Delhi District Court
Neha Sehdev vs Satish Kumar Yadav on 28 January, 2022
DLCT010005702014
Presented on : 27-01-2014
Registered on : 27-01-2014
Decided on : 28-01-2022
Duration : 08 Years
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI PRESIDED OVER BY SH. LOVLEEN
MACT No. 56507/16 (LEAD CASE)
1. Neha Sehdev
W/o Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar
2. Shila Devi
W/o Sh. Madan Lal
3. Madan Lal
S/o Late Sh. Abinasi Ram
R/o: O-40, Block-O, Aruna Nagar
Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi,
Aslo at : B-1/44GF, Block B-1,
Malviya Nagar, Delhi-110017. ....Petitioners
Vs.
1. Satish Kumar Yadav
S/o Sh. Hari Nandan Yadav
R/o Bhangahi Gujaranhi Bahaevi,
Darbhanga, Bihar(Driver)
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 1/51
MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 1/51
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28
17:47:22 +0530
2. Sh. Satish Kumar
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o Gur Mandi, Sonipat-131001,
Haryana (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No.60, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase-3, Opp. SBI Bank, New Delhi-110020.
4. L.R.s. of the deceased Sh.Daljeet Singh owner of
Car No.DL-4CAD-0897 (Optrals Chakrola) following as under:-
(i) Smt. Rajneet Kaur @ Rajni Hajra
W/o Late Sh. Daljeet Singh,
R/o: 706, Katra Abasiyan Pahar Ganj,
Delhi-110005.
(ii) Neelam Kaur
W/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh,
(iii) Gurcharan Singh
S/o Late Sh. Fakir Singh (Father)
R/o: O-32, Aruna Nagar, Majnu Ka Tilla,
Delhi-110054
5. Mrs.Vandna Das,
R/o: A2/413, Ekta Garden, 9,
Indrapasth Extn, Delhi-110092,
6. Tata AIG General Insurance Co.
301-308 Aggarwal Prestige Mall Tower,
3rd Floor, Plot No-2, Road no.44,
Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitampura,
New Delhi, Delhi 110034 ......Respondents.
AND MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 2/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 2/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:47:33 +0530 Presented on : 27-01-2014
Registered on : 27-01-2014
Decided on : 28-01-2022
Duration : 08 Years
MACT No. 57343/16 (CONNECTED CASE)
Mandeep Singh
S/o Sh. Malkit Singh,
R/o 116, Gali No. 1,
Wazirabad, Delhi. ....Petitioner.
Vs.
1. Satish Kumar Yadav
S/o Sh. Hari Nandan Yadav
R/o Bhangahi Gujaranhi Bahaevi,
Darbhanga, Bihar(Driver)
2. Sh. Satish Kumar
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o Gur Mandi, Sonipat-131001,
Haryana (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No.60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-3, Opp. SBI Bank, New Delhi-110020.
4. L.R.s. of the deceased Sh.Daljeet Singh owner of Car No.DL-4CAD-0897 (Optrals Chakrola) following as under:-
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 3/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 3/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:2022.01.28 17:47:44 +0530
(i) Smt. Rajneet Kaur @ Rajni Hajra W/o Late Sh. Daljeet Singh, R/o: 706, Katra Abasiyan Pahar Ganj, Delhi-110005.
(ii) Neelam Kaur W/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh,
(iii) Gurcharan Singh S/o Late Sh. Fakir Singh (Father) R/o: O-32, Aruna Nagar, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi-110054
5. Mrs.Vandna Das, R/o: A2/413, Ekta Garden, 9, Indrapasth Extn, Delhi-110092,
6. Tata AIG General Insurance Co.
301-308 Aggarwal Prestige Mall Tower, 3rd Floor, Plot No-2, Road no.44, Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi, Delhi 110034 ......Respondents.
The particulars of FormV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 02/08/2013
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the NA Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 4/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 4/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:47:53 +0530
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the NA Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. NA P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information NA Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance NA Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the petitioner (s). NA
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? NA
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed NA later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents NA filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the NA part of the Investigating Officer ? If so, whether MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 5/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 5/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:48:02 +0530 any action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by NA the Insurance Company
13. Name, address and contact number of the NA Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance NA Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the NA liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the NA part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the petitioner (s) to the offer NA of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 28/01/2022 MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 6/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 6/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:48:10 +0530
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No of the parties?
20. Whether the petitioner (s) were directed to open Yes savings bank account (s) near their place of residence?
31/07/2021
21. Date of order by which petitioner (s) were directed to open savings bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner
(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
22. Date on which the petitioner(s) produced the 28/09/2021 & passbook of their savings bank account near the 20/12/2021 place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
Petitioners in
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Lead Case : R/o:
petitioner(s). O-40, Block-O,
Aruna Nagar
Majnu Ka Tilla,
Delhi
Also at : B-
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 7/51
MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 7/51
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28
17:48:18
+0530
1/44GF, Block B-
1,
Malviya Nagar,
Delhi-110017.
Injured / petitioner
in connected case :
R/o 116, Gali No.
1,
Wazirabad, Delhi.
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the A/C of petitioner
petitioner(s) and the address of the bank with Neha Sehdev :
IFSC Code. 39206362878
maintained with
SBI, Branch
Malviya Nagar,
Delhi, IFSC :
SBIN0001493;
PAN No.
BWXPS4565C;
A/C of petitioner
Smt. Shila Devi:
40374288175
maintained with
SBI, Branch
Nirankari Colony,
IFSC :
SBIN0007627;
PAN No.
HADPD2340N.
A/C of petitioner
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 8/51
MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 8/51
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28
17:48:27
+0530
Madan Lal :
40374287669
maintained with
SBI, Branch
Nirankari Colony,
IFSC :
SBIN0007627;
PAN No.
BJEPL8555M.
A/C of petitioner
Mandeep Singh :
0320019112600
maintained with
PNB, Branch
Timarpur, IFSC :
PUNB0032020;
PAN no.
CDEPS8490J.
25. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank account Yes
(s) in near his place of residence?
26. Whether the petitioner (s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 9/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 9/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:48:36 +0530
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, SBI, Tis Hazari name and branch of the bank of the Claims Courts, Delhi.
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be deposited/transfered.
COMMON AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. These two petitions U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of the M.V. Act were filed for seeking compensation in respect of fatal injuries sustained by one Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Lal (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") and grievous injuries sustained by Sh. Mandeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the "injured") in a motor vehicular accident dated 02.08.2013. Both these petitions were consolidated vide orders dated 26.03.2014 by my Ld. Predecessor and it was directed that the petition filed by the LRs of the deceased shall be the lead case (i.e. Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar Yadav & Ors., MACT No. 56507/16).
2. As per the present petitions, on 02.08.2013 between 4:30 pm - 4:45 pm, the deceased and the injured, accompanied by their common friends Sh. Dinesh, Sh. Sarabjeet and Sh. Daljeet Singh were travelling in a car bearing registration no. DL4CAD0897 (hereinafter referred to as the "accidental car") and were returning to Delhi from Sonepat, Haryana. It is stated that the accidental car was being driven by Sh. Daljeet Singh at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. When the said accidental MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 10/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 10/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:48:45 +0530 car reached near Sukhdev Dhaba situated on G.T. Road, Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana, the same dashed into the rear of a parked truck bearing registration no. HR693944 (hereafter referred to as the "offending vehicle"). It is stated that the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road without turning on parking lights nor any other indication was laid so as to caution oncoming traffic. It is further stated that the said Sh. Dinesh, Sh. Daljeet Singh, Sh. Sarabjeet and the deceased lost their lives due to the said accident. Only the injured survived the said accident. An FIR no. 220/2013 was registered at PS Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana U/s 283/337/304A IPC by the brother of the deceased. It is claimed that the said accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, who parked the same in the middle of the road. R1 and R2 are the driver and owner respectively of the offending vehicle. LRs of the said deceased Daljeet Singh, who was driving the accidental car and was also the owner of the same at the relevant time, were impleaded jointly as R4. R5 is the person in whose name insurance policy of the accidental car stood issued as on the date of accident. R3 and R6 are the respective insurers of the offending vehicle and the accidental car. A notice of the petitions was directed to be issued to all the respondents.
3. R1 and R2 filed a joint written statement claiming that the offending vehicle was parked on the side of the road after turning on front and rear blinkers. R1 and R2 further claimed that the driver of accidental car dashed his vehicle into the rear of the offending vehicle due to his own rashness and negligence. Rest of the averments made by the petitioners in MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 11/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 11/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:48:55 +0530 their respective petitions have simply been denied by R1 and R2.
4. R3 filed a written statement and seeks to avoid liability by taking the same plea as R1 and R2. R3 avers that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the accidental car. However, it was admitted that the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself at the relevant time.
5. No WS came to be filed on behalf of R4 by his LRs and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.11.2018.
6. R5 made a statement on 13.11.2018, through her counsel, that she does not wish to file any WS.
7. A WS was filed by R6 wherein it has supported the case of the petitioners that the accidental car was being driven by its driver (deceased Sh. Daljeet Singh) at a normal speed and that the accident did not take place on account of his negligence. Rest of the averments made by the petitioners in their respective petitions have been simply denied by R6. However, it was admitted that the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself at the relevant time.
CONSOLIDATED ISSUES
8. Vide order dated 13/11/2018, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Ramesh Kumar suffered fatal injuries and Sh. Mandeep MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 12/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 12/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:49:07 +0530 suffered grievous injuries in a road accident which took place on 02/08/2013 at about 04.30 p.m involving of two vehicles i.e. Truck bearing No. HR693944 and Car bearing No. DL4CAD0897 respectively driven by the Respondent No. 1 & 4 rashly and negligently, owned by Respondents No. 2 & 4 and insured with Respondents No. 3 & 6 respectively? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE
9. In support of their contentions, the petitioners examined widow of the deceased namely Smt. Neha Sehdev as PW1. PW1, vide her affidavit EX. PW1/A, deposed that the deceased lost his life due to a motor vehicular accident as mentioned in para no. 2 of this award. She further stated that the deceased was aged about 31 years at the time of his death and was running a business under the name and style "Shivang Tour and Travels". She further stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,60,000/ per year (approx.) from the said business. She further stated that the deceased is survived by herself being the widow of the deceased, Smt. Shila Devi and Sh. Madan Lal, being the parents of the deceased. She further stated that all of them were completely dependent upon the deceased. She has relied upon following MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 13/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 13/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:49:22 +0530 documents in support of her claim : "Ex. PW1/1(OSR) is the copy of death certificate of deceased;
Ex. PW1/2 is the copy of the ITR pertaining to the assessment year 201011 and TDS Certificate pertaining to the assessment year 201314;
Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) are the copies of educational certificates of the deceased;
Ex. PW1/4 is the marriage card;
Ex. PW1/5(OSR) is the copy of PAN Card of PW1; Ex. PW1/6(OSR) is the copy of election I card of PW1; Ex. PW1/7(OSR) is the copy of election I card of Shila Devi; Ex. PW1/8(OSR) is the copy of election I card of Madan Lal; Mark X is the copy of election I card of deceased."
She was crossexamined by R3 only.
9.1 Petitioners further examined injured Sh. Mandeep Singh as PW 2, being the eye witness of the accident. PW2 deposed, through his affidavit Ex. PW2/A, that on 02.08.2013 between 4:30 pm - 4:45 pm, the deceased and the injured, accompanied by their common friends Sh. Dinesh, Sh. Sarabjeet and Sh. Daljeet Singh were travelling in a car bearing registration no. DL4CAD0897 and were returning to Delhi from Sonepat, Haryana. He further deposed that the accidental car was being driven by Sh. Daljeet Singh MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 14/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 14/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:49:32 +0530 at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. He further deposed that when the said accidental car reached near Sukhdev Dhaba situated on G.T. Road, Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana, the same dashed into the rear of a parked truck bearing registration no. HR693944. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road without turning on parking lights nor any other indication was laid so as to caution oncoming traffic. He further deposed that the said Sh. Dinesh, Sh. Daljeet Singh, Sh. Sarabjeet and the deceased lost their lives due to the said accident. He further deposed that only he (injured) survived the said accident. He further deposed that he was hospitalized in Fortis Hospital and Max Hospital from 03.08.2013 to 07.08.2013 and from 18.09.2015 to 21.09.2015 respectively.
He further deposed that he had to undergo treatment as an 'Out Patient' for about one year, He further deposed to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 4 Lakhs towards medical treatment, Rs. 15,000/ each towards special diet and conveyance and Rs. 20,000/ towards attendant charges. He further deposed that he was running a business under the name & style of 'M/s Sehra Electrical Works' at the relevant time and was earning Rs. 2,38,664/ per annum from the said business but he could not attend to his business for a period of one year due to injuries sustained in the accident. He further deposed that he would require a sum of Rs. 60,000/ in future for the surgical removal of plates fixed/ implanted inside his body. He has placed on record the following documents : "Ex. PW2/1 is the original medical treatment record/ discharge summary;
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 15/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 15/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:49:41 +0530 Ex. PW2/2 are the original medical bills; Ex. PW2/3(OSR) is the copy of DL of PW2; Ex. PW2/4(OSR) is the copy of Aadhar Card of PW2."
He was crossexamined at length by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 and R6 only.
9.2 Petitioners further examined Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Income Tax Inspector, Ward 35(5), New Delhi as PW3. The said witness produced the ITRs for the Assessment Years 201112, 201213 & 201314 pertaining to the deceased Sh. Ramesh Kumar, which are collectively exhibited as Ex.
PW3/1(running into 27 sheets). He was crossexamined briefly by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 and R6 only.
9.3 Petitioners further examined Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Head Cashier, Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as PW4. The said witness produced the admission and bill records of injured Sh. Mandeep Singh for the period w.e.f. 03.08.2013 to 07.08.2013 of the said hospital. The said records were exhibited as Ex. PW4/A(colly)(18 sheets). He further deposed that the total bill amounting to Rs. 2,02,102/ was issued and the same was paid by the injured Sh. Mandeep Singh. He was crossexamined briefly by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 as well as Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 6 only.
9.4 Petitioners further examined Sh. K.B. Tiwari, Manager (Billing), Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as PW5. The said witness produced the admission, discharge and bill records of injured Sh. Mandeep Singh for MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 16/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 16/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:49:50 +0530 the period w.e.f. 18.09.2015 to 21.09.2015 of the said hospital. The said records were exhibited as Ex. PW5/A(colly)(11 sheets). He further deposed that the total bill amounting to Rs. 1,45,795.53/ was issued and the same was paid by the injured Sh. Mandeep Singh. He was crossexamined briefly by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 as well as Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 6.
9.5 Petitioners further examined Ms. Aakanksha Arya, Inspector, Income Tax Department, E2 Block, Civic Centre, Delhi as PW6 and the said witness produced the ITRs for the Assessment Years 201011, 201112 and 201213 of injured Sh. Mandeep Singh. The said ITRs were exhibited as Ex. PW6/A(colly)(32 pages). She was crossexamined briefly by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 only.
9.6 PE was then closed on 01.10.2019 by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners.
10. R3 and R6 closed RE through their respective counsel. RE of the other respondents was closed by this Tribunal by order.
FINDINGS
11. Oral submissions were advanced on behalf of the petitioners as well as R3. Written submissions were filed on behalf of the petitioners in lead case as well as by the injured in the connected case.
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 17/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 17/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:50:00 +0530
12. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Ramesh Kumar suffered fatal injuries and Sh. Mandeep suffered grievous injuries in a road accident which took place on 02/08/2013 at about 04.30 p.m involving of two vehicles i.e. Truck bearing No. HR693944 and Car bearing No. DL4CAD0897 respectively driven by the Respondent No. 1 & 4 rashly and negligently, owned by Respondents No. 2 & 4 and insured with Respondents No. 3 & 6 respectively? OPP
13. At the very outset, it may be noted that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts, as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 18/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 18/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:50:10 +0530 in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
14. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners have examined the eye witness of the incident namely Sh. Mandeep Singh (injured) as PW2. PW2 deposed, through his affidavit Ex. PW2/A, that on 02.08.2013 between 4:30 pm - 4:45 pm, the deceased and the injured, accompanied by their common friends Sh. Dinesh, Sh. Sarabjeet and Sh. Daljeet Singh were travelling in a car bearing registration no. DL4CAD0897 and were returning to Delhi from Sonepat, Haryana. He further deposed that the accidental car was being driven by Sh. Daljeet Singh at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. He further deposed that when the said accidental car reached near Sukhdev Dhaba situated on G.T. Road, Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana, the same dashed into the rear of a parked truck bearing registration no. HR693944. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road without turning on parking lights nor any other indication was laid so as to caution oncoming traffic. He further deposed that the said Sh. Dinesh, Sh. Daljeet Singh, Sh. Sarabjeet and the deceased lost their lives due to the said accident. He further deposed that only he (injured) survived the said accident. The said witness was cross MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 19/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 19/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:50:20 +0530 examined at length by R3 and briefly by R6. Despite the crossexamination, the oral testimony of PW2 supports the case of the petitioners regarding the occurrence of the accident and also the manner thereof. However, the facts of this case are very peculiar and finding of rashness or negligence requires a discussion about the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident.
14.1 It may be noted here that none of the parties who have filed their pleadings dispute the fact that the offending vehicle was parked at the relevant time and that the accidental car dashed into the rear of the offending vehicle. During the course of enquiry, it has come on record that the offending vehicle was parked in the second lane of the road at the relevant time. The crossexamination of PW2 has also thrown up certain interesting facts which are being mentioned hereinafter. Admittedly, the accident took place in the month of August and there was no rain or fog in the area at the relevant time. Admittedly, the visibility was clear at the relevant time. In these circumstances, even if the statement of PW2, to the effect that the accidental car was being driven by R4 at the speed of 60 KM per hour at the relevant time, is believed to be a gospels truth, still the petitioners failed to convince this Tribunal as to why the accidental car dashed into the rear of the offending vehicle in the facts and circumstances noted above in this paragraph. In the absence of any averment regarding any mechanical defect in the accidental car or intervention by an extraneous cause, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the driver of the accidental car was guilty of driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and was responsible for the occurrence of accident. However, the driver of the offending vehicle could MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 20/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 20/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:50:30 +0530 not be absolved completely because the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of a National Highway, which road admittedly bears a heavy load of traffic at all the times. No explanation has been put forth by R1 as to why the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road at the relevant time. In the absence of any explanation, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the act and conduct of R1 was also not upto the mark, was rather in violation of the relevant traffic rules and regulations and contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Accordingly, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to hold that the accident occurred on account of lapse of the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the present accident and both are liable equally.
15. None of the respondents dispute the fact that the deceased sustained fatal injuries and the injured sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. The certified copies of records of the Criminal Court as are available in the judicial file reflects the postmortem report of the deceased and the MLR (MedicoLegal Report) of the injured which are consistent with the version put forth by the petitioners in both the case. The death certificate Ex. PW1/1 of the deceased also corroborates the claim of the petitioners in lead case. Similarly, the medical records proved during the present proceedings by the injured (Ex. PW2/1) corroborates the claim of the injured in the connected case. In the entire facts and circumstances noted above, this Tribunal holds that the deceased suffered fatal injuries and the injured suffered grievous injuries in a road accident which took place on account of the neglect and default of R1 and R4 in driving the offending vehicle and the accidental car respectively. This issue stands decided against MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 21/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 21/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:50:38 +0530 the respondents and in favour of the petitioners.ISSUE NO. 2
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
16. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 and R4 were equally responsible for the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased and for the grievous injuries sustained by the injured, therefore, the LRs of the deceased (i.e. petitioners in case titled as Neha Sevdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar Yadav & Ors., MACT No. 56507/16) and the injured are entitled to be compensated justly. Computation of the compensation shall be decided separately for both the sets of petitioners in the following paragraphs : COMPENSATION IN NEHA SEHDEV & ORS. (LRs of deceased) VS.
SATISH KUMAR YADAV, MACT NO. 56507/16 (LEAD CASE)
17. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
18. In this regard, the petitioners have examined petitioner Neha Sehdev MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 22/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 22/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:50:48 +0530 as PW1, who has deposed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/ per annum from his Tour and Travel business. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the petitioners have summoned and examined the official (PW3) of Income Tax Department, who has proved the ITRs of the deceased pertaining to Assessment Years 201112, 201213 and 2013 14 as Ex. PW3/1(colly). As per the ITR pertaining to Assessment year 201314, the deceased earned a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/ and paid taxes to the tune of Rs. 12,163/. As per PW3, the said ITR was filed on 20.07.2013.
Admittedly, the accident in question took place on 02.08.2013. In these circumstances, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to rely upon the records produced by PW3 and therefore, the established income of deceased is presumed to be Rs. 2,47,837/ per annum (Rs. 2,60,000/ Rs. 12,163/) at the relevant time.
19. Petitioners have claimed the age of deceased to be 31 years at the time of his unfortunate death. As per Secondary School Examination Certificate, copy of which has been placed on record as Ex. PW1/3(colly), date of birth of the deceased is 02.07.1982. Apparently, the age of deceased was 31 years at the time of his death. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '16' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 23/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 23/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:50:56 +0530 petitioners on account of death of the deceased.
20. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it is observed that petitioners claim that the deceased was survived by his father (aged 70 years), mother (aged 64 years) and one widow (aged 23 years). Keeping in view the advanced age of the father of the petitioner at the time of death of deceased, it would not be inappropriate to presume that the father of the deceased was also dependent upon the deceased. Accordingly, all the petitioners shall be treated as dependents of the deceased for the purpose of present petition.
21. Irrespective of this, 1/3rd of earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses in view of the law already discussed above. Further, since this Tribunal has assumed that the age of deceased was 31 years at the time of accident, in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioner is also held entitled to an addition of 40% of the above amount of his earnings towards future prospects.
22. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs. 37,01,033/ (rounded off) (Rs. 2,47,837/ X 140/100 X 2/3 X 16). This amount is awarded to the petitioner under this heads.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NONPECUNIARY HEADS
23. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 24/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 24/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:51:04 +0530 Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amounts of Rs. 15,000/ each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium":: Filial Consortium : Rs. 80,000/ (Rs. 40,000/ X 2) Spousal Consortium : Rs. 40,000/
24. Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ under this head.
COMPENSATION IN MANDEEP SINGH VS. SATISH KUMAR YADAV &Ors., MACT NO. 57343/16 (CONNECTED CASE)
25. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. pecuniary as well as nonpecuniary damages. The MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 25/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 25/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:51:12 +0530 pecuniary damages or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The non pecuniary or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the nonpecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where h2e was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 26/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 26/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:51:19 +0530 compensation. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
26. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which could be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
27. As stated above, the injured has proved on record his medical treatment records as well as medical bills by examining the relevant officials from the concerned hospitals where he took treatment as PW4 and PW5. As per medical records Ex. PW4/A(colly), the injured remained admitted for treatment in Fortis Hospital between 03.08.2013 to 07.08.2013 and incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,02,102/. As per medical records Ex. PW5/A(colly), the injured remained admitted for treatment in Max Hospital between 18.09.2015 to 21.09.2015 and incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,45,795.53/. In the absence of any contest to the said documents (placed on record by the injured), the injured is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,47,897.53/ (Rs 2,02,120/ + Rs. 1,45,795.53/) under this head.
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 27/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 27/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:51:28 +0530
(ii) Loss of actual earnings
28. In his affidavit Ex. PW2/A, the injured stated that he was running a business at the relevant time and was earning Rs. 2,38,664/ per annum but due to the accident, he could not attend his business for a period of one year leading to heavy losses. Although, the injured has summoned and proved his ITRs for the Assessment Years 201011, 201112 and 201213 as Ex. PW6/1(colly). However, he has not summoned the subsequent ITR which could have reflected the decreased/ fall, if any, in the income of the injured subsequent to the accident. The injured has chosen to hold back a relevant piece of evidence which was necessary for deciding as to whether or not he suffered any loss of income in the aftermath of the accident and therefore, this Tribunal is not inclined to uphold the bald oral testimony of injured in this regard. Be that as it may, the discharge summary of the injured Ex. PW2/1(colly) reveals that the injured suffered multiple fractures due to the accident in different parts of the body and had to undergo surgical procedures for necessary corrections including implantation of plates. The nature of injuries sustained by the injured would have definitely impeded the normal functioning of the injured for at least 03 months. Accordingly, it would be appropriate that the injured may be compensated for loss of his income for a period of 03 months. As per ITRs pertaining to Assessment Year 201213 Ex. PW6/A(colly), which was filed on 28.02.2013, the total income of injured was Rs. 2,38,664/ and the tax liability was Rs. 950/. So the established annual income was Rs. 2,37,714/ (Rs. 2,38,664/ Rs. 950/). Consequently, the monthly income of injured would be Rs. MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 28/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 28/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:51:36 +0530 19,809.5/ ( Rs. 2,37,714/ / 12). As such, the injured is liable to be granted compensation of Rs. 59,428.5/ (Rs. 19,809.5 x 3) for the loss of his income for 03 months after the accident. This amount is awarded to the injured under this head.
(iii) Pain and Suffering
29. As discussed above, the injured suffered multiple fractures in the above accident. Although, the injured has claimed that his capacity to earn has been adversely affected, but there is nothing on record to corroborate the said contention. Be that as it may, injured remained in two hospitalized on two different occasions. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to injured for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries and disability, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs. 50,000/ is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings.
(iv) Conveyance and Special Diet
30. Under these heads, the injured has claimed a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each in his affidavit Ex. PW2/A. The said claim seems justified in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the injured and the period of his treatment. In MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 29/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 29/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:51:43 +0530 the entire facts and circumstances, the injured is granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each towards conveyance and special diet.
ISSUE NO.3 / RELIEF
31. The petitioners (IN NEHA SEHDEV & ORS. (LRs of deceased) VS. SATISH KUMAR YADAV, MACT NO. 56507/16) are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 38,51,033/ (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Thirty Three only) (Rs. 37,01,033/ + Rs. 15,000/ + Rs. 15,000/ + Rs. 1,20,000/) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
32. The injured (IN MANDEEP SINGH VS. SATISH KUMAR YADAV, MACT NO. 57343/16) is thus awarded a sum of Rs. 4,87,326/ (rounded off) (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Thirty Three only) (Rs. 3,47,897.53/ + Rs. 59,428.5/ + Rs. 50,000/ + Rs. 15,000/ + Rs. 15,000/) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
RELEASE OF COMPENSATION MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 30/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 30/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:51:53 +0530(IN NEHA SEHDEV & ORS. (LRs of deceased) VS. SATISH KUMAR YADAV, MACT NO. 56507/16
33. On 28/09/2021, statements of the petitioners qua financial needs and requirements were recorded in terms of Clause 27 of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO No. 842/2003 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017. As per their statements, their household expenditures are Rs. 30,000/ & Rs. 25,000/ per month respectively. Photocopies of the passbooks of the bank accounts of the petitioners maintained with concerned banks were also placed on record at that time, apart from two photographs of the petitioners .
33.1 Out of the awarded amount, the petitioner Neha Sehdev in case MACT No.56507/16 is awarded a sum of Rs. 25,60,000/ (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 256 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 256 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequentorder dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in the savings/MACT Claims SB Account of the said petitioner bearing A/C No. 3 9206362878 maintained with SBI, Branch Malviya Nagar, Delhi, IFSC : SB MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 31/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 31/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:52:01 +0530 IN0001493. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,89,764/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Four Only) (10% of the awarded amount) is also directed to be released into her abovesaid bank account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the said petitioner. 33.2 Out of the awarded amount, the petitioner Smt. Shila Devi (i.e. petitioner no. 2 in MACT No. 56507/16) is awarded a sum of Rs.
12,80,000/ (Rs. Twelve Lakhs Eighty Thousand Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 128 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 128 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequentorder dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in the savings/MACT Claims SB Account of the said petitioner bearing A/C No. 40374288175 maintained wit h SBI, Branch Nirankari Colony, IFSC : SBIN0007627. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,44,882/ (Rupees One Lakh Fourty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two) (10% of the awarded amount) is also directed to be released into her abovesaid bank account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the said petitioner. 33.3 Out of the awarded amount, the petitioner Sh. Madan Lal (i.e. petitioner no. 3 in MACT No. 56507/16) is awarded a sum of Rs.
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 32/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 32/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:52:10 +0530 12,80,000/ (Rs. Twelve Lakhs Eighty Thousand Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 128 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 128 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequentorder dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in the savings/MACT Claims SB Account of the said petitioner bearing A/C no. 40374287669 maintained wit h SBI, Branch Nirankari Colony, IFSC : SBIN0007627. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,44,882/ (Rupees One Lakh Fourty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two) (10% of the awarded amount) is also directed to be released into his abovesaid bank account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the said petitioner.
RELEASE OF COMPENSATION (IN MANDEEP SINGH VS. SATISH KUMAR YADAV, MACT NO.57343/16
34. On 20/12/2021, statement of injured qua financial needs and requirements was recorded in terms of Clause 27 of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO No. 842/2003 decided by Hon'ble High Court of MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 33/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 33/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:52:17 +0530 Delhi on December 15, 2017. As per his statement his household expenditure is Rs. 20,000/ per month. Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the petitioner maintained with PNB, Branch Timarpur, Delhi was also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Cards and PAN Cards were also placed on record by the petitioner, apart from two coloured photographs of the petitioner.
34.1 Out of the awarded amount, the injured Sh. Mandeep Singh (in MACT No. 57343/16) is awarded a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/ (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with Stat e Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the for m of 33 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 33 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by th e Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842 /2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as imple mented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said case. Th e amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Clai ms SB Account bearing No. 0320019112600 maintained with PNB, Branch Timarpur, IFSC : PUNB0032020. The remaining amount of Rs. 3,91,242/ (Rs. Three Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Two Hundred Forty Two Only) (i.e. medical treatment/ bills + 10% of the awarded amount) is also directed t o be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utiliz ed by the injured.
35. However, the concerned bank(s) shall permit the above MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 34/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 34/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:52:25 +0530 petitioners/ injured to withdraw money from their above savings bank accounts by means of withdrawal forms or biometric authentication. The above disbursement to the petitioners is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposits proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their above share. The bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of the petitioners/ injured i.e. the above account (s) of the petitioners/ injured shall be individual account (s) and not a joint account (s).
35.1 The original fixed deposits be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari C ourts, Delhi.
35.2 The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the petitioner. No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allow ed on MACAD without permission of the Court.
LIABILITY
36. This Tribunal has already held that R1 and R4 are equally liable for the occurrence of the accident in question, consequently, the respective owners of the offending vehicle and accidental car are vicariously and equally liable for the tortious liability incurred by R1 and R4. Resultantly, since the offending vehicle and the accidental car were covered by insurance MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 35/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 35/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:52:34 +0530 policies issued by R3 and R6 respectively, therefore, R3 and R6 are equally liable. As such, R3 and R6 each shall deposit one half of the awarded amounts with SBI Branch Tis Hazari Courts along with interest @ 6% per annum, by way of any NEFT or RTGS mode in name of the petitioners in both the cases within 30 days from today in terms of the format for payment for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad.1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) failing which they will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. R3 and R6 shall inform the respective petitioners and their counsel through registered posts that the awarded amounts have been deposited.
37. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is dire cted to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tya gi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014. Fur ther Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form VII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 28/02/2022.
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 36/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 36/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:52:42 +0530 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 Announced in the open court (LOVLEEN) 17:52:52 +0530 On this 28th day of January, 2022 Judge, MACT02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/28/01/2022 MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 37/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 37/51 Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM IVA TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 02.08.2013
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Ramesh Kumar
3. Age of the deceased. : 31 Years
4. Occupation of the deceased.: Businessman
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 2,47,837/ per annum
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased: S. No. Name Age Relation Smt. Neha (I) Sehdev 31 Years Widow of the deceased Smt. Shila Devi
(ii) 72 Years Mother of deceased Sh. Madan Lal
(iii) 78 Years Father of deceased Computation of Compensation MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 38/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 38/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:53:14 +0530 Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the Rs. 2,47,837/ per month deceased(A)
8. AddFuture Prospects 40% future prospects granted in (B) this case.
9. LessPersonal 1/3rd deduction has been done expenses of the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Nil dependency[(A+B) C=D]
11. Annual loss of Rs. 2,31,314.533/ dependency (Dx12) 12. Multiplier(E) 16 MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 39/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 39/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:53:22 +0530
13. Total loss of Rs. 37,01,033/ (rounded off) dependency (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for Rs. 1,20,000 (Rs. 40,000/ x 2 loss of consortium(I) + Rs. 40,000/)
16. Compensation for Rs. 15,000/ loss of estate(J)
17. Compensation Rs. 15,000/ towards funeral expenses(K) Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:53:32 +0530 MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 40/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 40/51
18.
TOTAL Rs. 38,51,033/
COMPENSATION
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L
)
19.
RATE OF 6%
INTEREST
AWARDED
20.
Interest amount up to Rs. 18,48,496/ (rounded off) the date of award
21.
Total amount Rs. 56,99,529/
including interest
22.
Award amount Petitioner Neha Sehdev in case
released MACT No. 56507/16 : Rs.
2,89,764/(10% of the awarded
amount).
Petitioner Smt. Shila Devi in
case MACT No. 56507/16 : Rs.
1,44,882/(10% of the awarded
amount).
Petitioner Sh. Madan Lal in
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 41/51
MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 41/51
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
Date:
LOVLEEN 2022.01.28
17:53:41
+0530
case MACT No. 56507/16 : Rs.
1,44,882/ (10% of the awarded
amount).
23.
Award amount kept As per award
in FDRs
24.
Mode of Mentioned in the award
disbursement of the
award amount to the
petitioner (s)
25.
Next date for 28/02/2022
compliance of the
award
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28
17:53:48
+0530
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 42/51
MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 42/51
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM IVB IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident. : 02.08.2013
2. Name of the Injured : Sh. Mandeep Singh
3. Age of the injured : 35 years.
4. Occupation of the injured : Businessman
5. Income of the injured : Rs. 19,809.50/ per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : Fortis Hospital & Max Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : w.e.f. 03/08/2013 to 07/08/2013 & from 18/09/2015 to 21/09/2015
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : NIL Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:53:56 +0530 MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 43/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 43/51
10. Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal No.
11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 3,47,897.53/-
(ii) Expenditure on Rs. 15,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs. 15,000/
diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant NIL
(v) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vi) Loss of Income Rs. 59,428.5/ (Rs. 19,809.50/ x 3)
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28
17:54:04
+0530
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 44/51
MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 44/51
(vii) Any other loss which NIL
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. NonPecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NIL
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage NIL
prospects
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28
17:54:11
+0530
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 45/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 45/51
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A. inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss N.A
of expectation of life
span on account of
disability
NIL
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in
relation to disability
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28
17:54:20
+0530
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 46/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 46/51
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL.
(Income x% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs. 4,87,326/ (rounded off) COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 6% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs. 2,33,916/ (rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs. 7,21,242/ interest
18. Award amount released Rs. 3,91,242/ (medical bills/ treatment + 10% of the awarded amount)
19. Award amount kept in As per award FDRs Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:54:27 +0530MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 47/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 47/51
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant (s).
21. Next date for compliance 28/02/2022 of the award.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28 17:54:37 +0530 MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 48/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 48/51 CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 28/01/2022.
2. Separate files were ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 28/02/2022.Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:54:45 +0530 (LOVLEEN) P.O. MACT (Central 02) Delhi /28/01/2022 MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 49/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 49/51 MACT NO. 56507/16 & 57343/16 28/01/2022 Files are taken up through Video Conferencing in terms of the Office Order No. Rules Gaz/2021/42060-42220 dated 31.12.2021 issued by Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge (HQs), Delhi. Present: Sh. Omveer Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioners(through VC).
Sh. Sunder Prakash, Ld. Counsel for Reliance Gen. Insu. Co. Ltd. (through VC).
Sh. Pardeep Sehrawat, Ld. Proxy counsel for TATA Gen. Insu. Co. Ltd. (through VC).
Vide my separate award of even date, the present matters stand disposed of.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
Ahlmad is directed to email an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021.
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'be High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
Copy of this award and this order be placed in both the files. MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 50/51 MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 50/51 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.01.28 17:55:01 +0530 Both the files be consigned to Record Room.
Separate files be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and the same be put up on 28/02/2022.
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.01.28
(LOVLEEN)
17:55:11
+0530
P.O.MACT(Central02)
Delhi /28/01/2022
MACT No. 56507/16 Neha Sehdev & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 51/51
MACT No. 57343/16 Mandeep Singh Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Pages No. 51/51