢ That no such particulars of the designated Officer has been mentioned in the present case so Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 9 of 41 far.
➢ That it is wrong that his affidavit has been filed belatedly despite the earlier ground that there is no statutory defence available to the Insurance Company.
➢ That it is also wrong that the Insurance Company is liable for enhanced interest during the intervening period.
➢ That he is not an eye witness to the accident.
➢ That his affidavit of evidence was drafted by his advocate.
➢ That para 2 and 3 of the affidavit Ex.R3W1/A are not as per his personal knowledge nor the part of the official record.
➢ That the Investigating Agency has no animosity towards the Insurance Company.
➢ That the Insurance Company has not lodged any complaint against any investigating officer or any private party.
In so far as the respondents no.1 and 2 are concerned, they stopped appearing before this Court/ Tribunal and were proceeded exparte vide order dated 08.04.2021.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(8) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for the petitioners and the respondent no.3. 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 deceased had sustained injuries in the accident. If yes, then whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation and to what extent and from whom?
(OPP) Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 10 of 41 Issue No.2: Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased? (OPR) (9) Both the above issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion. Onus of proving the issue no.1 was upon the petitioners and that of the issue no.2 upon the respondents. (10) The case of the petitioners is that on 08.06.2019 at about 6:30 AM, Vinod Kumar Gupta alongwith his mother Smt. Aarti Devi (since deceased) and infant child in her lap was going from Nehru Nagar to Basti Subhadra Colony on a Scooty bearing registration No. DL1SAD0187.
When they reached at Gali No.10, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat Red Light, one Crane bearing registration No. HR77B6752 came from opposite side from New Rohtak Road towards Gol Chakkar which crane being driven by its driver at a high speed, rashly and negligently, as a result of which Vinod Kumar applied sudden brakes but the crane hit his scooty. As a result of impact, Smt. Aarti Devi along with infant Sushant fell down. Smt. Aarti Devi sustained injuries whereas the infant did not sustain any injury. After the accident, Vinod Kumar took his mother to ESI Hospital Basaidarpur from where she was referred to Safdurjung Hospital but during the course of treatment, she expired on 12.06.2019. According to the petitioners, the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Crane bearing registration No. HR77B6752 by the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar.
(11) The respondents no.1 and 2 have disputed the involvement of their vehicle and claimed that the accident had taken place due to the sole Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 11 of 41 negligence of the driver of the Scooty bearing registration No. DL1SAD 0187 who himself hit against the crane and at the time of alleged accident the crane was driven by its driver in correct side at a very slow speed near Pillar Tempo Stand in front of Juice Shop, Anand Parbat, Gali No.10, Delhi but suddenly the driver of the Scooty stopped his vehicle without any indicator, without observing the traffic rules and without giving any signal/ indicator and collided against the crane. It is the case of the respondents that they cannot be held/ made responsible for the injuries sustained by the victim since the respondent no.1 was not at fault. (12) In so far the respondent no.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, they have also disputed the involvement of offending vehicle in the alleged accident. It is also alleged that the accident in question took place not on the account of negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle rather it was the complainant who was negligent on the road as he was on high speed therefore, he was not able to stop his vehicle and hit the crane.
(13) In order to prove their case, the petitioners have examined Vinod Kumar Gupta (son of the deceased) as their sole witness as PW1 whereas the respondent no.3 Insurance Company has examined its Senior Legal Executive Sh. Ashit Gupta as R3W1 and the respondents no.1 and 2 stopped appearing before this Court/ Tribunal and were proceeded exparte. (14) 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 testimonies of the various witnesses examined.
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 12 of 41 My observations and findings are as under:
Identity of the respondent no.1 as Driver of the offending vehicle:
(15) Coming first to the identity of the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar as the Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Crane bearing No. HR77B6752, I may note that the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar has nowhere disputed that he was not driving the alleged offending vehicle at the time of accident. In his statement dated 16.10.2019 recorded under Section 165 of Evidence Act, the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar has admitted that he was driving the crane in question at the time of accident on 08.06.2019. He has, however, stated that the said accident did not occur due to his rash and negligent driving and in fact there was no collision between the crane and the scooty and no accident was caused with his vehicle. Therefore, the respondent no.1 Arvind having admitted that he was driving the crane at the time of accident, I hold that the identity of the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar as driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Crane bearing No. HR77B6752 stands established.
Rashness and Negligence attributed to the respondent no.1: (16) Now coming to the aspect of rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar. According to the petitioners, the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Crane bearing No. HR77B6752. On the other hand the case of the respondents is that no accident took place with the Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 13 of 41 crane in question and the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Scooty bearing No. DL1SAD0187. (17) 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. (18) I may observe that the present FIR has been registered on the basis of statement of Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW1) who is the son of the deceased and is an eye witness to the accident being the driver of the Scooty bearing No. DL1SAD0187. In his first statement given to the Investigating Agency, Vinod Kumar Gupta had provided the details of the offending vehicle i.e. Crane of Hydra ACB Company bearing registration No. HR77B6752. He had informed the police that when he along with Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 14 of 41 his mother Smt. Aarti Devi and his son Sushant (infant aged 11 months) reached slightly ahead to Gali No.10, Industrial Area Anand Parbat near a Juice Shop at about 6:30 AM; a crane of Hydra ABC Company bearing No. HR77B6752 came from the opposite direction from Gali No.10 Red Light of Anand Parbat Industrial Area and was going towards Gol Chakkar at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently. According to Vinod Kumar Gupta, after seeing the crane coming from the front side, he applied the brakes of his scooty but the driver of the crane hit his scooty as a result of which Smt. Aarti Devi fell down from the scooty and his infant child escaped unhurt.
(19) Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3 has raised an argument that there is a delay of four days in lodging of FIR which raises a doubt with regard to the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident in question. In this regard, I may observe that the complainant Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW1) has explained the said delay in his crossexamination and stated that on account of the condition of his mother, all the family members in a state of shock due to which reason there was a delay in lodging the FIR. A valid explanation having been forthcoming for delay in lodging the FIR, no benefit of the same can be given to the respondents. (20) It is also evident from the certified copy of the chargesheet placed on record along with the DAR that there is another eye witness to the accident namely Amitabh S/o Dayaram who is a Tempo Driver by profession and was present at the spot. The statement of the said witness Amitabh was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 15 of 41 "...... Dinank 08.06.2019 ko subah ke samay main Tempo Stand B8 Juice ki duikan par khada tha ki Nehru Nagar ki taraf se ek Scooty wala jiske piche ek aurat ek chote bachche ko liye baithi thi. Scooty chalak Helmet lagaye apni scooty lekar Tempo Stand Gali No.10 se hota hua New Rohtak Road ki taraf ja raha tha. Jo New Rohtak Road ki taraf se ek Hydra Crane No. HR77B6752 ka chaalak apni crane ko lekar Nehru Nagar ki taraf ja raha tha. Jo samne se hydra crane aati dekh scooty chaalak ne apni scooty ko rok liya. Crane Chaalak ne apni crane ka agla hissa scooty ko touch kiya to scooty par baithi aurat piche ki taraf gir gayi tatha crane ke agle tatha pichle pahiyon ke bich me aa gyi tatha pichle ke bich aa jane se usey chot aayi to main va vahan par khade log chillaye to usne apni crane ko roka or humne miljulkar us aurat ko crane ke niche se uthaya or hospital bhijwane ke lioye kisi vehicle ka intzar karne lage. Tabhi crane chaalak apni crane ko lekar vahan se chala gya. Jo crane chaalak ko main samne aane par pehchaan sakta hoon kyonki Crane chaalak isi area me crane chalata hai....".
(21) I may note that the presence of this witness Amitabh is natural at the spot of accident since he is a Tempo Driver by profession and a perusal of the site plan shows the presence of a Tempo Stand near the Gol Chakkar Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 16 of 41 and also shows the presence of Juice Shop where Amitabh was standing.
Also, there is nothing on record that the witness Amitabh has any kind of animosity with the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar. In fact, this public witness Amitabh claimed that he knew the respondent no.1 since he was operating the crane in the area and did not name him in his statement. there is no reason why Amitabh would have falsely implicated the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar. The site plan also confirms the version of the complainant and public witness Amitabh to the effect that the Scooty and the Crane were coming from opposite directions to each other. (22) Perusal of the record also reveals that the complainant Vinod Kumar Gupta had provided a photograph of Crane bearing No. HR77B 6752 to the Investigating Officer claiming that he had clicked the said photo from his mobile camera while the crane drove away after causing the accident. This version of the complainant Vinod Kumar Gupta also finds due corroboration from the statement of public witness Amitabh who had informed the Investigating Officer that after causing the accident, the driver of the crane drove the crane away it was for this reason that provisions of Sections 134(1)/187 of Motor Vehicles Act were also invoked against the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar.
(23) Further, the Mechanical Inspection Report of the Scooty bearing No. DL1SAD0187 shows that the left side, both side body beadings were slightly scratched whereas there are no fresh damages on the Crane bearing No. HR77B6752. The mechanical inspection reports corroborate the version of the public witness Amitabh to the effect that Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 17 of 41 when the Scotty was stopped, the crane touched the Scooty as a result of which Smt. Aarti Devi fell down on the road. The respondents no.1 and 2 have not led any evidence to controvert or rebut the case of the petitioners or to show any kind of rashness or negligence on the part of complainant Vinod Kumar Gupta, rather they stopped appearing and were proceeded exparte. I may also note that during the course of investigations, the Investigating Officer had moved an application for getting the Test Identification Parade of the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar conducted, but the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar refused to participate in the same. The uncontroverted testimony of eye witness Vinod Kumar (PW1) identifying the respondent no.1, confirming the accident and also describing the manner of the accident in Delhi cannot be ignored since despite having disputed the accident in the reply/ written statement, no evidence has been led in rebuttal by the respondent no.1.
(24) The testimony of eye witness Vinod Kumar (PW1) and statement of independent public witness Amitabh coupled with the circumstantial evidence on record in the form of site plan, mechanical inspection report etc. shows that after seeing the crane coming from the opposite direction, Vinod Kumar Gupta stopped his scooty but the crane driver did not stop the crane and slightly hit the scooty as a result of which Smt. Aarti Devi fell down and sustained injuries. The rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar is writ large from the fact that he did not stop the crane after seeing that the scooty driver had stopped his scooty and even after causing the accident, he fled away from the spot.
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 18 of 41 (25) Therefore, by application of the principles of Preponderance of Probabilities, I hereby hold that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Crane bearing No. HR77B6752 by the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar.
Injuries caused to the deceased:
(26) In so far as the aspect of Injuries caused to the deceased Aarti Devi are concerned, I have gone through the photocopy of the MLC of the deceased placed on record along with the DAR. It is evident from the same that the injured Smt. Aarti Devi was brought to ESIC Hospital, Basaidarapur, New Delhi on 08.06.2019 at 8:10 AM with alleged history Road Traffic Accident near Anand Parbat Gali No. 10 at approximately 6:27 AM as told by 'Brought By' her son Vinod. On local examination the injured was complaining of pain with lacerated wound at perineal region and pain in B/L Hip. Thereafter, she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi where she expired on 12.06.2019 at 1:15 AM. The copy of the Postmortem Report is also placed on record along with the DAR which shows that the deceased had suffered fracture of 9th and 10th ribs of left side in midclavicular line with extravasation of blood along with the fracture line and surrounding tissues. Further, there was a fracture of right iliac blade, superior and inferior public rami with extravasation of blood along with fracture line and its surrounding tissues. As per the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, the death is due to Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 19 of 41 shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained to abdomen and pelvis consequent upon blunt force impact, all injuries are antemortem in nature and possible in the manner as alleged. (27) The respondents have not disputed the factum of death of Aarti Devi consequent upon the injuries caused to her in the accident in question nor there is any evidence on record to the contrary. Therefore, it stands established that the deceased Smt. Aarti Devi had expired on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident in question. (28) This being the background and coupled with the fact that the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar has been made an accused in FIR No. 127/2019, PS Anand Parbat under Sections 279/304A IPC and has been chargesheeted in the said case, I hereby hold that the deceased Aarti Devi had expired on account of the injuries suffered by her in a road traffic accident which took place on 08.06.2019 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Anand Parbat on account of rash and negligent driving of Crane bearing No. HR77B6752 by the respondent no.1 Arvind Singh.
Computation of Compensation to the LRs of the deceased:
(29) Now coming to the aspect of compensation to the LRs of the deceased. The case of the petitioners is that the deceased Smt. Aarti Devi was doing the job of packing the material in a Factory and was earning Rs.20,000/ per month. The petitioners are claiming a total compensation to the tune of Rs.30,03,760/.
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 20 of 41 (30) In so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, they have not given any legal/ reasoned offer.
(31) 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 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 Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 21 of 41 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.
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.
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 22 of 41 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....." .
(32) 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 Aarti Devi was aged about 41 years at the time of accident. In this regard, the petitioners have placed on record the copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased Aarti Devi which is Ex.PW1/6 showing her date of birth as 05.01.1978. Accordingly, the deceased Smt. Aarti Devi was precisely aged 41 years, 5 months and 3 days at the time of accident on 08.06.2019.
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 41 years and 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 Fourteen (14).
(33) Now coming to the Income of the Deceased, I may observe that according to the petitioners the deceased Aarti Devi was doing the job of packing in a factory and was earning Rs.20,000/ per month. In this regard, I may note that the petitioner no.2 Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW1) has admitted that he does not have any proof which shows that his mother was earning Rs.20,000/ per month nor does he aware since when his mother was working in the factory. The petitioners have not placed on record any document in the form of Income Tax Return or Bank Statement etc. Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 23 of 41 showing that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/ per month. Further, the petitioners have not placed on record any document showing the educational qualification of the deceased Aarti Devi. Therefore, there being no proof or document showing the income of the deceased, I hold that the minimum wages for unskilled worker prevailing at the time of accident on 08.06.2019 i.e. Rs.14,468/ (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Eight only) shall be considered as income of the deceased.
(34) In so far as the aspect of Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased is concerned, I may note that the deceased Aarti Devi had left behind Five Legal Heirs as under:
1. Ram Sagar (Husband) aged 47 years.
2. Vinod Kumar Gupta (Son) aged 23 years.
3. Nandini Gupta (Daughter) aged 21 years.
4. Sadhna Gupta (Daughter) aged 16 years.
5. Aman (Son) aged 10 years.
(35) By adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) the Future Prospects at the rate of 25% shall be added and deductions in the income of the deceased towards her living and personal expenses would be one fourth of her income.
(36) Coming next to the Compensation under nonpecuniary heads, I may note that the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 24 of 41 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. 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."
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 25 of 41 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 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 Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 26 of 41 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.....".
(37) 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...".
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 27 of 41 (38) In view of the above, a sum of Rs.15,000/ each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. It has come on record that the one of the daughter of the deceased namely Nandini Gupta has married and hence, she would not be entitled to compensation or consortium. Therefore, a sum of Rs.40,000/ each towards Loss of Consortium is awarded to the husband, sons and daughter of the deceased. (39) 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) 14,468 per month
(as per minimum wages)
2. Add future prospect (B) @ 25% = 3,617/
3. Less 1/4th deduction towards personal (14,468 + 3,617) / 4 = and living expenses of the deceased 4,521/ (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (14,468 + 3,617) - 4,521 = [(A+B) - C = D] 13,564/
5. Annual loss of Dependency (D x 12) 13,564 x 12 = 1,62,768/ 6. Multiplier (E) 14
7. Total loss of dependency 162768 x 14 = 22,78,752/ D x 12 x E = F
8. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
10. Compensation for loss of consortium 40,000 x 4= 1,60,000/ (I) Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 28 of 41
11. Compensation for loss of Estate (J) 15,000
12. Compensation for funeral expenses 15,000 (K)
13. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K 24,68,752/ = L) Round off: 24,69,000/ (40) 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 11.09.2019 till realization and at the rate of 12% w.e.f. 08.04.2021 till 29.03.2022 (Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 29.03.2022 this Court/ Tribunal had directed that the period during which the proceedings have been delayed i.e. after 08.04.2021 till 29.03.2022, the interest shall be enhanced to 12% which the respondent no.3 Insurance Company shall be at liberty to deduct the interest for the above period of delay out of the salary of the erring officer).
Apportionment:
(41) There are Five Legal Heirs of the deceased Aarti Devi i.e. Ram Sagar (Husband), Vinod Kumar Gupta (Son), Nandini Gupta (Married Daughter), Sadhna Gupta (Daughter) and Aman (Son). However, the daughter namely Nandini Gupta has been married and hence, she shall not be entitled to any compensation. For the sake of convenience, the Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 29 of 41 individual shares of the Legal Heirs of the deceased are tabulated as under:
Sr. Name of the Relation with Percentage of Amount in No. claimant deceased award amount (Rs.) 1 Ram Sagar Husband 40% 9,87,000/ 2 Vinod Kumar Son 20% 4,93,800/ Gupta 3 Sadhna Gupta Daughter 20% 4,93,800/ 4 Aman Son 20% 4,93,800/ Disbursement:
(42) The Financial Statement of the petitioner no.1 Ram Sagar was recorded by this Court/ Tribunal on 26.04.2022 according to which he is working in a Factory and earn Rs.22,000/ per month. According to the petitioner no.1, his family consists of himself, his elder son Vinod Kumar Gupta (married), Sadhna Gupta (unmarried daughter) and Aman (minor son) and daughter in law Savita. The petitioner no.1 further stated that his elder son namely Vinod Kumar Gupta is working in a private firm and earn Rs.15,000/ per month with which household expenses are being taken care of. According to him, his monthly family expenses are about Rs.45,000/ per month.
(43) Keeping in view the above, I hereby direct that in so far as the petitioner no.1 Ram Sagar (Husband of the deceased) is concerned, on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.87,600/ plus entire interest amount be released to him from his share and the balance amount of Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 30 of 41 Rs.9,00,000/ (Rupees Nine Lacs) shall be put in Ninety 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 90 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.1 Ram Sagar shall be at liberty to seek the release of Rs.87,600/ plus entire interest amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself. (44) In so far as the petitioner no.2 Vinod Kumar Gupta (Son of the deceased) is concerned, on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.93,800/ be released to him from his share and the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/ (Rupees Four Lacs) shall be put in Forty 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 40 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 Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 31 of 41 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 Vinod Kumar Gupta shall be at liberty to seek the release of Rs.93,800/ from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself. (45) In so far as the petitioner no.4 Sadhna Gupta (Unmarried Daughter of the deceased) is concerned, on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.93,800/ be released to her from her share and the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/ (Rupees Four Lacs) shall be put in Forty 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 40 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 same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. The petitioner no.4 Sadhna Gupta shall be at liberty to seek the release of Rs.93,800/ from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 32 of 41 (46) Now coming to the petitioner no.5 Aman (Minor son of the deceased). Since he is a minor, therefore, I direct that his entire share shall be kept in an FDR till he attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of majority, the entire maturity amount along with interest shall be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM Card and 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 or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. (47) 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.
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 33 of 41
(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 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.
(48) 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: 08.06.2019
2. Name of the deceased: Aarti Devi
3. Age of the deceased: 41 years
4. Occupation of the deceased: Not proved
5. Income of the deceased: Rs.14,468/ (As per minimum wages) Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 34 of 41
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
Sr. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Ram Sagar 47 years Husband
(ii) Vinod Kumar Gupta 23 years Son
(iii) Nandani Gupta 21 years Married Daughter
(not dependent)
(iv) Sadhna Gupta 19 years Daughter
(v) Aman 13 years Son
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims
No. Tribunal
7 Annual Income of deceased (A) 14,468 per month
(as per minimum wages)
8 Add future prospect (B) @ 25% = 3,617/
9 Less 1/4th deductions towards (14,468 + 3,617) / 4 =
personal and living expenses of 4,521/
the deceased (C)
10 Monthly loss of dependency (14,468 + 3,617) - 4,521
[(A+B) - C = D] = 13,564/
11 Annual loss of Dependency 13,564 x 12 = 1,62,768/
(D x 12)
12 Multiplier (E) 14
13 Total loss of dependency 162768 x 14 =
DxE=F 22,78,752/
14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15 Compensation for loss of love Nil
and affection (H)
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 35 of 41 16 Compensation for loss of 40,000 x 4= 1,60,000/ consortium (I) 17 Compensation for loss of Estate 15,000 (J) 18 Compensation for funeral 15,000 expenses (K) 19 Total Compensation 24,68,752/ (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Round off: 24,69,000/ 20 Rate of Interest Awarded w.e.f. 6% 11.09.2019 to 07.04.2021 and w.e.f. 30.03.2022 till date Rate of Interest Awarded w.e.f. 12% 07.04.2021 to 29.03.2022 21 Interest amount upto the date of 5,28,873/ award (L) (2 Years, 7 Months and 4 Days) 22 Total amount including interest Rs.29,97,873/ 23 Award amount released As per paragraphs no. 43 to 46 24 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraphs no. 43 to 46 25 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraphs no. 43 award amount to the claimant(s) to 46 26 Next Date of compliance of the 27.05.2022 award Liability:
(49) In so far as the liability to pay the award amount is concerned, the case of respondent no.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
has raised a defence in the Written Statement that the driver of the Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 36 of 41 offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective Driving License at the time of accident. In this regard, I may note that as per the DAR the respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar was having a valid Driving License bearing No. UP8220140007597 issued from Etah, Uttar Pradesh. In fact the witness of the respondent no.3 Insurance Company namely Ashit Gupta (R3W1) has not stated in his affidavit of evidence Ex.R3W1/A that the respondent no.1 was not having any Driving License at the time of accident.
(50) Therefore, the offending Crane bearing No. HR77B6752 being driven by respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar; respondent no.2 Raju being the registered owner and the respondent no.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. being the Insurer, all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. as on the day of accident, it is respondent no.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners under the statutory liability.
(51) Both the issues are accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
(52) Since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. therefore, the respondent no.3 Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 37 of 41 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.24,69,000/ (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs, Sixty Nine Thousand only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 11.09.2019 till realization and @ 12% for the period 08.04.2021 till 29.03.2022. 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.
(53) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. for compliance within the time granted. Respondent No.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance 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 Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 38 of 41 the deposit with upto date interest with a copy to the Ld. Counsel for the claimants namely Sh. Atul Rathi Advocate, Chamber No. 206, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Mobile No. 9810540219). (54) 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.
(55) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 26.04.2022 PO, MACT01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 39 of 41 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 11.09.2019 2 Date of filing of FormI - First Accident Not Applicable being a case of 2019 Report (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of FormII to the Not Applicable being a case of 2019 victim(s) 4 Date of receipt of FormIII from the Not Applicable being a case of 2019 Driver 5 Date of receipt of FormIV from the Not Applicable being a case of 2019 Owner 6 Date of filing of the FormV - Interim Not Applicable being a case of 2019 Accident Report (IAR) 7 Date of receipt of FormVIA and Form Not Applicable being a case of 2019 VIB from the Victim(s) 8 Date of filing of FormVIII - Detail 11.09.2019 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 No
within 30 days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency Yes. There is a delay on the part of
on the part of the Designated Officer of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Insurance Company? If so, whether any Company who did not file a legal/ action/direction warranted? reasoned offer within 30 days of the DAR. Rather, the same was filed only on 22.01.2020 Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 40 of 41 13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the No legal/ reasoned offer given by the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company 14 Date of award 26.04.2022 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) 11.09.2019 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 26.04.2022 the passbook of their savings bank PAN Card No. of petitioner no.1 is account(s) near the place of their residence DUTPS5918F; PAN Card No. of alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and petitioner no.2 is BYYPF7231C Aadhaar Card? (PAN Card of petitioner no.3 - Not produced) 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 petitioner no.1 was recored on ascertain his/their financial condition? 26.04.2022 (Dr. KAMINI LAU) PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 26.04.2022 Aarti Devi (Deceased - through LRs) Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 681/2019 Award dated 26.04.2022 Page No. 41 of 41