Delhi District Court
Smt. Rajni (Wife) vs Sh. Gurubhej Singh (DriverCumOwner) on 6 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU:JUDGE (MACT)01 CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI MACT No. 444/2020 CNR No. DLCT010063302020 FIR No. 148/2020 PS : I. P. Estate U/s. 279/337/304A IPC Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh (Deceased) 1. Smt. Rajni (Wife) W/o Late Sh. Sinder Pal 2. Ms. Anjali Kaur (Daughter) D/o Late Sh. Sinder Pal 3. Sh. Jai Singh (Son) S/o Late Sh. Sinder Pal 4. Smt. Raj Rani (Mother) W/o Late Sh. Dara Singh All R/o H. No. 15/3, East Guru Angad Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi. ......... Petitioners Versus 1. Sh. Gurubhej Singh (Drivercumowner) S/o Sh. Raghbir Singh R/o D14, 1st Floor, opp. Mother Dairy Pandav Nagar, Mandawali, East Delhi 2. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer) DTJ 415, 4th Floor, DLF TowerB Jasola District Centre, New Delhi25. .......... Respondents Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 1 of 38 Date of filing of DAR: 05.10.2020 Arguments concluded on: 08.12.2022 Date of Award: 06.01.2023 AWARD: (1) The present Detail Accident Report (DAR) was filed on 05.10.2020 and was registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition regarding an accident which took place on 21.07.2020 at 10:40 PM at Vikas Marg towards Laxmi Nagar near Old PHQ, I. P. Estate, Delhi wherein Sinder Pal sustained Fatal Injuries. BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The Facts in Brief as they emerged from the DAR are that on 21.07.2020 Sindar Pal @ Surender Singh along with Gurubhej Singh (i.e. respondent no.1) was going towards Laxmi Nagar from ITO on a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 3SEN0983 (Splendor) which was being driven by Gurubhej Singh and Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh as pillion rider. At about 10:38 PM when they reached Vikas Marg towards Laxmi Nagar, near PHQ, Delhi suddenly the driver of the motorcycle lost his control over the motorcycle since the said motorcycle was not having the carrier behind the seat and hit against the divider with great force as a result of which the pillion rider Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The injured Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh was Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 2 of 38 taken to Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi by the PCR Van where his MLC was prepared by the doctor and thereafter, he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where he expired during treatment on 24.07.2020 at 12:40 AM. Pursuant to the accident an FIR bearing no. 148/2020 under Sections 279/337/304A IPC was registered at Police Station I.P. Estate. (3) A detailed written statement / reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 (Driver cum Owner) namely Gurubhej Singh wherein preliminary objections have been raised that the DAR is devoid of any cause of action against the respondent no.1 and hence the same is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is pleaded that the DAR is false, fictitious, baseless and malafide and and does not disclose any sort of negligence on the part of respondent no.1 and has been filed in gross abuse and misuse of process of law only with a view to harass the respondents and to extract money from them. It is further pleaded that the respondent no.1 was not driving the offending in rash and negligence manner and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself and hence his LRs are not entitled for any claim against the respondent no.1. It is also pleaded that the respondent no.1 was coming from his work and when he reached in front of Old Police Head Quarter, near ITO, New Delhi due to low vision the motorcycle struck with a brick which was lying middle of the road and due to the sudden hit, the motorcycle of the respondent no.1 slipped and fell down on the road along with the deceased who was the pillion rider. It is further pleaded that the respondent no.1/ driver Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 3 of 38 of the alleged offending vehicle had tried to avoid the said incident but due to low vision and brick on the middle of the road, he was unable to control the vehicle and the government machinery is liable to pay compensation to the deceased for their negligent. It is also pleaded that in the said accident, the respondent no.1 also received grievous injuries, fracture upon toe of the left leg and other multiple injuries all over body. It is further pleaded that the respondent no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation since the said offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL3SEN0983 is duly insured with TATA AIG General Insurance from 12.01.2020 to 11.01.2025, vide Policy No. 3191402047/000000/00 and hence the liability, if any, is of the Insurance Company.
(4) In so far as the respondent no.2 TATA AIG General Insurance Company is concerned, a detailed written statement / reply is filed wherein it is conceded that the offending motorcycle was duly insured with TATA AIG General Insurance from 12.01.2020 to 11.01.2025, vide Policy No. 3191402047/000000/00 to cover third party risk. It is pleaded that as per the case of the police, the offending motorcycle fell down on the road due to speed of the vehicle and since there was no supporting carrier on the pillion seat and the air in the front tyre of the said motorcycle was almost nil, the deceased fell down pursuant to which Section 52 and 177 of Motor Vehicles Act have been added in the charge sheet as the vehicle was altered by removing the carrier support. It is further pleaded that as per the DAR, there is no eye witness to the alleged accident, Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 4 of 38 however, one person namely Bheem Prakash informed the SHO Police Station I. P. Estate vide his letter dated 18.08.2020 that he had witnessed the accident and a copy of the said letter had been sent by him to concerned ACP, DCP and ACP of MACT Cell, Rajinder Nagar, however, the perusal of the contents of the said letter dated 18.08.2020 shows that the aforesaid person has been planted by the Investigating Officer as an eye witness and it is surprising that the police could not find any eye witness either at the place of accident or in the hospital whereas it is clearly mentioned in the aforesaid intimation by the Bheem Prakash that the said incident had been witnessed by him and many other persons. It is also pleaded that both the driver and pillion rider of the offending motorcycle fell down on the road, however, it is surprising that only driver has not sustained any injury as there is no document pertaining to his injury and treatment in any hospital.
ISSUES FRAMED:
(5) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 08.03.2021 this Court/ Tribunal has settled the following issues:
1. Whether the accident had taken place on account of negligence of the deceased himself (Contributory Negligence) ? (OPR1)
2. Whether the deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh had expired in the vehicular accident which had taken place on 21.07.2020 at 10:40 PM at Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr.
MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 5 of 38 Vikas Marg towards Laxmi Nagar near Old PHQ I. P. Estate, Delhi on account of the rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Motorcycle) bearing No. DL 3SEN 0983 by the respondent no. 1 Gurubhej Singh? (OPP)
3. Whether the LRs of deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh are entitled to compensation? If yes, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
4. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove their case the Legal Heirs of the deceased have examined only witness i.e. Smt. Rajni wife of the deceased as PW1. In so far as the respondents are concerned, both the respondents have not examined any witness despite opportunity in this regard. However, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 Insurance Company relied upon the DAR and the documents attached with the same including the charge sheet in which the provisions of Sections 52/177 of Motor Vehicle Act have been invoked against the respondent no. 1 for removing the carrier behind the seat, which DAR is Ex.PW1/G (Page no. 24,25 and 26) which is not disputed.
(7) For the sake of convenience, the testimony of wife of the deceased namely Rajni (PW1) is put in tabulated form as under:
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr.
MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 6 of 38
S. Witness Deposition
No.
1 Smt. Rajni PW1 Rajni is the wife of deceased who in her
(PW1) examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A
has corroborated the version of the Investigating Agency in the DAR. She has placed her reliance upon the following documents:
1. Photocopy of driving license of deceased Sinder Pal which is Ex.PW1/B (OSR)
2. Photocopy of PAN Card of deceased Sinder Pal which is Ex.PW1/C (OSR)
3. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of of petitioner no. 1 Rajni which is Ex.PW1/D (OSR).
4. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of of petitioner no. 2 Anjali which is Ex.PW1/E (OSR).
5. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of of petitioner no. 3 Jai Singh which is Ex.PW1/F (OSR).
6. Complete set of DAR which is Ex.PW1/G (Colly. Running into 100 sheets).
7. Printout of online payment fees receipt of petitioner 2 Anjali which is Ex.PW1/H (colly, sunning into 02 sheets).
8. Printout of online payment fees receipt of petitioner 3 Jai Singh which is Ex.PW1/I (colly, sunning into 03 sheets).
In her crossexamination by Ld. Counsels for respondents, the witness has deposed as under: That she is a housewife.
That she is not aware of contents of her affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A. That she is not an eye witness of the accident. That she was informed about the manner of accident by some person on her phone, however, she does not know his name.
That her deceased husband was not related with the respondent no.1 Gurubhej Singh but they were working at the same place.
That her husband was shifted to Lady Harding Hospital by the police after accident.
That except the treatment record of her deceased husband which has been filed in the DAR, she does not have any other document. That her deceased husband was 9th class passed but she does not have any document in this regard.
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 7 of 38 That she does not have any document with regard to the employment and earning of her deceased husband.
That it is wrong that her deceased husband was not earning Rs.18,000/ per month while working as a driver with M/s NG Travels.
That her both children are studying at present. That her deceased husband has one brother who is married and residing with them.
That it is wrong that her brother in law was not financially dependent upon her deceased husband.
That it is wrong that on the date of accident, her deceased husband was travelling on a motorcycle which was not having its carrier, under the influence of alcohol and the tyre of the motorcycle was also not having proper air. That it is wrong that her deceased husband fell down from the motorcycle on which he was travelling, due to his own negligence.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(8) I have perused the record placed before me and considered the submissions made before me. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether the accident had taken place on account of negligence of the deceased himself (Contributory Negligence)? (OPR1) Issue No.2: Whether the deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh had expired in the vehicular accident which had taken place on 21.07.2020 at 10:40 PM at Vikas Marg towards Laxmi Nagar near Old PHQ I. P. Estate, Delhi on account of the rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Motorcycle) bearing No. DL 3SEN 0983 by the respondent no. 1 Gurubhej Singh? (OPP) Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 8 of 38 (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 respondent no.1 Gurbhej Singh and of issue no.2 upon the petitioners.
(10) The case of the petitioners who are the Legal Heirs of the deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh is that on 16.04.2017 Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh along with Gurubhej Singh (i.e. respondent no.1) was going towards Laxmi Nagar from ITO on a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL3SEN0983 (Splendor) which was being driven by Gurubhej Singh and Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh was the pillion rider. At about 10:38 PM when they reached Vikas Marg towards Laxmi Nagar, near PHQ, Delhi suddenly the respondent no.1 lost his control over the motorcycle because the said motorcycle was not having the carrier behind the seat and hit against the divider with great force as a result of which the pillion rider Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The injured Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh was taken to Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi by the PCR Van from where he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where he expired during treatment on 24.07.2020 at 12:40 AM. According to the petitioners, Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh had expired on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing no. DL 2SEN0983 by the respondent no.1 Gurbhej Singh. In order to prove their case the petitioners have examined Smt. Rajni (wife of the deceased) as their sole witness as PW1.
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 9 of 38 (11) On the other hand the respondent no.1 Gurbhej Singh has denied the rashness and negligence so attributed to him. According to him, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The case of the respondent no.1 is that he was coming from his work and when he reached in front of Old Police Head Quarter, near ITO, New Delhi due to low vision the motorcycle struck with a brick which was lying middle of the road and slipped due to the same when he along with the deceased fell down on the road. However, the respondent no.1 has not examined any witness despite opportunity in this regard. (12) I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record including the DAR and the documents attached along with the same. I have also gone through the testimony of the petitioner. My findings are as under:
Identity of the respondent no.1 as Driver of the offending vehicle Not Disputed:
(13) Coming first to the identity of the respondent no.1 Gurbhej Singh as the Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing No. DL2SEN0983. I note there is no dispute with regard to the same since the respondent no.1 has in his written statement duly admitted that he was driving the above motorcycle on which the deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh was the pillion rider, though he has denied the rashness and negligence so attributed to him. This being the background, I hold that the identity of the respondent no.1 Gurbhej Singh as driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing No. Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr.
MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 10 of 38 DL2SEN0983 stands established.
Injuries caused to the deceased:
(14) In so far as the aspect of Injuries caused to the deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh are concerned, I have gone through the copy of MLC of Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh prepared at Lady Hardinge Medical College, Delhi showing that the injured Surender Singh was brought to the hospital on 21.07.2020 at 11:19 PM by one Gurjeet Singh with alleged history of RTA at ITO, PHQ around 11 PM today. On local examination there was a polytrauma with bleeding from oral cavity and other sites. The copy of Death Summary issued by Vardhman Mahavir Medical College, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi shows that the injured was declared dead on 24.07.2020 at 12:40 AM. The cause of death has been opined by the Autopsy Surgeon to be Craniocerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact to the head. All injuries were antemortem in origin and could be possible in the manner of road traffic accident. The respondents have not disputed the factum of death of Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh consequent upon the injuries caused to him in the accident in question nor there is any evidence on record to the contrary. Therefore, it stands established that Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh had expired on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question.
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 11 of 38 Rashness and Negligence attributed to the respondent no.1:
(15) Now coming to the aspect of rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent Gurbhej Singh. According to the petitioners, the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Motorcycle bearing No. DL2SEN0983 by the respondent no.1 Gurbhej Singh. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 has denied the rashness and negligence so attributed to him and has alleged negligence on the part of the deceased himself.
(16) I have considered the rival contentions and the testimonies of the witnesses. 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 for purposes of conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas 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 probabilities. It would be sufficient if the surrounding circumstances and the material on record establishes Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr.
MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 12 of 38 the allegations of rashness and negligence made against the driver of the offending vehicle. In a case where the Criminality is an issue, the principles applicable would be proof beyond reasonable doubt but being a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, this Court/ Tribunal is required to determine the compensation on the basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities. (17) Further, I may observe that Contributory Negligence is a behaviour that contributes to one's own injury or loss and fails to meet the standard of prudence that one should observe for one's own good. Contributory Negligence is when any person suffered damages as a result of his/ her own fault and also partly due to fault of the other side. It involves violation of duty, breach and causation and is complete defence while evaluating the extent of liability and compensation. (18) Now coming to the merits of the present case. I have gone through the documents placed on record. The various aspects as borne out from the record are detailed as under:
(19) Firstly, as per the copy of chargesheet filed along with the DAR, on 21.07.2020 at 22:46:37 hours an information was received at Police Station I.P. Estate regarding accident which information by recorded vide DD No.102A. Pursuant to the said information, SI Naveen reached at the spot i.e. Vikas Marg towards Laxmi Nagar near Old PHQ where he came to know that the injured was shifted to Lady Hardinge Hospital by the PCR Van. A motorcycle bearing No. DL3SEN0983 was found lying at the spot in an accidental condition near the footpath. The Investigating Officer then reached the hospital Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr.
MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 13 of 38 where no eye witness could be found and thereafter on the basis of DD No. 102A and MLC the FIR in the present case was registered under Sections 279/337 IPC. On 24.07.2020 the injured had expired pursuant to which the provisions of Section 304A IPC was invoked. During investigations, the CCTV Footages were checked when it was found that the motorcycle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and was not hit by any other vehicle. On mechanical inspection it was found that there was no carrier on the motorcycle pursuant to which the provisions of Section 52/177 of Motor Vehicles Act were added in the case and the respondent no.1 Gurbhej Singh was arrested. During investigations a written complaint was received in the MACT Cell from one Bheem Prakash (statement is part of DAR Ex.PW1/G which has not been controverted by the Respondent No.1) who stated that on 21.07.2020 while he was passing through Vikas Marg and reached ITO near Old PHQ at about 10:45 to 11:00 PM, he saw that a Sardarji was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner which suddenly fell down and both the persons on the motorcycle and the pillion rider sustained major injuries. According to Bheem Prakash, he stopped his motorcycle and gave water to the injured but he could not make a call at 100 number since he was not having his mobile phone at that time and some public persons made a call at 100 number on which the PCR Van came to the spot and shifted the injured to the hospital.
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 14 of 38 (20) Secondly, I note that the petitioners have not examined this eye witness Bheem Prakash before this Court/ Tribunal and in so far as Smt. Rajni (PW1) is concerned, she is not an eye witness to the accident. However, it is not disputed that the deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh was the pillion rider on the motorcycle which was driven by Gurbhej Singh (respondent no.1).
(21) Thirdly, I may observe that as a general rule the petitioner is required to prove negligence but in certain cases where the family of the deceased is only able to prove the accident but is unable to prove the origin of negligence, then under the given circumstances the principle of res ipsa loquitur if found applicable, can always be considered. Sir William Erle in the case of Scott vs. London & St. Katherine Docks Co. reported in (1865) 3 HC 596 applied the said principle and observed as under:
".....Where the thing is shown is under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such, as in the ordinary course of things does not happen, if those who have the management use proper care. Then in the absence of any explanation by the defendant, it can be presumed that the accident arose for want of care. In such cases mere happening of the accident affords a reasonable evidence in the absence of any explanation by the defendant that it was due to the negligence of the defendant......"
(22) This doctrine of res ipsa loquitur squarely applies to the facts of the present case as no evidence to the contrary has Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 15 of 38 come on record. In fact the version of the petitioners find due confirmation from the Site Plan which forms a part of the DAR showing the spot of accident at Point A which is just adjacent to the divider on Vikas Marg towards Laxmi Nagar. The site plan is not disputed.
(23) Fourthly, I have gone through the Mechanical Inspection Report of the Motorcycle bearing No. DL3SEN 0983 which shows that there were following fresh damages:
a) Front tyre airless.
b) Right side leg guard bended & scratched.
c) Right side brake pedal bended.
d) Rear seat carried missing.
(24) The above mechanical inspection report primafacie confirms the rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 Gurbhej Singh who was driving the motorcycle without the rear carrier and and without air in front tyre. I may note that correct air pressure in the tyres and rear side carrier of a motorcycle are required for maintaining the balance of the motorcycle. Despite having known that there was no air pressure in the front tyre of the motorcycle and that there was no rear carrier, the respondent no.1 was driving the motorcycle, which is reflective of the rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent no.1. Also, the version of the respondent no.1 that there was a brick lying on the road when his motorcycle hit the same and skid. Had that been so, the front tyre of his motorcycle would have damaged which is not the case.
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 16 of 38 (25) Lastly, the respondent no.1 Gurbhej Singh has raised a defence of negligence on the part of the deceased himself. However, he has not explained what kind of negligence on the part of the deceased who the pillion rider on the same motorcycle which was being driven by the respondent no.1 Gurbhej Singh. Further, despite having raised the above defence, the respondent no.1 has not adduced any evidence to prove the same. (26) Hence, in view of the above and by application of the principles of Preponderance of Probabilities coupled with the fact that the respondent no.1 Gurbhej Singh has been made an accused in FIR No. 148/2020, PS I.P. Estate under Sections 279/337/304A IPC and Sections 52/177 of Motor Vehicles Act, I hereby hold that the deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh had expired in the vehicular accident which had taken place on 21.07.2020 at 10:40 PM at Vikas Marg towards Laxmi Nagar near Old PHQ I. P. Estate, Delhi on account of rash and negligent driving of Motorcycle bearing No. DL3SEN 0983 by the respondent no.1 Gurubhej Singh. (27) Both the issues are accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.3: Whether the LRs of deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh are entitled to compensation? If yes, to what amount and from whom? (OPP) (28) Onus of proving the above issue was upon the Petitioners who are the Legal Heirs of the deceased Sinder Pal @ Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 17 of 38 Surender Singh. The case of the petitioners is that the deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh was aged about 48 years and was working as a Driver with NG Travels, Sector5, R.K. Puram, New Delhi and was getting a salary of Rs.18,000/ per month in addition to Rs.300/ per day for food and other allowances. The petitioners are claiming a total compensation to the tune of Rs.28,40,183.75p from the respondents. (29) In so far as the respondent no.2 Insurance Company is concerned, they have not filed any reasoned/ legal offer. (30) 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 Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr.
MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 18 of 38 reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps:
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3
(Actual Calculation)
The annual contribution to the family
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 19 of 38 (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....." .
(31) 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 Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh was aged about 48 years at the time of accident. In this regard, I may note that the copy of Driving License which is Ex.PW1/B and PAN Card which is Ex.PW1/C reflects that his date of birth was 07.07.1972. Accordingly, the deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh was precisely aged 48 years and 14 days at the time of accident on 21.07.2020. This being the background, I hold that the age of the deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh was 48 years at the time of accident 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 Thirteen (13).
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 20 of 38 (32) Now coming to the Income of the Deceased. I may observe that despite having claimed that the deceased was working with NG Travels, Sector5, R.K. Puram, New Delhi at a monthly salary of Rs.18,000/ per month in addition to Rs.300/ per day for food & other allowances, the petitioners have not placed on record any document in the form of appointment letter, pay slips, statement of account of the deceased etc. to show the employment of the deceased and his income. In fact when the Financial Statement of Smt. Rajni (wife of the deceased) was recorded, she was unable to produce any such document. This being the background, the minimum wages applicable for Unskilled Worker prevailing at the time of accident on 21.07.2020 i.e. Rs.15,310/ is considered as monthly income of the deceased.
(33) In so far as 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 Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh had left behind Four Legal Heirs i.e. his Wife Smt. Rajni (aged - 41 years); Daughter Anjali Kaur (aged 21 years - unmarried); son Jai Singh (aged 18 years) and Mother Smt. Raj Rani (aged 77 years). Therefore, 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 his living and personal expenses would be One Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 21 of 38 Fourth of his income (there being four dependents upon the deceased).
(34) Coming next to the Compensation under non pecuniary heads, I may note that the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 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.
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 22 of 38 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 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 Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 23 of 38 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.....".
(35) 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 Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 24 of 38 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...".
(36) In view of the above, a sum of Rs.15,000/ each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, a sum of Rs.40,000/ each towards Loss of Consortium is awarded to the wife, children and mother of the deceased. (37) 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) 15,310/
(Minimum wages for
Unskilled Worker)
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 25 of 38 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 25% = 3,827/ 3 Less 1/4th deductions towards (15,310 + 3,827) / 4 = personal and living expenses of 4,784/ the deceased (C) 4 Monthly loss of dependency (15,310 + 3,827) -
[(A+B) - C = D] 4,784 = 14,353/
5 Annual loss of Dependency 14,353 x 12 =
(D x 12) 1,72,236/
6 Multiplier (E) 13
7 Total loss of dependency 1,72,236/ x 13 =
DxE=F 22,39,068/
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of 40,000 x 4 = 1,60,000/
consortium (I)
11 Compensation for loss of Estate 15,000/
(J)
12 Compensation for funeral 15,000/
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation 24,29,068/
(F+G+H+I+J = L) Round off: 24,30,000/
(38) 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 05.10.2020 till realization.
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 26 of 38 Apportionment:
(39) It is evident from the record that the deceased Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh had left behind Four Legal Heirs i.e. Wife Smt. Rajni (aged - 41 years); Daughter Anjali Kaur (aged 21 years - unmarried); son Jai Singh (aged 18 years) and Mother Smt. Raj Rani (aged 77 years). For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the dependents of the deceased are tabulated as under:
Sr. Name of Relation with Percentage Amount in No. the deceased of award (Rs.) claimant amount 1 Smt. Rajni Wife (aged 41 35% 8,50,500/ years) 2 Anjali Kaur Daughter 15% 3,64,500/ (unmarried aged 21 years) 3 Jai Singh Son (aged - 18 15% 3,64,500/ years) 4 Smt. Raj Mother (aged 77 35% 8,50,500/ Rani years) Disbursement:
(40) The Financial Statements of the petitioner no.1 Smt. Rajni (wife of the deceased) and Smt. Raj Rani (mother of the deceased) were recorded by this Court/ Tribunal on 22.11.2022. (41) After considering the Financial Statement of the claimants, I hereby direct that in so far as the petitioner no.1 Smt. Rajni (Wife of the deceased) is concerned, on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.50,500/ along with 50% of the Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr.
MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 27 of 38 entire interest amount be released to her from her share and the balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/ (Rupees Eight Lacs only) shall be put in 80 (Eighty) 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 80 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. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account in a bank near to her 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.
(42) In so far as the petitioner no.2 Ms. Anjali Kaur (unmarried daughter - aged 21 years) is concerned, I hereby direct that on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.14,500/ be released to her from her share and the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only) shall be put in 35 (Thirty Five) 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 Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 28 of 38 35 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. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account in a bank near to her 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.
(43) In so far as the petitioner no.3 Jai Singh (Son - aged 18 years) is concerned, I hereby direct that on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.14,500/ be released to him from his share and the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only) shall be put in 35 (Thirty Five) 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 35 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 situated near the place of his residence without the facility Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 29 of 38 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 in a bank near to his 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. (44) In so far as the petitioner no.4 Smt. Raj Rani (Mother of the deceased) is concerned, on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.50,500/ along with 50% of the entire interest amount be released to her from her share and the balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/ (Rupees Eight Lacs only) shall be put in 80 (Eighty) 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 80 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. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account in a bank near to her 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 Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 30 of 38 withdrawn and shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
(45) The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 31 of 38
(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.
(46) 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 FormatXV is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 21.07.2020
2. Name of the deceased: Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh
3. Age of the deceased: 48 years
4. Occupation of deceased: Not Proved
5. Income of the deceased: Rs.15,310/
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
Sr. No. Name Age Relation (i) Smt. Rajni 41 years Wife (ii) Anjali Kaur 21 years Daughter (Unmarried) (iii) Jai Singh 18 years Son (Unmarried) (iv) Smt. Raj Rani 77 years Mother
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr.
MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 32 of 38 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal 7 Monthly Income of deceased 15,310/ (A) (Minimum wages for Unskilled Worker) 8 Add future prospect (B) @ 25% = 3,827/ 9 Less 1/4th deductions towards (15,310 + 3,827) / 4 = personal and living expenses of 4,784/ the deceased (C) 10 Monthly loss of dependency (15,310 + 3,827) - 4,784 [(A+B) - C = D] = 14,353/ 11 Annual loss of Dependency 14,353 x 12 = 1,72,236/ (D x 12) 12 Multiplier (E) 13 13 Total loss of dependency 1,72,236/ x 13 = DxE=F 22,39,068/ 14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil 15 Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H) 16 Compensation for loss of 40,000 x 4 = 1,60,000/ consortium (I) 17 Compensation for loss of 15,000/ Estate (J) 18 Compensation for funeral 15,000/ expenses (K) 19 Total Compensation 24,29,068/ (F+G+H+I+J = L) Round off: 24,30,000/ Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 33 of 38 20 Rate of Interest Awarded 6% 21 Interest amount upto the date of 3,28,449/ award (2 Years, 3 Months & 1 Days) 22 Total amount including interest 27,58,449/ 23 Award amount released As per paragraphs No. 41 to 44 24 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraphs No. 41 to 44 25 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraphs No. award amount to the 41 to 44 claimant(s) 26 Next Date of compliance of the 10.02.2023 award Liability:
(47) In so far as the liability to pay the award amount is concerned, it is evident from the record that the respondent no.1 Gurbhej Singh is the DrivercumOwner of the offending vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing No. DL3SEN0983 which was duly insured with TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Respondent No.2). Therefore, both the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. However, since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.2 i.e. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. as on the day of accident, it is respondent no.2 TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to the Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 34 of 38 claimants under the statutory liability. (48) Issue No.3 is accordingly disposed off.
RELIEF:
(49) Since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.2 TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
therefore, the respondent no.2 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.24,30,000/ (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Thirty Thousand only) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 05.10.2020 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. (50) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.2 i.e. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. for compliance within the time granted. Respondent No.2 TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimants 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 Claimants and their counsel namely Sh. Omveer Singh Advocate, Chamber No. 462, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Mobile No. 991068822). (51) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 10.02.2023 in the event of nonreceipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 35 of 38 (52) Copy of the award be also sent to the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).
(53) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 06.01.2023 PO, MACT01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 36 of 38 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 21.07.2020 2 Date of filing of FormI - First Not applicable - the accident Accident Report (FAR) having taken place in the year 2020 3 Date of delivery of FormII to Not applicable - the accident the victim(s) having taken place in the year 2020 4 Date of receipt of FormIII from Not applicable - the accident the Driver having taken place in the year 2020 5 Date of receipt of FormIV from Not applicable - the accident the Owner having taken place in the year 2020 6 Date of filing of the FormV - Not applicable - the accident Interim Accident Report (IAR) having taken place in the year 2020 7 Date of receipt of FormVIA and Not applicable - the accident Form VIB from the Victim(s) having taken place in the year 2020 8 Date of filing of FormVIII - 05.10.2020 Detail Accident Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No whether any action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Not provided by the Insurance Designated Officer by the Company Insurance Company 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company No admitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the No Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the No Reasoned/ Legal Offer given by claimant(s) to the offer of the the Insurance Company Insurance Company.
Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr.
MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 37 of 38 14 Date of award 06.01.2023 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank Yes account(s) near their place of residence?
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open 05.10.2020 Savings Bank Account(s) 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) 22.11.2022 produced the passbook of their PAN Card No. of the claimant savings bank account(s) near the Rajni is BKBPR8728J. place of their residence alongwith PAN Card No. of the claimant the endorsement, PAN card and Anjali Kaur is JHKPK5523A. Aadhaar Card? PAN Card No. of the claimant Jai Singh is MVQPS1127R.
The claimant Raj Rani did not produce her PAN Card and Bank Passbook with necessary endorsement.
18 Permanent residential address of As per Award the claimant(s).
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near their place Yes of residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing Yes.
of the Award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
(Dr. KAMINI LAU) PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 06.01.2023 Sinder Pal @ Surender Singh Vs. Gurubhej Singh & Anr. MACT No. 444/2020, Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 38 of 38