Delhi District Court
Dar - Urmila Devi vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma on 2 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH.SHAILENDER MALIK, PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.601/2017
CNR- DLSH01-6476-2017
(1)Mrs.Iram Wasim
w/o late Mohd. Wasim
r/o C-190, 3rd Floor,
Behind Mariam Apartments,
Near Tayyub Masjid,
Shaheen Bagh, Thokar No.8,
Abul Fazal Part-II, Okhla,
Delhi-110025.
(2)Sh.Salimuddin
s/o Nasiruddin
(3)Smt.Ashma Parveen
w/o Sh.Salimuddin
both r/o 194, Cameri Bilaspur,
Rampur, U.P. ...Petitioners
Versus
(1)Dinesh Sharma @ Kaju
s/o Sh.G.S. Sharma
r/o 101, Sultanpur Dabas,
Pooth Khurd, PS Bawana,
Delhi-39.
(2)Ajay Kumar
s/o Sh.Dayanand Singh
r/o H.No.624, Pooth Khurd,
Delhi-110039.
(3)The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
30/26, 1st Floor, Nangia Park,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007. ... Respondents
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed
Page 1
by SHAILENDER
SHAILENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.08.02
16:26:41 +0530
Date of Institution : 11.10.2017
Date of Arguments : 24.07.2024
Date of pronouncement : 02.08.2024
AND
MACT No.602/2017
CNR - DLSH01-6475-2017
Mrs.Iram Wasim
w/o late Mohd. Wasim
r/o C-190, 3rd Floor,
Behind Mariam Apartments,
Near Tayyub Masjid,
Shaheen Bagh, Thokar No.8,
Abul Fazal Part-II, Okhla,
Delhi-110025. ...Petitioner
Versus
(1)Dinesh Sharma @ Kaju
s/o Sh.G.S. Sharma
r/o 101, Sultanpur Dabas,
Pooth Khurd, PS Bawana,
Delhi-39.
(2)Ajay Kumar
s/o Sh.Dayanand Singh
r/o H.No.624, Pooth Khurd,
Delhi-110039.
(3)The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
30/26, 1st Floor, Nangia Park,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 11.10.2017
Date of Arguments : 24.07.2024
Date of pronouncement : 02.08.2024
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed
by SHAILENDER
Page 2
SHAILENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.08.02
16:26:50 +0530
AND
MACT No.520/2017
CNR - DLSH01-005068-2017
Deen Dayal
s/o Ram Murti
r/o Vill. Vashpur, PO Bashhiya,
PS Azamgarh, U.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
(1)Dinesh Sharma @ Kaju
s/o Gauri Shankar Sharma
r/o H.No.101, Sultanpur Dabbas,
Pooth Khurd, PS Bawan, Delhi.
c/o Master Dayanand Sharma
at NDPL Wali Gali,
H.No.97, Bawana, Delhi.
(2)Ajay Kumar
s/o Dayanand Singh
r/o H.No.624, Pooth Khurd,
Delhi-110039.
(3)The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Azad Bhawan, near Jhandewalan,
New Delhi-110005. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.08.2017
Date of Arguments : 24.07.2024
Date of pronouncement : 02.08.2024
AND
MACT No.523/2017
CNR - DLSH01-005067-2017
Durga Prasad
s/o Ram Tirath
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER Page 3
SHAILENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2024.08.02
16:26:56 +0530
r/o H.No.25, Domanpur,
PS Atraoliya, Tehsil Burhanpur,
Distt. Azamgarh, U.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
(1)Dinesh Sharma @ Kaju
s/o Gauri Shankar Sharma
r/o H.No.101, Sultanpur Dabbas,
Pooth Khurd, PS Bawan, Delhi.
c/o Master Dayanand Sharma
at NDPL Wali Gali,
H.No.97, Bawana, Delhi.
(2)Ajay Kumar
s/o Dayanand Singh
r/o H.No.624, Pooth Khurd,
Delhi-110039.
(3)The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Azad Bhawan, near Jhandewalan,
New Delhi-110005. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.08.2017
Date of Arguments : 24.07.2024
Date of pronouncement : 02.08.2024
AND
MACT No.517/2017
CNR - DLSH01-005065-2017
(1)Mrs.Urmila Devi
w/o late Chander Bhan
(2)Master Abhishek
s/o late Chander Bhan
(3)Asmita
d/o late Chander Bhan
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER
SHAILENDER MALIK Page 4
MALIK Date: 2024.08.02
16:27:02 +0530
(4)Anshita
d/o late Chander Bhan
all r/o H.No.304, F-Block,
Dakshin Puri, New Delhi-110062. ...Petitioners
Versus
(1)Dinesh Kumar
s/o Gauri Shankar Sharma
r/o 101, Sultanpur Dabbas,
Pooth Khurd, New Delhi-110039.
(2)Ajay Kumar
s/o Dayanand Singh
r/o H.No.624, Pooth Khurd,
Delhi-110039.
(3)The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.08.2017
Date of Arguments : 31.07.2024
Date of pronouncement : 02.08.2024
AWAR D
1. By this common judgment this Tribunal propose to dispose off
five claim petitions MACT no.601/2017 titled as Iram Wasim and others
vs. Dinesh Sharma and ors. (this claim petition is regarding death of Mohd.
Wasim); MACT No.602/2017 titled as Iram Wasim vs. Dinesh Sharma and
others (this claim petition is regarding injuries suffered by petitioner Iram
Wasim); MACT No.520/2017 titled as Deen Dayal vs. Dinesh Sharma and
others (this DAR is regarding injuries suffered by petitioner Deen Dayal);
MACT No.523/2017 titled as Durga Prasad vs. Dinesh Sharma and others
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER Page 5
SHAILENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.08.02
16:27:10 +0530
(this DAR is regarding injuries suffered by petitioner Durga Prasad); and
MACT No.517/2017 titled as Urmila and others vs. Dinesh Kumar &
others (this claim petition is regarding death of Chander Bhan).
Common Facts
2. Since all the above mentioned claim petitions have arisen out
of one accident, the common facts regarding the occurrence are that on
24.04.2017 at about 12 midnight, Mohd. Wasim (since deceased, LRs of
whom have filed MACT No.61/2017) along with Chander Bhan (since
deceased, LRs of whom have filed MACT No.517/2017), petitioner/injured
Iram Wasim, Deen Dayal and Durga Prasad were standing near Maharaj
Pur Toll Tax, Delhi Border, Road No.56, Delhi. It is stated that in the
meanwhile one RTV vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1VB-9496 came
from Metro side and hit the barrier, due to which iron garter fell upon the
deceased persons and petitioners/injured, as a result of which Mohd. Wasim
and Chander Bhan died and petitioners/injured Iram Wasim, Deen Dayal
and Durga Prasad sustained injuries. It is stated that injuries were caused to
deceased and injured due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1
while driving offending vehicle no. DL-1VB-9496. It is stated that injured
were taken to Max Hospital. On the basis of statement of one Badami, FIR
No.129/2017 u/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered in PS Madhu Vihar.
After investigation of criminal case, DARs were filed in all the five claim
petitions.
3. It is stated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle no.DL-1VB-9496. Claim petitions have been filed
against respondent no.1 being driver of offending vehicle, respondent no.2
is owner and respondent no.3 is the insurer of offending vehicle.
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER
SHAILENDER MALIK Page 6
MALIK Date: 2024.08.02
16:27:16 +0530
Facts of MACT No.601/2017
4. In this case legal heirs of deceased Mohd. Wasim filed present claim petition stating that deceased was aged about 22 years and was working on an Executive Post. Deceased was stated to be getting salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. Deceased was survived by his wife and parents.
Facts of MACT No.602/20175. This is claim petition regarding injuries sustained by petitioner Iram Wasim. It is stated that petitioner/injured is well qualified lady aged about 22 years and she is stated to be very serious about her future life.
MACT No.520/20176. This is claim petition regarding injuries sustained by petitioner Deen Dayal. It is stated that petitioner suffered injuries all over his body. Petitioner was stated to be working with a private company and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
MACT No.523/20177. This is claim petition regarding injuries suffered by petitioner Durga Prasad. It is stated that petitioner suffered grievous injuries all over his body. He was stated to be working in a private company and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
MACT No.517/20178. In this case legal heirs of deceased Chander Bhan filed present claim petition stating that deceased was aged about 35 years and was working as an electrician in a private company. Deceased was stated to be earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Deceased was survived by his wife and children.
Common pleadings from respondents
9. Similar reply/WS to the DAR/claim petitions has been filed by MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed by SHAILENDER Page 7 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:27:23 +0530 respondent no.1 and 2 in all the claim petitions wherein it is pleaded that vehicle of respondents has not caused any accident and in fact vehicle no.DL-1VB-9496 has been falsely booked in the present case. It is pleaded that vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 under policy no.27/400/31/2017/2800 with validity from 09.09.2016 to 08.09.2016. It is stated that respondent no.1 has not committed any alleged offence as he followed all rules and regulations of traffic. It is stated that respondent no.1 was having valid commercial licence no.DL1120100086225 at the time of accident.
10. Similar WS/reply to DAR/claim petitions has been filed in all the claim petitions wherein it is pleaded that vehicle was not authorized to ply at the spot of accident. It is stated that vehicle was on election duty from 20.04.2017 to 23.04.2017 and as per FIR accident occurred after 12 PM of 23.04.2017 which is violation of terms and conditions of policy. It is stated that DAR is incomplete as relevant documents including identification documents of deceased/injured, medical bills have not been supplied. It is stated that since IO has not filed charge sheeted therefore negligence or involvement of driver of the vehicle no.DL-1VB-9496 has not been established. It is further stated that if at any stage it has come on record that there is collusion between claimants and respondent no.1 & 2 or respondent no.1 and 2 failed to contest the claim, then insurance company is liable to take defence in terms of Section 170 of M.V. Act. R3 has also taken all the defences in terms of section 149(2) of M.V. Act.
11. On the basis of pleadings as come in the respective claim petitions, following issues were framed in each of the claim petitions :
Digitally signedMACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK Page 8 MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:27:32 +0530 MACT No.601/2017 (1)Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1VB-9496 on 24.04.2017, at Toll Tax Maharaj Pur, Delhi Boarder, Road No.56 in rash and negligent manner and struck against pole and caused the death of deceased Mohd. Wasim? OPP (2)Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extend and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.MACT No.602/2017
(1)Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1VB-9496 on 24.04.2017, at Toll Tax Maharaj Pur, Delhi Boarder, Road No.56 in rash and negligent manner and struck against pole and petitioner suffered injuries? OPP (2)Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extend and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.MACT No.520/2017
(1)Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1VB-9496 on 24.04.2017, at Toll Tax Maharaj Pur, Delhi Boarder, Road No.56 in rash and negligent manner and struck against pole and petitioner suffered injuries? OPP (2)Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extend and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.MACT No.523/2017
(1)Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1VB-9496 on 24.04.2017, at Toll Tax Maharaj Pur, Delhi Boarder, Road No.56 in rash and negligent manner and struck against pole and petitioner? OPP (2)Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Page 9 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2024.08.02 16:27:39 +0530 extend and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.MACT No.517/2017
(1)Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1VB-9496 on 24.04.2017, at Toll Tax Maharaj Pur, Delhi Boarder, Road No.56 in rash and negligent manner and struck against pole and caused the death of deceased Chander Bhan? OPP (2)Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extend and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.
12. Vide order of ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal dated 03.01.2018 in MACT No.601/2017 and MACT No.517/2017, petitioners have been granted interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization.
13. Vide order dated 12.04.2018 all the claim petitions have been clubbed and it is ordered that evidence be recorded in MACT No.601/2017. Evidence
14. In MACT claim petition no.601/2017 and 602/2017 petitioner no.1/injured Ms.Iram Wasim has appeared as PW1 and examined PW5 Mohd. Sameer Khan who proved employment and salary record of petitioner Iram Wasim. Petitioners have also examined PW7 Naresh Sharma who proved employment and salary record of deceased Mohd. Wasim. In MACT No.520/2017 petitioner/injured Deen Dayal has appeared as PW2. In MACT No.523/2017 petitioner/injured Durga Prasad has appeared as PW3. In MACT No.517/2017 petitioner no.1 Smt.Urmila Devi examined herself as PW4 as well as Gouranga Routh as PW6 who Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK Page 10 MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:27:45 +0530 proved employment and salary record of deceased Chander Bhan.
15. No evidence has been led on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2. On behalf of R3/insurance company, five witnesses have been examined. R3W1 is Deepak from State Transport Authority, Delhi; R3W2 is Ajeet Singh who proved DL of record of respondent no.1; R3W3 is R.Nagesh who proved medical reimbursement record of deceased Mohd. Wasim (deceased of MACT No.601/2017) as well as of injured Iram Wasim; R3W4 is Akarsh Deepak, Assistant Manager of respondent no.3; and R3W5 Mohan Kumar from State Election Commission, Delhi. Submissions
16. I have heard Sh.S.A. Khan, ld. Counsel for petitioners Iram Wasim (in MACT No.601/2017 and 602/2017); Ms.Sulekha Thakur, ld. Counsel for petitioners (MACT No.520/2017, MACT No.523/2017 and MACT No.517/2017). I have also heard Sh.Amit Rathor, ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 as well as Sh.Rajnish Kumar, ld. Counsel for respondent no.3/insurance company. I have also gone through written submissions filed on behalf of petitioner as well as insurance company. Issue No.1 (in all claim petitions)
17. It is settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed by SHAILENDER Page 11 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:27:53 +0530 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
18. For proving the manner in which accident has occurred, PW1 Iram Wasim, PW2 Deen Dayal, PW3 Durga Prasad as well as PW4 Smt.Urmila Devi have testified being present at the time of accident. All these witnesses have testified that on 23.04.2017 these witnesses along with deceased/injured were present waiting for TSR for going to their house, in the meantime offending vehicle RTV No. DL-1VB-9496 came from the side of Metro being driven in a very high speed and rash and negligent manner. Said RTV is stated to have hit the barrier, due to which the iron girder fell down due to which persons including witnesses PW1 to PW4 suffered injuries, deceased Mohd. Wasim and Chander Bhan expired because of the injuries suffered by them. All PW1 to PW4 have specifically testified that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 while driving RTV no.DL-1VB-9496.
19. PW1 to PW4 were cross examined at length, however nothing substantive came in their cross examination to disbelieve the version of accident as given by these witnesses. PW1 Ms.Iram Wasim specifically denied that accident occurred due to their negligence. No doubt PW1 testified that she do not remember the registration number of RTV/mini bus, but that fact itself is not sufficient to disbelieve her testimony when otherwise her testimony is getting corroboration from criminal case documents. Similarly with regard to evidence of PW2 witness Deen Dayal mentioned registration number of the offending vehicle to be DL-1VB- 9496 and reiterated in cross examination that offending vehicle was being MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed by SHAILENDER Page 12 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:27:59 +0530 driven at very high speed and hit the iron barrier which fell down due to which deceased, injured received the injuries. Similarly in cross examination of PW3 witness specifically referred the registration number as well as reiterated the negligent driving of respondent no.1 while driving the offending vehicle. PW4 in cross examination stated that in all 12 persons were waiting for three wheeler. Thus the manner in which accident occurred speaks for itself that there could not be negligence of anybody else than respondent no.1 while driving vehicle no. DL-1VB-9496 in a rash and negligent manner due to which the vehicle hit the iron barrier with such heavy impact which fell down and caused the injuries to the persons waiting by the side of the road.
20. Evidence of PW1 to PW4 get corroboration from documents filed with the DAR filed by the IO of the FIR No.129/2017 of PS Madhu Vihar. Perusal of the documents attached with the DAR clearly corroborates regarding the manner in which accident occurred as deposed by PW1 to PW4. It is admitted case as is reflected from the DAR that respondent no.1 being driver of the offending vehicle no. DL-1VB-9496 is facing the prosecution in criminal case. Most importantly respondent no.1 did not come forward to give evidence to testify regarding any other facts. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that injured, deceased suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 while driving offending vehicle no.DL-1VB-9496. Issue accordingly decided in favour of petitioners.
Issue No.2
21. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed Page 13 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:28:06 +0530 claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
22. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here 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.
These issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/ deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed by SHAILENDER Page 14 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:28:13 +0530 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 balanc expired e 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 multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step-3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed Page 15 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:28:19 +0530 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."
23. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters:MACT No.601/2017
PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Age of deceased
24. The widow of the deceased Mohd. Wasim, namely Ms.Iram Wasim has appeared as PW1 and testified that deceased after the accident was admitted to Max Hospital. Treatment record, medical bills of the deceased are Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. Death certificate of the deceased is Ex.PW1/E. Education documents including Master Degree in Business Administration of deceased is Ex.PW1/H. From perusal of these documents as well as documents annexed with the DAR, date of birth of deceased is revealed to be 25.07.1987. As such deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident.
Medical Expenses
25. As per PW1 after the accident deceased was admitted to the Hospital and continued taking treatment till 29.04.2017 when deceased died. The medical bills Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D.
26. Sh.S.A. Khan, ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that total treatment expenditure from the documents proved is of Rs.3,35,999/-, out of which Rs.50,000/- were reimbursed from the company in which deceased was working. As such a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- were paid by father Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK Page 16 MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:28:25 +0530 of the deceased as is proved from the evidence of PW1. PW1 Iram Wasim (wife of deceased) has been cross examined at length. In cross examination PW1 admitted that her husband was covered under a mediclaim and medical bills of Rs.2 to 2.5 lakhs were reimbursed by the employer of the deceased and rest of the amount was paid by the family. PW1 in cross examination further stated that after the death of her husband, the employer had paid ex-gratia accidental benefit of Rs.10 lakhs.
27. In this regard it is relevant to refer evidence of R3W3 R. Nagesh from FOSROC Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. the company wherein deceased was working. As per R3W3 insurance company reimbursed sum of Rs.2,42,093/- out of total amount of Rs.3,13,414/- towards the medical expenses of the deceased which is collectively Ex.R3W3/3. This witness was not cross examined at all on behalf of respondents. Thus in view of such admitted facts as reflected from the evidence of PW1 and R3W3, out of total medical expenditure of Rs.3,13,414/- when Rs.2,42,093/- has already been reimbursed by a medical insurance, petitioners are entitled for balance amount of Rs.71,321/- towards the medical expenses of the deceased Mohd. Wasim.
Assessment of Income of deceased
28. PW1 Iram Wasim has testified in her evidence that her late husband was working in FOSROC Chemical India Private Limited and was drawing salary of Rs.50,000/- per month from that company. The copy of employment card, pay slip are Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G. PW1 reiterated in her cross examination that she has filed the documents regarding documents of her income along with her affidavit. Moreover PW7 Naresh Sharma has been examined from the above mentioned company who proved the employment record, salary record of deceased Mohd. Wasim.
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed by SHAILENDER Page 17 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:28:32 +0530 The appointment letter, salary slips, Form 16 of assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 are Ex.PW7/2 to Ex.PW7/5 respectively. Perusal of documents Ex.PW7/2 to Ex.PW7/5 shows that as per the salary statement of the deceased for April 2017, the Basic and HRA of deceased was Rs.11,452 + Rs.5,726 which comes out to be Rs.17,178/-. Therefore the income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation is taken to be Rs.17,178/- per month. (Rs.2,06,136/- annual income).
Application of Multiplier:
29. As held above, deceased was 30 years of age at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:
MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF DECEASED
M-18 Age group between 15 to 20 & 21
to 25 years)
M-17 Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
M-16 Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
M-15 Age group between 36 to 40 yrs
M-14 Age group between 41 to 45 yrs
M-13 Age group between 46 to 50 yrs
M-11 Age group between 51 to 55 yrs
M-9 Age group between 56 to 60 yrs
M-7 Age group between 61 to 65 yrs
M-5 Age group between 66 and above
30. In view of the above, multiplier of 17 has to be applied against Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER Page 18 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:28:38 +0530 the age bracket of 26 to 30 years to determine the compensation. Future Prospects:
31. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case, the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
32. Since on the day of accident deceased was aged around 30 years and his actual salary has been proved, in view of said fact this Tribunal finds that 50% of the income of deceased (aged below 40 years) has to be considered towards future prospects. Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
33. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK Page 19 MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:28:44 +0530 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :
Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number of dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six)
34. Instant claim petition has been filed by three petitioners i.e. widow and parents of deceased. Since, the deceased was survived by three dependents, one-third of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
35. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER Page 20 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:28:51 +0530 Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, the deceased was survived by three legal heirs, therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (48,000 X 3 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
36. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Annul income of deceased (A) Rs.2,06,136/- 2. Add future prospect @ 50% (B) Rs.1,03,068/-
3. Less 1/3rd towards personal and living Rs.1,03,068/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Annual loss of dependency(A+B-C)=D Rs.2,06,136/-
5. Multiplier (E) 176. Total loss of dependency (D x E=F) Rs.35,04,312/-
7. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,44,000/-
(Rs.48,000 X 3) (G)
8. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
9. Compensation for funeral expenses (I) Rs.18,000/-
10. Medical Expenses (J) Rs.71,321/-
Total compensation (F + G + H + I + J) Rs.37,55,633/-
37. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.37,55,633/- only.
INTEREST ON AWARD
38. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
In MACT No.517/2017Issue No.2
39. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Chander Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK Page 21 MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:28:57 +0530 Bhan. In view of ratio laid down in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra) and National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Age of deceased
40. As per the evidence of PW4 Smt.Urmila Devi her deceased husband late Chander Bhan suffered fatal injuries in the accident. PW4 proved the death certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW4/2, Aadhar card of deceased Ex.PW4/5 as per which date of birth of decease is 01.01.1981. As such on the day of accident deceased was aged 37 years. Assessment of Income of deceased
41. As per PW4 deceased husband of the witness was working as a electrician in a private company and was earning around Rs.25,000/- per month. PW4 though has proved the income tax return of deceased Chander Bhan for year 2013-14 and 2014-15 collectively exhibited as Ex.PW4/1. However the relevant income tax return of year 2016-17 or 2017-18 has not been proved in the evidence of PW4. PW4 admits in her cross examination that she has not filed any documents of the income of the deceased. However on behalf of this petitioner, PW6 Gauranga Raut, Finance Manager of Exenta Qsys Technologies Pvt. Ltd. has been examined who testified that deceased Chander Bhan was working as an electrician in the company. The ledger account for the year 2013-14 is Ex.PW6/B and TDS certificates of year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are Ex.PW6/C. The balance sheet and profit and loss account of deceased Chander Bhan of year 31.03.2016 is Ex.PW1/D.
42. It is evident from perusal of evidence of PW4 and PW6 that MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed by SHAILENDER Page 22 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:29:05 +0530 relevant documents for determining the income of the deceased around April 2017 when the accident has occurred has not been proved either in the evidence of PW4and PW6. PW6 admits in his cross examination that deceased was not getting any salary for getting work of electrician as he was civil contractor and electrician both. The relevant TDS Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C and profit and loss account are of year 2014. PW6 admits in his cross examination that income tax return for assessment year 2015-16 was not prepared by him and he do not know whether same was filed by the deceased or not. PW6 says that income of deceased for assessment year 2014-15 was Rs.2,53,539/-.
43. It is evident from the above discussion that exact documents of income of deceased at the time of the accident are neither proved in evidence of PW4 nor in the evidence of PW6. The last available evidence of the income of the deceased pertains to year 2014-15. In such situation this Tribunal is of considered view that notional income of the deceased would be taken at parity with minimum wages of skilled worker as admittedly deceased was working as electrician at the time of accident in April 2017, minimum wages of skilled worker in Delhi was Rs.16,468/- per month. Thus annual income of the deceased assessed to Rs.1,97,616/-. Application of Multiplier:
44. As held above, deceased was 37 years of age at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. In view of the ratio of judgment in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (supra) multiplier of 15 has to be applied in this case against the age bracket of 36 to 40 years to determine the compensation. Future Prospects:
46. In view of ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi & Others (supra), Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER Page 23 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:29:11 +0530 since on the day of accident deceased was aged around 37 years and he was self employed, in view of said fact this Tribunal finds that 40% of the income of deceased (aged below 40 years) has to be considered towards future prospects.
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
47. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. In view of the ratio laid down in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (supra), instant claim petition has been filed by widow and three children of the deceased. Since, the deceased was survived by four dependents, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
48. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.
Therefore, a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, the deceased was survived by four legal heirs, therefore, the claimant is entitled to a sum of MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed Page 24 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:29:19 +0530 Rs.2,28,000/- (48,000 X 4 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
49. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Annual income of deceased (A) Rs.1,97,616/- 2. Add future prospect @ 40% (B) Rs.79,046/-
3. Less 1/4th towards personal and living Rs.69,166/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Annual loss of dependency (A+B-C)=D Rs.2,07,496/-
5. Multiplier (E) 156. Total loss of dependency (D x E = F) Rs.31,12,440/-
7. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,92,000/-
(Rs.48,000 x 4) (G)
8. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
9. Compensation for funeral expenses (I) Rs.18,000/-
Total compensation (F + G + H + I) Rs.33,40,440/-
50. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.33,40,440/- only.
INTEREST ON AWARD
51. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
In MACT No.602/2017Issue No.2
52. The scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:
Digitally signedMACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK Page 25 MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:29:27 +0530 "Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;
(iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, hardship, frustration and mental stress in life."
53. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
4. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though Digitally signed by SHAILENDER MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 SHAILENDER MALIK Page 26 MALIK Date:
2024.08.02 16:29:36 +0530 some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary Damages (special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment.
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Damages (general damages)
(iv) Damages to pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii), (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii), (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK Page 27 MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:29:44 +0530 loss of expectation of life.
54. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses
55. Petitioner Iram Wasim had herself sustained injuries in the accident in which her husband Mohd. Wasim had died. Therefore police has filed a separate DAR in respect of injuries sustained by the petitioner Iram Wasim. Moreover a claim petition was also filed separately for compensation of injuries suffered by petitioner Iram Wasim. In MACT No.602/2017 affidavit of petitioner Iram Wasim is lying regarding the injuries suffered by her, however this evidence has not been separately tendered in evidence. However taking the DAR and the evidence of PW1 into consideration, it is established that on 23.04.2017 petitioner Iram Wasim was with her deceased husband Mohd. Wasim, beside others when they were waiting for TSR and accident occurred in which she suffered the injuries. At the time of accident petitioner Iram Wasim was 22 years of age and after the accident she was taken to Max Hospital. Treatment record, medical bills which are part of DAR regarding the treatment of petitioner Iram Wasim are Ex.PW1/C Ex.PW1/D. In this regard it is appropriate to refer to evidence of R3W3 R. Nagesh, from FOSROC Chemical India Private Limited, wherein deceased husband of petitioner Iram Wasim was working. This witness inter alia proved that out of total bill of Rs.1,53,350/- regarding the medical treatment of petitioner Iram Wasim, insurance company reimbursed a sum of Rs.1,03,000/-. Thus, in view of the evidence of PW1 and R3W3, petitioner certainly is entitled for sum of Digitally signed by SHAILENDER MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 SHAILENDER MALIK Page 28 MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:29:53 +0530 Rs.50,350/- as medical expenses.
Loss of earning during treatment
56. As per the MLC of petitioner Iram Wasim lying in the DAR, the nature of injuries of the petitioner is mentioned to be grievous having suffered lacerated wound beside other simple injuries and abrasions. As per medical documents petitioner was discharged from the hospital from same day however continue taking treatment as follow up patient. PW5 is Mohd. Sameer Khan from Shaheen Public School who has testified that petitioner had worked as teacher in that school for three months and drawn salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. The certification in this regard is Ex.PW5/B beside attendance register.
57. Thus from the evidence of PW1, documents as referred above as well as evidence of PW5, it is proved on the record that petitioner though suffered grievous injuries but she was discharged from the hospital on the same day of the accident and must have taken the follow up treatment. In such circumstance petitioner in the opinion of this Tribunal is entitled for one month's loss of income which comes out to be Rs.10,000/-. Special Diet & Conveyance Charges:
58. During the course of arguments, it is claimed that petitioner is also entitled for special diet and conveyance charges keeping in view injuries sustained by petitioner in the accident. However it is matter of record that no evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner in support of such claim.
59. Since it has come on record that petitioner suffered grievous injuries i.e. lacerated wound, abrasions apart from simple injuries. This Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of loss of earning during treatment for a period of one month. Thus keeping in view grievous Digitally signed by MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 SHAILENDER SHAILENDER Page 29 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:30:00 +0530 injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that petitioner must have incurred expenses towards special diet for well being during the period of treatment and also incurred expenses towards going to hospitals/doctors. Thus this Tribunal awards compensation of Rs.20,000/- each under the head of special diet and conveyance charges to the petitioner.
Attendant Charges:
60. Though there is no evidence of any attendant charges having kept nor any documentary evidence in this regard has been proved. However still keeping in view the nature of injuries, petitioner is granted lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of attendant charges. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Pain & Sufferings:
61. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No:
709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:
"12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of the treatment."
62. In this case, as per the evidence of petitioner/injured, medical bills and other material, she was found to have suffered grievous injuries including lacerated wounds, abrasions etc. on her body. Thus, it is clear MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed by SHAILENDER Page 30 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:30:11 +0530 that petitioner must have suffered immense pain and suffering during treatment and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000/- would be just and fair compensation for pain, sufferings and mental trauma suffered by the petitioner as consequences of injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, Rs.50,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of Amenities:
63. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, medical bills and other material available on record, it cannot be ignored that with the aforementioned medical condition and due to sustaining grievous injuries in the accident in question, petitioner is bound to face difficulties throughout life and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. In view of this, the petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- under this head.
64. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.50,350/-
2. Loss of earning during Rs.10,000/-
treatment
3. Special Diet Rs.20,000/-
4. Conveyance charges Rs.20,000/-
5. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.50,000/-
7. Loss of Amenities Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.1,85,350/-
Digitally signed
by
SHAILENDER
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 SHAILENDER MALIK Page 31
MALIK Date:
2024.08.02
16:30:18 +0530
65. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled comes to Rs.1,85,350/-.
INTEREST ON AWARD
66. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
In MACT No.520/2017Issue No.2
67. In view of ratio laid down in Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (supra) and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) , the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses
68. Petitioner Deen Dayal has been examined as PW2. PW2 beside giving account of the accident stated that after the accident he received multiple grievous injuries and was taken to LBS Hospital. PW2 further says that later he took the medical treatment at GTB Hospital. Witness says that for the purpose of treatment in above said two hospitals he spent Rs.50,000/-. The original medical bills are Ex.PW2/B. Having taken into to consideration the above said bills the amount of those bills comes out to be Rs.6,666/-. Nothing came in the cross examination of PW2 for contradicting the medical expenses/bills Ex.PW2/B. Thus petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,666/- under the head of medical expenses.
Loss of earning during treatment
69. As per the evidence of PW2, after the accident he was taken to LBS Hospital where his MLC No.05615 was prepared. The doctor referred the patient to another hospital as at that time doctor found swelling over the Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER Page 32 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:30:25 +0530 right parietal region. Thereafter petitioner was taken to GTB Hospital. Medical record has not been proved. Only document proved is Ex.PW2/C which is report of diagnostic centre. In such circumstances keeping in view the MLC, evidence of PW2, this Tribunal finds that petitioner suffered injuries for which he must have taken treatment only for one month.
70. Coming now to the question of income of the petitioner/injured, PW2 testifies that he has been earning Rs.15,000/- per month in a private company but PW2 in cross examination admits that he has not filed any documentary evidence proving his earning of Rs.15,000/- or any certificate on the record to show that he could not work after the accident till the date of filing of claim petition. In such circumstance notional income of the petitioner is taken at parity with minimum wages of graduate worker keeping in view his education certificate Ex.PW2/E which at the time of accident is Rs.17,916/- per month.
71. Accordingly petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.17,916/- under the above said heading.
Special Diet & Conveyance Charges:
72. During the course of arguments, it is claimed that petitioner is also entitled for special diet and conveyance charges keeping in view injuries sustained by petitioner in the accident. However it is matter of record that no evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner in support of such claim.
73. Since it has come on record that petitioner suffered grievous injuries all over his body and other injuries as reflected from MLC and other medical treatment record. This Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of loss of earning during treatment for a period of one month. Thus keeping in view grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed by SHAILENDER Page 33 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:30:32 +0530 this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that petitioner must have incurred expenses towards special diet for well being during the period of treatment and also incurred expenses towards going to hospitals/doctors. Thus this Tribunal awards compensation of Rs.20,000/- each under the head of special diet and conveyance charges to the petitioner. Attendant Charges:
74. Though there is no evidence of any attendant charges having kept nor any documentary evidence in this regard has been proved. However still keeping in view the nature of injuries, petitioner is granted lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of attendant charges. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Pain & Sufferings:
75. In view of ratio of judgment in case of Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No: 709/02 (supra), in this case, as per the evidence of petitioner/injured, medical bills and other material, he was found to have suffered grievous injuries all over his body. Thus, it is clear that petitioner must have suffered immense pain and suffering during treatment and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000/- would be just and fair compensation for pain, sufferings and mental trauma suffered by the petitioner as consequences of injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, Rs.50,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of Amenities:
76. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, medical bills and other material available on record, it cannot be ignored that with the aforementioned medical condition and due to sustaining grievous injuries in the accident in question, petitioner is bound Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER Page 34 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:30:39 +0530 to face difficulties throughout life and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. In view of this, the petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- under this head.
77. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.6,666/-
2. Loss of earning during Rs.17,916/-
treatment
3. Special Diet Rs.20,000/-
4. Conveyance charges Rs.20,000/-
5. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.50,000/-
7. Loss of Amenities Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.1,49,582/-
78. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled comes to Rs.1,49,582/-.
INTEREST ON AWARD
79. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
In MACT No.523/2017Issue No.2
80. In view of ratio laid down in Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (supra) and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) , the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :Digitally signed
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK Page 35 MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:30:48 +0530 Medical Expenses
81. PW3 in his testimony stated that after the accident he was shifted to LBS Hospital and thereafter was taken to GTB Hospital. Medical record of treatment of petitioner Durga Prasad is Ex.PW3/C. Medical bills are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW3/B. Thus keeping in view the evidence of PW3, documents as referred above, the total medical expenses as per medical bills comes out to be Rs.15,111/-. Thus petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,111/- under the head of medical expenses. Loss of earning during treatment
82. As per evidence of PW3 at the time of accident petitioner was working in a private company earning Rs.15,000/-. However PW3 in his cross examination admits that he has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that he was doing any job or earning Rs.15,000/- per month. As per the educational documents of petitioner Durga Prasad, he completed his higher secondary from Azamgarh and therefore the notional income of the petitioner is taken at parity with minimum wages of skilled worker in Delhi which comes out to be Rs.16,468/- per month.
83. This Tribunal has already noted the medical evidence as discussed above. It be noted that there is certificate of permanent disability no.156/69/02/2020 dated 29.02.2020 wherein the permanent disability of the petitioner is mentioned to be 38% in relation to spine and limbs. Though this certificate has not been proved by examining any doctor, therefore considering the overall medical documents, disability certificate this Tribunal concludes that petitioner is entitled for loss of income for one month which comes out to be Rs.16,468/-. Thus petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.16,468/- under the above head.
Digitally signed by SHAILENDER MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 SHAILENDER MALIK Page 36 MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:30:55 +0530 Loss of future earning due to disability
84. In case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India determined the broad criteria for assessment of permanent disability for ascertaining the purpose of future loss of earning and also laid down step by step procedure for assessment of disability and for ascertainment to the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
"9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) Whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) If the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) If the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The tribunal has to first ascertain what activities of the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK Page 37 MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:31:02 +0530 disability and what he could not do as a result of permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) Whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
....If doctor has given evidence about percentage of permanent disability, Tribunal will have to seek doctors opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to whole body and if so to what percentage.
13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above:
(i). All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii). The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity.
To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).
(iii). The doctor who treated an injured- claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER
SHAILENDER MALIK Page 38
MALIK Date: 2024.08.02
16:31:09 +0530
(iv). The same permanent disability may result in
different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
85. Keeping in view the ratio as discussed above, in the present case it is evident on record that as a result of the injuries sustained by petitioner in an accident, he suffered 38% permanent disability in relation to spine and limbs. In this regard it is worthwhile to mention that petitioner was referred to medical board of GTB Hospital for assessment of his medical disability and the medical board issued disability certificate no.156/69/02/2020 dated 29.02.2020, issued to injured Durga Prasad. The disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and may not corresponding to each other and the loss of income has to be seen considering the profession in which the petitioner was engaged at the time of accident. As per case of petitioner, he was working in a private company at the time of accident. It came in the evidence of petitioner that due to accidental injury his working capacity stated to have affected adversely as he could not work properly due to accidental injuries.
86. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court in para 11 and 12 has observed that Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered regarding injuries. Tribunal is required to hold inquiry into the claim for determining just compensation by assessing the medical permanent disability as well as functional disability keeping in view nature of work, profession etc. of the injured. The percentage of permanent disability of whole body cannot be presumed to be percentage loss of earning. Therefore Tribunal is bound to assess corresponding functional disability to compute the future loss of income.
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER
SHAILENDER MALIK Page 39
MALIK Date: 2024.08.02
16:31:16 +0530
87. Having considered the entire evidence, medical treatment record and medical bills as well as disability certificate of the petitioner reflect that petitioner suffered grievous injuries over front region and parietal region, his permanent disability to the extent of 38% is also in relation to spine and limbs. As such this Tribunal finds that the functional disability to whole body of the petitioner may be considered to be 50% of medical disability which is assessed to be 19%.
88. Further, law is well settled that there should be no departure from the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer: Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. Petitioner Durga Prasad (PW3) in his evidence proved his election identity card as Ex.PW3/A wherein year of birth of petitioner is mentioned to be 1975. There is no dispute with regard to age of the petitioner. Thus age of the petitioner at the time of accident is taken to be 43 years. As such multiplier to be applied in the present case would be 14 as applicable to age group between 41-45 years, would be applicable as per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner being in the age bracket of 40 to 50 years at the time of accident, an addition of income to the extent of 25% towards future prospects has to be counted.
89. As discussed above, the income of petitioner has been assessed as Rs.16,468/- + 25% (Rs.4,117/-), total Rs.20,585/- (Rs.16,468 + Rs.4,117). Thus applying the functional disability to be 19% of Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK Page 40 MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:31:22 +0530 Rs.20,585/-, amount comes out to be Rs.3,911/-. As such the loss of future income due to disability comes out to be Rs.3,911 X 12 X 14 = Rs.6,57,048/-.
Special Diet & Conveyance Charges:
90. During the course of arguments, it is claimed that petitioner is also entitled for special diet and conveyance charges keeping in view injuries sustained by petitioner in the accident. However it is matter of record that no evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner in support of such claim.
91. Since it has come on record that due to accidental injuries petitioner suffered grievous injuries over his front region and parietal region as reflected from his MLC. Moreover petitioner suffered permanent medical disability to the extent of 38% which this Tribunal has assessed to be 19% in relation to whole body. This Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of loss of earning during treatment for a period of one month. Thus keeping in view grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner and permanent disability, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that petitioner must have incurred expenses towards special diet for well being during the period of treatment and also incurred expenses towards going to hospitals/doctors. Thus this Tribunal awards compensation of Rs.20,000/- each under the head of special diet and conveyance charges to the petitioner.
Attendant Charges:
92. Though there is no evidence of any attendant charges having kept nor any documentary evidence in this regard has been proved. However still keeping in view the nature of injuries, MLC, medical documents as well as permanent disability certificate, petitioner is granted lumpsum Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER Page 41 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:31:28 +0530 amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of attendant charges. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Pain & Sufferings:
93. In view of ratio of judgment in case of Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No: 709/02 (supra), in this case, as per the evidence of petitioner/injured, medical bills and other material, he was found to have suffered grievous injuries over front region and parietal region. It is also matter of record that petitioner suffered permanent medical disability to the extent of 38% which this Tribunal assessed to be 19% in relation to whole body. Thus, it is clear that petitioner must have suffered immense pain and suffering during treatment and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000/- would be just and fair compensation for pain, sufferings and mental trauma suffered by the petitioner as consequences of injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, Rs.50,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of Amenities:
94. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, medical bills and permanent medical disability, it cannot be ignored that with the aforementioned medical disabilities and due to sustaining grievous injuries in the accident in question, petitioner is bound to face difficulties throughout life and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. In view of this, the petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- under this head.
95. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.15,111/-
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed
by SHAILENDER Page 42
SHAILENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.08.02
16:31:35 +0530
2. Loss of earning during Rs.16,468/-
treatment
3. Loss of future earning due Rs.6,57,048/-
to disability
4. Special Diet Rs.20,000/-
5. Conveyance charges Rs.20,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
7. Pain & Suffering Rs.50,000/-
8. Loss of Amenities Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.8,13,627/-
96. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled comes to Rs.8,13,627/-.
INTEREST ON AWARD
97. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization. LIABILITY
98. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Insurance company/R3 has taken multiple objections in the pleadings for avoiding the liability of payment of compensation on the ground that there was breach of insurance policy as offending vehicle no.DL-1VB-9496 was not having valid permit and driver of the offending vehicle was not keeping the valid DL. To avoid the liability, respondent no.3 has examined as many as four witnesses before ld. LC. R3W1 is Deepak from State Transport Authority who brought the summoned record of permit details of offending vehicle no. DL-1VB-9496. PW R3W1 says that permit was valid from 16.03.2017 to 15.03.2022 and Digitally signed MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK Page 43 MALIK Date:
2024.08.02 16:31:42 +0530 vehicle was authorized to be plied from Badli metro station to Auchandi Border via Rohini Sector 18 Badli. The certified copy of vehicle permit is Ex.R3W1/1. This witness was not cross examined.
99. R3W2 is Ajit Singh, Driver of DTC who brought the summoned record of driving licence no.DL11 201000086225 of respondent no.1 Dinesh Sharma. R3W2 says that DL was issued on 05.04.2010 for motorcycle and LMV and was valid till 05.04.2032. Endorsement was made on the DL on 28.05.2011 for three wheeler cab/LMV. R3W2 further testifies that another endorsement for transport was made on 03.01.2023. Witness says that on 24.04.2017 (date of accident) licence was valid to drive motorcycle and LMV.
100. R3W3 is R. Nagesh who pertains to the salary, medical expenses of deceased Mohd. Wasim and Iram Wasim and does not pertain to the objections of R3 regarding its liability.
101. R3W4 is Akarsh Deepak, Assistant Manager of respondent no.3 who stated that the offending vehicle no. DL-1VB-9496 was insured with respondent no.3 under the policy Ex.r3W4/1. It is stated that on the instructions of the company their counsel had issued a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC but driver, owner did not come forward to furnish the original documents.
102. R3W5 is Mohan Kumar from State Election Commission who testifies that the vehicle no. DL-1VB-9496 was taken in possession of Election Commission for the purpose of election duty w.e.f. 20.04.2017 upto 23.04.2017. The letter is Ex.R3W5/A.
103. Having considered the evidence. From the evidence of R3W1 it is proved that offending vehicle no. DL-1VB-9496 was holding a valid permit. Nothing came in the evidence to show that there was any brach of MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed by SHAILENDER Page 44 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:31:50 +0530 insurance policy. Similarly with regard to DL of respondent no.1/driver of offending vehicle, it has come in the evidence that at the time of accident respondent no.1 was having valid DL for motorcycle with gear and LMV. In such circumstance even if the endorsement for transport vehicle was given later, in view of the judgment of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Civil Appeal No.5826/2011 decided on 11.02.2016) wherein it was laid down that if the driver was having licence to drive LMV, there is no legal necessity to have separate endorsement for transport vehicle.
104. So far as regarding the evidence of R3W4 of serving notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC. No clear evidence has come on the record proving due service of notice upon respondent no.1 and 2 as postal receipts do not mention the complete and proper address of those respondents. Therefore there can be no presumption drawn regarding due service of notice upon respondent on.1 and 2. Even otherwise it is proved on the record that the vehicle in question was on election duty. Thus this Tribunal finds that there is no sufficient evidence proving any breach of terms of insurance policy. As such it is concluded that respondent no.3/insurance company is liable for amount of compensation to the petitioners.
Relief in MACT No.601/2017105. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.37,55,633/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.3/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed by SHAILENDER Page 45 SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:31:57 +0530 UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent no.3 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No. 601/2017
106. The awarded amount is proportioned as under:
(i) A sum of Rs.3,75,563/- is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner no.1 (widow of deceased) and amount of Rs.18,77,816/- along with interest on entire awarded amount is directed to be kept in her name with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of FDR for seven years with monthly accruing interest.
(ii) A sum of Rs.7,51,127/- each is directed to be kept in the name of petitioner no.2 and 3 (parents of deceased) in the form of FDRs in their names for a period of five years with monthly accruing interest.
107. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
Relief in MACT No.517/2017108. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.33,40,440/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.3/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent Digitally signed by SHAILENDER MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 SHAILENDER MALIK Page 46 MALIK Date:
2024.08.02 16:32:04 +0530 no.3 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No. 517/2017
109. The awarded amount is proportioned as under:
(i) A sum of Rs.3,34,044/- is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner no.1 (widow of deceased) and amount of Rs.10,02,132/- along with interest on entire awarded amount is directed to be kept in her name with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of FDR for seven years with monthly accruing interest.
(ii) A sum of Rs.6,68,088/- each is directed to be kept in the name of petitioner no.2 to 4 (children of deceased) in the form of FDRs in their names for a period till they attain age of majority or seven years, whichever is later.
110. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
Relief in MACT No.602/2017111. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.1,85,350/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.3/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent no.3 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner.
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 by SHAILENDER
SHAILENDER MALIK Page 47
MALIK Date: 2024.08.02
16:32:12 +0530
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No. 602/2017
112. Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs.18,535/- is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner Iram Wasim and amount of Rs.1,66,815/- along with interest on entire awarded amount is directed to be kept in her name with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of FDR for five years with monthly accruing interest.
113. The amount of FDR on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account.
Relief in MACT No.520/2017114. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.1,49,582/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.3/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent no.3 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No. 520/2017
115. Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs.14,582/- is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner Deen Dayal and amount of Rs.1,35,000/- along with interest on entire awarded amount is directed to MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed by Page 48 SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.08.02 16:32:21 +0530 be kept in his name with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of FDR for five years with monthly accruing interest.
116. The amount of FDR on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account.
Relief in MACT No.523/2017117. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.8,13,627/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.3/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent no.3 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No. 523/2017
118. Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs.81,627/- is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner Durga Prasad and amount of Rs.7,32,000/- along with interest on entire awarded amount is directed to be kept in his name with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of FDR for seven years with monthly accruing interest.
119. The amount of FDR on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account.
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Digitally signed
by SHAILENDER Page 49
SHAILENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.08.02
16:32:27 +0530
Direction to petitioners in all claim petitions
120. The petitioners shall open a saving bank account near the place of their residence. Further, the bank of petitioners is directed to comply with the following conditions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The 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 claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant. 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 the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
121. All files be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SHAILENDER SHAILENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.08.02
16:32:35 +0530
Announced in the open Court ( Shailender Malik )
on 02.08.2024 PO MACT-02/SHD/KKD
MACT Nos.601/17, 602/17, 520/17, 523/17, 517/17 Page 50