Delhi District Court
Smt. Asha vs Sh. Pratap Singh Khaki on 4 February, 2021
DLCT010172362016
Presented on : 03-12-2016
Registered on : 05-12-2016
Decided on : 04-02-2021
Duration : 4 Years 2 Months
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY SH. LOVLEEN
MACT No. 358659/16
Smt. Asha
W/o Sh. Sushil Kumar
R/o H.No. N 74/124, Depot No. 23,
Bulward Road, Near H.P. Petrol Pump
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.
2nd Address:-
R/o H.No. 76, Village Ramur,
Tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonipat,
Haryana.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Pratap Singh Khaki
S/o Sh. Yudhveer Singh Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
R/o H.No. 5764/6, New Chandrwal, LOVLEEN Date:
2021.02.04
15:31:12
+0530
MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 1/29
Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-110007.
2. M/s Deco Viny Pvt. Ltd.
K.No. 156/8, 45 K.M.Stone, Village Rohad,
Distt. Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
8th Floor,, Kanchanjanga Building,
Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
4. Sh. Sushil Kumar
S/o Sh. Bhaag Singh
R/o B-991, B-Block, Jahangirpuri,
Delhi-110033.
.......Respondents.
The particulars of Form-V 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 13/10/2016
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the NA Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the NA Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.Digitally signed by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date: 2021.02.04 15:31:24 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 2/29
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 NA the part of the Investigating Officer ? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date: 2021.02.04 15:31:32 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 3/29
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by Not Mentioned the Insurance Company
13. Name, address and contact number of the Not Mentioned Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance No Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the No 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 Yes the 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 10/03/2017 of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 04/02/2021 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.02.04 15:31:42 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 4/29
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?
21. Date of order by which petitioner (s) were 04/03/2020 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 18/01/2021 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
H.No. 76, Village
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Ramur, Tehsil petitioner(s).
Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:LOVLEEN 2021.02.04 15:31:49 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 5/29
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the A/C no.
petitioner(s) and the address of the bank with 39942958974, IFSC Code. SBI, Branch : Tis Hazari, Delhi;
IFSC :
SBIN0000726
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?
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.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.02.04 15:32:02 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 6/29 AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. A petition was filed on 05.12.2016 U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking grant of compensation in respect of the death of one Sh. Nitin Kumar S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") in a motor vehicular accident. As per this petition, the deceased was driving a Maruti Van bearing registration no.
HR-32F-1881 in which certain passengers were also travelling. The said Maruti Van was being driven by deceased at a normal speed and as per traffic rules. At around 07.00 pm, when the said Maruti Van reached Near Village Sauldha at Bahadurgarh-Jhajjar Road, suddenly an Innova Car bearing registration No. HR-99ZB-Temp-9466 (hereinafter referred to as an "offending vehicle"), coming from the side of Bahadurgarh (i.e. opposite direction), struck the said Maruti Van with a great force. The offending vehicle was stated to be driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Deceased was removed to PGI Rohtak, Haryana immediately but he was further referred to Delhi for medical treatment. However, deceased lost his life in the transit. An FIR no. 558/2016 PS Sadar Bahadurgarh was got registered in respect of the above accident by one Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Ramphal. As per petition, the petitioner has survived the deceased and who was dependent upon the deceased. The petitioner claims a sum of Rs. 50 Lakhs as compensation under the different heads. R-1 is stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is stated to be the owner of the offending vehicle and R-3 is stated to be the insurer of the offending vehicle. R-4 is the father of the deceased who Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.02.04 15:32:10 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 7/29 is stated to be independent and has been arrayed as a proforma respondent.
2. Notice of this petition was served upon all the respondents. R-4 did not bother to join the proceedings despite service.
3. Separate written statements were filed on behalf of R-1 and R- 2 wherein it has been stated that the claim made by the petitioner is false, misconceived and baseless as the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. However, it is further stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured as on the date of accident and R-1 was holding a valid driving licence at that time. On merits, these respondents have simply denied the facts mentioned in the petition.
4. R-3 filed a WS wherein it took preliminary objections to the effect that the petitioner has not disclosed any cause of action; that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the deceased; that offending vehicle was being used contrary to the terms of Insurance Police (i.e. without a valid permit or fitness certificate) and R-1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time; that the owner and insurer of the Maruti Van have not been arrayed as a party to the present proceedings. On merits, the entire claim of the petitioner was denied. However, it was admitted that the offending vehicle was duly covered by an insurance policy issued by itself as on the date of accident.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.02.04 15:32:24 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 8/29 ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 10.03.2017, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Nitin Kumar suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 13.10.2016 at about 07:00 PM involving Maruti Van bearing registration No. HR-32F-1881 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.02.04 15:32:30 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 9/29 PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
6. In support of her contentions, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1. PW-1, vide her affidavit EX. PW1/A, deposed that the deceased lost his life in a motor vehicular accident on the date, time and place as mentioned in para no. 1 of this award. She further stated that she spent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cremation and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on transportation. She further stated that at the time of accident, deceased was unmarried and was working as a driver. She further stated that deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, all of which was handed over to her for household expenses. She has claimed a sum of Rs. 50 Lakhs as compensation in respect of untimely death of her son (i.e. deceased). She has re- lied upon following documents in support of her claim :-
Copy of computerized death certificate of deceased as Ex. PW1/1 Copies of DL and School Leaving Certificate of deceased as Ex. PW1/2 (Colly)(OSR);
Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN card of petitioner as Ex. PW1/3 (colly) The certified copies of petition u/s 125 Cr.PC for grant of maintenance as Ex PW1/4 (Colly) Certified copy of criminal case as Ex.
PW1/5 Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.02.04
15:32:41 +0530
MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 10/29
6.1. PW1 was cross-examined in brief on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 and 3.
6.2 Petitioner further examined PW-2 Sh. Sunil Kumar, being the eye witness of the accident. PW2 deposed, through his affidavit Ex. PW2/A, that the deceased lost his life in the road accident which occurred on 13.10.2016 at about 7:00 pm, near Village Sauldha, at Bahadurgarh- Jhajjar Road. He narrated all the facts as mentioned in para no. 1 of this award. He also placed on record a copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW2/1(OSR). PW2 was cross-examined in brief on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 and 3.
6.3 Petitioner's evidence was then closed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner on 20.11.2019.
7. Ld. Counsel for respondents closed evidence on behalf of R-1, R-2 and R-3 on 04.03.2020.
FINDINGS
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Dharmender Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Y.S. Mathur and Sh Hitesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for R-1 & R-2 and Sh. Rajesh Jagirdar Ld. Counsel for R-3/Insurance Company. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date:
2021.02.04 15:32:47 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 11/29 ISSUE NO. 11. Whether the deceased Sh. Nitin Kumar suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 13.10.2016 at about 07:00 PM involving Maruti Van bearing registration No. HR-32F-1881 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3? OPP.
9. 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 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.
10. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioner has examined the eye witness of the incident namely Sh. Sunil Kumar as PW2.
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date: 2021.02.04 15:32:57 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 12/29 PW2 has deposed by way of his affidavit Ex. PW2/A that on 13.10.2016 at about 7:00 pm he alongwith some of his relatives were travelling from Village Gudiyani to Village Rampur Kundal in a Maruti Van which was being driven by the deceased. When they reached near Village Sauldha at Bahadurgarh-Jhajjar Road the offending vehicle, being driven by R-1 at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner, struck against their vehicle from opposite direction. In the said accident, deceased sustained injuries and who died on his way to the hospital. The said witness was cross- examined by R-1 and R-2. During cross-examination, PW2 was asked questions about the date of purchase of Maruti Van, number of persons travelling in Maruti Van at the relevant time, direction of movement of vehicles involved in the accident, identity of the other occupants of Maruti Van and the relationship of deceased with the witness(PW2). PW2 has satisfactorily responded to all the said queries. The said witness has promptly denied the suggestion given by R-1 and R-2 to the effect that the Maruti Van was being driven rashly and negligently by the deceased. The said witness has also denied the suggestion given by R-1 and R-2 to the effect that the offending vehicle was not being driven rashly and negligently. The said witness has also denied the suggestion given by R-1 and R-2 to the effect that he was not present in the Maruti Van at the time of accident. The cross-examination of PW2 does not reveal any infirmity nor does it betray any falsity. This Tribunal does not find any ground to deem the oral testimony of PW2 to be unreliable.
11. It is not denied that R-1 was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304A IPC in the above FIR, which in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.02.04 15:33:05 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 13/29 PW2 and the case of petitioner on this issue. The certified copies of FIR, charge-sheet, site plan, seizure memos of documents, Postmortem Report of deceased, statement of PW2 (as recorded during the trial by the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate wherein PW2 has made an identical statement regarding factual position) all of which are a part of Ex. PW1/5(colly) also corroborate the testimony of PW2.
12. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the deposition being made by PW2 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the offending vehicle driven by R-1 was involved in a head-on collision with the Maruti Van which was being driven by the deceased.
14. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. the offending vehicle) got involved in a head-on collision with the Maruti Van at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any negligence/sudden movement on the part of Maruti Van driven by deceased at the relevant time, this tribunal is Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2021.02.04 15:33:12 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 14/29 constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
15. In view of the postmortem report of deceased placed on record by the petitioners as Ex. PW1/5(colly), no dispute is left regarding the death of the deceased on account of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioner/petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
17. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his rashness and negligence in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:LOVLEEN 2021.02.04 15:33:19 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 15/29 COMPENSATION
18. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
19. In this regard, the petitioner has examined herself as PW1. PW1 is the mother of the deceased who has stated through her affidavit Ex. PW1/A that the deceased was unmarried and was using his entire income of Rs. 15,000/- per month for running the household. PW1 has stated that the deceased was working as a driver at the time of his death. PW1 placed on record copy of the DL and School Leaving Certificate of the deceased pertaining to Vth Standard as Ex. PW1/2(colly)-(Originals were seen and returned). As per the copy of DL, the date of birth of deceased is 09.09.1990. The date of accident is 13.10.2016. Apparently, the age of deceased was about 26 years at the time of accident. 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 '17' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioner on account of death of the deceased.
20. Now we come to earnings of the deceased. As per the deposition of PW1, the deceased was working as a driver in private sector and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, no material has been placed on record to substantiate either of the said claims. It may Digitally LOVLEEN also by LOVLEEN be signed Date: 2021.02.04 15:33:27 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 16/29 noted that the petitioner has failed to place any material on record which could depict that the deceased was working and earning his livelihood in Delhi. In fact, the copies of Driving Licence and School Leaving Certificate of deceased reveal that both the said documents have been issued by authorities/ establishments of Haryana State. In fact, the copies of criminal court's records Ex. PW1/5(colly) reveal that the address of deceased has been mentioned as Sonipat, Haryana at more than one place. The contents of FIR as well as the statement of PW2 recorded during the criminal court trial seems to convey that the deceased was staying and working in Haryana only. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the income of the deceased may be assessed as per the rates of minimum wages payable to a skilled person in the State of Haryana (as deceased was holding a driving licence permitting him to drive scooter/ motorcycle / car/ jeep / tractor NT and Sonipat, Haryana was the place of residence of deceased). As per the relevant notification, the minimum wages payable to a skilled person were Rs. 9809.66/- per month.
21. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it is observed that the deceased was survived by petitioner and R-4 who are his parents. R-4 is stated to be the father of deceased, however, he has failed to join these proceedings despite service of notice. The petitioner has also placed on record a certified copy of an application filed by R-4 before the Ld. Family Court (in a proceeding instituted U/s 125 CrPC by the present petitioner against R-4) for setting aside orders dated 28.05.2019 and 24.09.2013 in order to show that R-4 is a public servant and also that R-4 denies that the deceased was his son. This Tribunal has perused the said document and does not find it appropriate to reject the same in the absence of any contest by R-4. It is apparent frombythe said Digitally signed LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.02.04 15:33:35 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 17/29document that R-4 has stated that he is a public servant and who also denies the paternity of the deceased. It is further evident from the said document that R-4 himself claims that the present petitioner never lived with R-4 and that no relationship exists between them. In these circumstances, it is difficult to presume any dependency of R-4 upon the deceased and therefore, it would not be appropriate to grant any compensation to R-4 under this head. As such, this Tribunal shall not be apportioning the compensation in favour of R-4. It is hereby clarified that the above observations may not be construed to be a final opinion on the aspect of liability of R-4 U/s 125 CrPC or any other similar provision of law as this Tribunal is not exercising any such jurisdiction. While making the above observations, this Tribunal has touched the said aspect only for the purpose of deciding the issue of "dependency" with respect to the right of the petitioner to seek compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
22. Irrespective of this, 1/2 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 26 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.
23. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs. 14,00,820/- (rounded off) (Rs. 9809.66/- X 140/100 X 1/2 X 17 X 12). This amount is awarded to the petitioner under this heads.Digitally signed by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date: 2021.02.04 15:33:43 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 18/29
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
24. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner is 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 petitioner is further entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium"::-
Filial Consortium : Rs. 40,000/- 25. Hence, the petitioner is awarded a total sum of Rs.
70,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + 15,000/- + 40,000) under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
26. The petitioner is thus awarded a sum of Rs. 14,70,820/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty only) (Rs. 14,00,820/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 40,000/-), along with interest @ 7.5% 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.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:LOVLEEN 2021.02.04 15:33:50 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 19/29 RELEASE
27. On 18/01/2021, statement of petitioner 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 Delhi on December 15, 2017. As per her statement her household expenditure is Rs. 25,000/- per month. Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the claimant maintained SBI, Branch Tis Hazari, Delhi was also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on record by the petitioner, apart from two photographs of the petitioner.
27.1 Out of the awarded amount, Rs. 17,25,000/- (Rs. Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 69 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 69 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 subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing no. No. A/c No. 39942958974 maintained with SBI, Branch Tis Hazari, Delhi IFSC Code SBIN0000726. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,05,452/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Five Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Two Only) (10% of the awarded amount) is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner. However, the concerned bank(s) shall permit the petitioner to withdraw money from her above savings bank account by means of withdrawal forms or Digitally biometric by LOVLEEN signed LOVLEEN Date: 2021.02.04 15:33:59 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 20/29 authentication. The above disbursement to the petitioner 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 her 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 petitioner i.e. the above account (s) of the petitioner shall be individual account (s) and not a joint account (s). 27.2 The original fixed deposits be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
27.3 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 pre-mature discharge be allowed on MACAD without permission of the Court.
LIABILITY
28. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the said vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R- 3 is liable to indemnify the R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount with SBI Branch Tis Hazari Courts along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, by way of crossed cheques/DDs in name of the petitioners within 30 days from today failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.02.04 15:34:06 +0530 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 21/29 period of delay. R-3 shall inform the petitioners and his counsel through registered posts that the cheques of the awarded amount are being deposited.
29. A copy of this award be given to all the parties free of cost.
30. 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).
31. Further 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 Digitally signed the same on 04/03/2021.
by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.02.04 15:34:13 +0530 Announced in the open court (LOVLEEN) On this 04th day of February, 2021 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/04/02/2021 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 22/29 Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM IV-A TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 13.10.2016
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Nitin Kumar
3. Age of the deceased. : 26 Years
4. Occupation of the deceased.: Claimed to be a driver
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of minimum wages for skilled worker
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. No. Name Age Relation
(I) Smt. Asha 51 Years Mother of the
deceased
Digitally signed
Computation of Compensation LOVLEEN
by LOVLEEN
Date: 2021.02.04
15:34:24 +0530
MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 23/29
Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the Rs.9809.66/- per month
deceased(A)
8. Add-Future 40% future prospects granted in
Prospects (B) this case.
9. Less-Personal 1/2 deduction has been done
expenses of the
deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs. 6,866.762/-
dependency[(A+B)-
C=D]
11. Annual loss of Rs. 82,401.144/-
dependency (Dx12)
( Rs. 6,866.762/- x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 17
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.02.04
15:34:31
+0530
MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 24/29
13. Total loss of Rs. 14,00,820/-
dependency
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical NIL
Expenses(G)
15. Compensation for Rs. 40,000- (Rs. 40,000/-X1)
loss of consortium(I)
16. Compensation for Rs. 15,000/-
loss of estate(J)
17. Compensation Rs. 15,000/-
towards funeral
expenses(K)
18.
TOTAL Rs. 14,70,820/-
COMPENSATION
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
19. Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
RATE OF 7.5% LOVLEEN Date:
2021.02.04
15:34:48
+0530
MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 25/29
INTEREST
AWARDED
20.
Interest amount up Rs. 4,59,632/- (rounded off) to the date of award
21.
Total amount Rs. 19,30,452/-
including interest
22.
Award amount Rs. 2,05,452/- (10% of the
released awarded amount)
23.
Award amount As per award
kept in FDRs
24.
Mode of Mentioned in the award
disbursement of
the award amount
to the petitioner (s)
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.02.04
15:34:56
+0530
MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 26/29
25.
Next date for 04/03/2021
compliance of the
award
LOVLEEN
Digitally signed by
LOVLEEN
Date: 2021.02.04
15:35:29 +0530
MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 27/29
CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 04/02/2021.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with
Digitally
directions to put up the same on 04/03/2021. signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.02.04 15:35:03 +0530 (LOVLEEN) P.O. MACT (Central - 02) Delhi /04/02/2021 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 28/29 MACT NO. 358659-16 04/02/2021 File taken up for video conferencing hearing in terms of the Office Order No. 15191-15291/DJ(HQs)/THC/2020 dated 30.08.2020 issued by Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQs), Delhi.
Present: None.
Vide my separate award of even date, the present matter stands 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).
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and the same be put up on 04/03/2021. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.02.04 15:35:52 +0530 (LOVLEEN) P.O.MACT(Central-02) Delhi /04/02/2021 MACT NO. 358659/16 Asha Vs Pratap Singh Khaki & Ors Page No. 29/29