Delhi District Court
Lr' Of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 1 Of 18 on 21 July, 2018
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 1 of 18
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL, PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No. 5001216
MACT PETITION No. : 393/12
UNIQUE ID No. : 02404C0266112012
1.Sh. Raghuvir Singh S/o Late Sh. Ram Chandra
( father of deceased Rohtash Chauhan)
...Petitioner no. 1
2. Smt. Kilasho W/o Sh. Raghuvir Singh
(mother of deceased)
...Petitioner no. 2
3. Smt. Neelam W/o Late Sh. Rohtash Chauhan
(wife of deceased)
...Petitioner no. 3
4. Ms. Manisha d/o Late Sh. Rohtash Chauhan
( major daughter of deceased)
...Petitioner no. 4
5. Sh. Kapil Chauhan s/o Late Sh. Rohtash Chauhan
(major son of deceased)
...Petitioner no. 5
6. Ms. Priyanka d/o Late Sh. Rohtash Chauhan
(major son of deceased)
...Petitioner no. 6
All R/o Village Sisana, Disrict Baghpat, UP
........ Petitioners/claimants
Vs.
1. Sh. Mahavir Singh S/o Sh. Raj Singh
R/o VPO Kasna, PS Sampla, Rohtak, Haryana
....... Driver /R1
2. Delhi Transport Corporation
BBM Depot, Delhi.
.......Owner /R2
3. United India Insurance co.
E85, Himalaya House23, KG Marg, New Delhi.
..... Insurance co/R3
..... Respondents
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 1 of18
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 2 of 18
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.09.2012
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 10.07.2018
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.07.2018
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN CLAUSE 4.3 OF THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003
RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. & SOBAT SINGH VS
RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR., MAC.APP 422/2009 VIDE
ORDER DATED 15.12.2017
1. Date of the accident 18/19.08.2012
(intervening night)
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 27.09.2012
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 27.09.2012
investigating officer to the insurance company.
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Not mentioned in the
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate record.
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 27.09.2012
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 27.09.2012
Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 27.09.2012
(Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N/A
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 2 of18
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 3 of 18
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No.
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 27.09.2012
by the insurance Company. (Clause20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. R.K. Gupta,
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
(Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 20)
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. (Clause
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No.
the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer N/A
of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 21.07.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 23.01.2018
directed to open saving bank account (s) near
his place of residence and produce PAN Card
and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank
not issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 28.05.2018
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s) (Clause 27)
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 3 of18
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 4 of 18
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner no. 1 Sh.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Raghuvir Singh
IFSC Code (Clause 27) savings bank a/c no.
3700000102098358 ,
Petitioner no. 2 Smt.
Kilasho savings bank
a/c no.
3700000102098367,
petitioner no. 3 Smt.
Neelam savings bank
a/c no.
3700000102098376,
petitioner no. 4 Ms.
Manisha Chauhan
savings bank a/c no.
3700000102098437,
petitioner no. 5 Sh.
Kapil Chauhan
savings bank a/c no.
3700000102098428
and petitoner no. 6
Ms. Priyanka
Chauhan, savings
bank a/c no.
3700000102098385
with PNB, Baghpat
Branch, UP
IFSC : PNB0370000
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award. (Clause 27)
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427,
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to SBIN0010323, SBI,
be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) was filed in this case on 27.09.2012 with reference to FIR No.267/12 U/s 279/304A IPC PS Mukherjee Nagar and subsequent charge sheet u/s 279/304A IPC LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 4 of18 LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 5 of 18 which was filed in respect of death of Sh. Rohtash Chauhan. The ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 27.09.2012 treated the same as petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act).
2. The facts mentioned in the DAR/file are that in the intervening night of 18/19.08.12, Sh. Rohitash Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was on duty at Gas pump at BBMII Depot, Delhi and was going towards the main gate. Suddenly bus bearing registration no. DLIPB0848 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being taken back by its driver/R1 for parking hit the deceased. Sh. Om Prakash and Ranveer Singh who were conductors in the said depot admitted the deceased to Trauma Centre where deceased died during the treatment. The FIR No. 267/12 dated 19.08.12 u/s 279/304A IPC was registered with PS Mukherjee Nagar against R1/driver.
The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by doctors of BJRM Hospital, Delhi vide PMR No. 816/12 wherein the cause of death was opined as hemorrhagic shock as a result of huge bleeding & organ rupture due to blunt force impact, can be possible in road side accident and all injuries were antemortem in nature.
3. R1/ Mahavir Singh who is the driver and R2/Depot Manager, DTC/ owner of the offending vehicle have not filed any written statement and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.02.2017.
4. R3/ United India Insurance co. Ltd filed its legal offer of Rs. 5,27,800/ which was not accepted by the petitioners. It was admitted in the said legal offer that offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 0411003111P000923688 w.e.f 01.09.11 to 31.08.2012 in the name of Delhi Transport Corporation/R2 thus covering the date of accident.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by ld predecessor of this court vide order dated 12.08.2013 : (1) Whether in the intervening night of 1819.08.12 in the night hours, in Yard BBMII Bus Depot, Delhi, one bus bearing LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 5 of18 LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 6 of 18 registration no. DL1PB0848, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Mahaveer Singh hit Rohtash Chauhan and caused his death?
(2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(3). Relief.
6. The petitioners in support of their case have examined Sh. Krishan Lal, Senior Clerk, DTC, BBM DepotII, Delhi as PW1, Smt. Neelam (wife of deceased) as PW2 and Sh. Ranjeet Singh (eye witness) as PW3. Evidence by way of affidavit of one Mr. Jai Bhagwan was also filed by the petitioners but he was not examined as a witness in this case.
On the other hand, respondents did not lead any evidence in support of their respective case.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioners and ld counsel for insurance co. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
8. Issue wise findings are as under: ISSUES NO. 1 The onus to prove this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities is upon the petitioners.
Smt. Neelam (petitioner no. 3) has examined herself as PW2. She has filed and proved her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW2/A. She has deposed on the lines of the facts as mentioned in the petition.
During cross examination as conducted on behalf of insurance co/R3, she has deposed that she was not an eye witness to the accident.
Petitioners have examined Sh. Ranjit (eye witness) as PW3 who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW3/A. He deposed that he was working in DTC as conductor with Token No. 44666, BBM DepotII, Hakikat Nagar, Delhi. He deposed that in the intervening night of 18/19.08.2012 he went to depot to know the timings about his duty for the LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 6 of18 LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 7 of 18 next day. He deposed that he saw that R1/Mahavir after filling the gas in bus no. DL1PB0848 (offending vehicle) was taking it back for parking, deceased was going to the main gate and suddenly the said offending vehicle hit the deceased. He deposed that he along with Sh. Om Prakash admitted the deceased in Trauma Centre where he died during treatment. He deposed that the said accident occurred due to negligence and high speed driving by R1.
PW3 who is an eye witness was not cross examined on behalf of R1 and R2 and his cross examination by R1 and R2 was nil, opportunity given. R1 and R2 shall thus be deemed to admit the above said testimony of PW3 to the effect that the case accident was caused by offending vehicle being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner.
PW3 was cross examined by ld counsel for R3 wherein he has inter alia deposed that the police had recorded his statement in Trauma Centre and on 18.08.2012 he was on duty with duty hours from 1:00 pm to 9:00 pm. He has denied the suggestion that his statement was not recorded by the police or that he was not present at the place of accident.
PW3 who was an eye witnesses of the accident has thus deposed to the effect that the case accident was caused by the offending vehicle being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner.
The certified copies of criminal case record would also show that the case FIR No. 267/12 u/s 279/304A IPC PS Mukherjee was registered against R1. The charge sheet u/s 279/304A IPC was also filed against R1/driver of the offending vehicle. The postmortem report dated 19.08.2014 would also show the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock as a result of huge bleeding & organ rupture due to blunt force impact, can be possible in road side accident and all injuries were antemortem in nature.
Nothing has also appeared in the cross examination of PW3 to discredit his testimony. In the said circumstances, it has been clearly proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused at LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 7 of18 LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 8 of 18 the above said date, time and place and in the above said manner by the rash and negligent driving of R1 by hitting the offending vehicle against the deceased thereby causing his death.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and the material and evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that the deceased expired on above mentioned date, time and place in a road accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents accordingly.
9. Issue No. (2) In view of my findings on issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
(a) Sh. Krishan Lal, Senior Clerk, DTC, BBM DepotII, Mukherjee Nagar has been examined as PW1 who has proved the salary of deceased as Rs. 22,698/ per month as Ex. PW1/1 (2 pages).
The said witness was not cross examined by any of the respondents. PW2 ( wife of the deceased) has deposed through her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. The copy of High School certificate of deceased is on record as Ex. PW1/7 which shows the date of birth of deceased as 01.03.1957, hence, at the time of accident/death, deceased was aged about 55 years & 5 months.
PW2 deposed that his husband was a conductor with Delhi Transport Corporation and was earning Rs. 22,698/ per month.
Petitioners have also filed Form 16 of deceased for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 which shows the gross income of deceased as Rs. 2,51,790/ p.a and no income tax was deducted. The date of accident is 18/19.08.2012 and the said form 16 covers the Assessment year 201213. Hence, the monthly income of deceased comes to Rs. 20,982/ (after rounding of) (2,51,790/ divided by 12).
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 8 of18 LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 9 of 18 In view of the said discussion, Rs. 20,982/ per month is taken as monthly income of deceased on the date of accident in question.
(b) Addition of future prospects If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made In this regard, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017.
In the said judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(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 selfemployed 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.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 9 of18 LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 10 of 18 personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied) In the case in hand, the deceased was having a permanent job of conductor with DTC and in terms of above said judgment, while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
The age of the deceased, as discussed above, in the present case was about 55 years & 5 months. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iii) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the deceased would be entitled to an addition of 15% of the established income as he was between the age group of 50 to 60 years.
The monthly income of the deceased is thus calculated as 20,982/+15% of 20,982/ which comes to Rs. 20,982/+ Rs.3147/(after rounding off). = Rs. 24,129/.
(c) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
Petitioners are the parents, wife, son and daughters of deceased.
In the present case, the deceased was married and all the family LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 10 of18 LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 11 of 18 members were dependent upon the deceased , hence, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th in view of the settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298: (2009) 6 SCC 121 which has been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) in paragraph no 61 (v) of the judgment.
(d) Selection of multiplier:
As discussed above, the age of the deceased was about 55 years and 5 months at the time of his death. In view of paragraph no. 61(vii) of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the age of deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. As per the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the multiplier of 11 is to be adopted when the age of the victim is between 51 years to 55 years and the multiplier of 9 is to be adopted when the age of deceased between 56 years to 60 years. It is silent with respect to the age group of 55 to 56 years. In the present case the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 55 years and 5 months. It is a settled law that M.V. Act is a social beneficial legislation and an interpretation favoring the claimants should be adopted. Accordingly, the relevant multiplier would be taken as "11" as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61 (vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
(e) Loss of financial dependency In the light of aforesaid facts, loss of financial dependency of the petitioner comes to Rs. 23,88,771/ [i.e. Rs. 24,129/ ( per month income of the deceased) X12 X11 (multiplier) X3/4 (dependency)].
10. Compensation under nonpecuniary heads/conventional heads:
In view of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), as held in paragraph number 61 (viii) of the said judgment, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/ towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/ towards funeral expenses. Petitioner no. 3 Smt. Neelam is also granted Rs. 40,000/ towards loss of consortium.
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 11 of18
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 12 of 18
11. LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the latest case of Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pooja & Ors, MAC Appeal 798/2011, date of decision 02.11.2017 after referring to the judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17 delivered by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, accepted the submissions of the ld counsel for the insurer that nonpecuniary heads of damages would have to be restricted to the total of Rs. 70,000/ only, in view of the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said case further held that the Constitution Bench decision did not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages (except loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses).
In view of above said discussion, the petitioners would not be entitled to any amount under the said head of loss of love and affection.
12. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 23,88,771/ Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/ ________________ Total Rs. 24,58,771/ ________________ [Rounded off to Rs. 24,59,000/] (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand only) The claimants/petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. for the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f 27.09.2012 till realisation of the compensation amount. The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) .
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 12 of18 LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 13 of 18 from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
13. Liability In the case in hand, the United India Insurance company/R3 has not been able to show anything on record that R1, who was the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit of offending vehicle was not valid and as per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
14. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., United India Insurance company/R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 24,59,000/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3/Insurance co to the petitioners and their advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3/insurance co further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank alongwith the name of the claimants mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
15. Statement of petitioners in terms of clause 27 MCTAP was recorded. I have heard the petitioners and ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 13 of18 LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 14 of 18 investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, on realization, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ each be given to Sh. Raghuvir Singh and Smt. Kilasho who are parents of deceased out of which an amount of Rs. 50,000/ each be released to them in their savings bank a/c no.370000102098358 & 3700000102098367 respectively with PNB, Baghpat Branch, UP i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in 36 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 36 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
Further, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ each be given to Ms. Mahisha Chauhan, Sh. Kapil Chauhan and Ms. Priynaka Chauhan who are daughters and son of deceased out of which an amount of Rs. 50,000/ each be released to them in their savings bank a/c no.3700000102098437, 3700000102098428 & 3700000102098385 respectively with PNB, Baghpat Branch, UP i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in 36 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 36 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
Further, remaining amount be given to Smt. Neelam (who is wife of deceased ) out of which an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ be released to her in her savings bank a/c no.3700000102098376 with PNB, Baghpat Branch,UP i.e. the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in 60 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 60 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 14 of18 LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 15 of 18 It shall be subject to the following further directions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings 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(s).
(c) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the saving bank account of the claimant(s) in a nationalised bank near the place of his residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). 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.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) 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(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
16. Relief As discussed above, R3/Insurance co is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 24,59,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 27.09.2012 till realization within the jurisdiction of this LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 15 of18 LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 16 of 18 Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3/insurance co to the petitioners and their advocates failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days. R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the joint statement of petitioners was also recorded wherein they had stated that the petitioners were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to the insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
17. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules. Insurance co. is directed to obtain the copy of Digitally signed PAN Card of petitioner from the court record. AMIT by AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2018.07.21 17:08:35 +0530 Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL) on 21st July 2018 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 16 of18
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 17 of 18
FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 18/19.08.12
2. Name of deceased: Rohtash Chauhan
3. Age of the deceased: 55 years
4. Occupation of the deceased: Permanent job
5. Income of the deceased: 24,129/ per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Sh. Raghuvir Singh 89 years Father
(ii) Smt. Kilasho 73 years Mother
(iii) Smt. Neelam 52 years Wife
(iv) Ms. Manisha 29 years Daugher
(v) Sh. Kapil Chauhan 27 years Son
(vi) Ms. Priyanka Chauhan 25 years Daughter
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 20,982/ .
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 15%= Rs. 3147/
9. LessPersonal expenses of the 1/4th
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 18,097/
{ (A+B) - C =D}
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 2,17,164/
12. Multiplier (E) 11
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE Rs. 23,88,804/ = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H) LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 17 of18 LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 18 of 18
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 40,000/ consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 15,000/
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/ expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 24,59,000/ (F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 12,72,528/ award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 37,31,528/ (L+M)
23. Award amount released Rs. 4,50,000/ to the petitioners.
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 32,81,528/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms amount to the claimant (s) (Clause of clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 04.09.2018.
award. (Clause 31)
Digitally signed
AMIT by AMIT
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2018.07.21
17:08:47 +0530
(AMIT BANSAL)
PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
21.07.2018
LR' of Rohtash vs Mahavir Singh Page 18 of18