Delhi District Court
Sn vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 19 February, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, JUDGE
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL02,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.95/2013
PS Nihal Vihar
Claim Petition No.77252/2016
SN Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
1. Smt.Sandhya Deepak Dahiya
(Wife of deceased Rahul) S/o Dr.Satbir Singh Dahiya
R/o A255, BlockA, Meera Bagh,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
(Driver)
2. Prem Kumar Harish Dahiya
(Father of deceased Rahul) S/o Dr.Satbir Singh Dahiya
S/o Sh.Umed Singh Dhaiya Hospital, Gohana Road,
Sonepat, Haryana
(Owner)
3. Smt.Rani Devi HDFC ERGO General Insurance
(Mother of deceased Rahul) Co.Ltd.
W/o Sh.Prem Kumar At: Pitam Pura, New Delhi
Also at: Rama House, H.T. Parekh
Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation,
Mumbai
(Insurer)
Offending Vehicle: HR10S8855
(Estilo Car/ Maruti)
Policy No: 2311200431143000000
valid from 14.02.2013 to
13.02.2014
4. Jai Kumar
(Son of deceased Rahul)
All R/o: H1/32, Kanwar Singh
Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi
Claim Petition No.77251/2016
SN Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
2
1. Ravinder Kumar Deepak Dahiya
S/o Sh.Baljeet Singh S/o Dr.Satbir Singh Dahiya
R/o H1/52, Kunwar Singh R/o A255, BlockA, Meera Bagh,
Nagar, Nangloi, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
Delhi (Driver)
2. Harish Dahiya
S/o Dr.Satbir Singh Dahiya
Dhaiya Hospital, Gohana Road,
Sonepat, Haryana
(Owner)
3. HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Co.Ltd.
At: Pitam Pura, New Delhi
Also at: Rama House, H.T. Parekh
Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation,
Mumbai
(Insurer)
Offending Vehicle: HR10S8855
(Estilo Car/ Maruti)
Policy No: 2311200431143000000
valid from 14.02.2013 to
13.02.2014
Claim Petition No.77250/2016
SN Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
1. Sumit Kumar Deepak Dahiya
S/o Sh.Balram Singh S/o Dr.Satbir Singh Dahiya
R/o 650, Mundka Village, R/o A255, BlockA, Meera Bagh,
Nangloi, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
Delhi (Driver)
2. Harish Dahiya
S/o Dr.Satbir Singh Dahiya
Dhaiya Hospital, Gohana Road,
Sonepat, Haryana
(Owner)
3. HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Co.Ltd.
At: Pitam Pura, New Delhi
Also at: Rama House, H.T. Parekh
Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation,
3
Mumbai
(Insurer)
Offending Vehicle: HR10S8855
(Estilo Car/ Maruti)
Policy No: 2311200431143000000
valid from 14.02.2013 to
13.02.2014
Date of Institution : 11.07.2013
Date of concluding arguments : 15.02.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment/award : 19.02.2018
AWARD
1. By this common award, I shall dispose of three claim petitions bearing Nos.77252/16; 77251/16 and 77250/16 filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V. Act") since they arose from the same vehicular accident that took place at about 12:15 in the intervening night of 27/28.03.2013 in which deceased Rahul sustained fatal injuries and Ravinder Kumar and Sumit Kumar sustained grievous injuries. An FIR No.95/2013 u/ss 279/337 IPC was registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar and chargesheet was filed against Deepak Dahiya (Respondent No.1), driver of Estilo Car make Maruti bearing registration No.HR10S8855 (offending vehicle).
2. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed by the Investigating Officer (IO) along with copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and charge sheet.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the claim petition as well as DAR are that at about 12:15 am in the intervening night of 27/28.03.2013, deceased Rahul along with his friends Ravinder Kumar and Sumit Kumar was going to Nihal Vihar from Kunwar Singh Nagar on a motorcycle bearing registration No.DL9SP4948 driven by Sumit Kumar.
4When they reached near Ration Office, 50 foota road, Nihal Vihar, suddenly a vehicle bearing registration No.HR10S8855 (offending vehicle) came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the impact, the motorcycle was dragged for a considerable distance. Resultantly, all of them sustained grievous injuries and were removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. During treatment at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Rahul succumbed to his injuries on 02.04.2013.
4. Subsequently, it transpired that Deepak Dhaiya/respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle which was registered in the name of Harsh Dahiya/respondent No.2 and insured with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd/respondent No.3.
5. In the joint Written Statement filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, it was claimed that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tikku Lakra @ Sumit Kumar driver of motorcycle bearing registration No.DL9SP4948. It was also alleged that it was a case of triple riding and that none of them were wearing helmets.
6. In the Written Statement filed by respondent No.3/Insurance Co., it was admitted by the respondent No.3 that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of the accident vide its policy bearing No.2311200431143000000 valid from 14.02.2013 to 13.02.2014. However, it was alleged that Rahul, Sumit Kumar and Ravinder Kumar sustained injuries due to their own negligence while going on motorcycle in violation of Section 128 of M.V. Act.
7. Vide order dated 28.09.2013 passed by Learned Predecessor of this Court, all the three claim petitions were clubbed and tried together as these arose out of same FIR.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, the following common issues were framed by Learned Predecessor vide order dated 28.09.2013:
51. Whether the deceased Sh.Rahul suffered fatal injuries and the petitioners Sh.Ravinder Kumar and Sh.Sumit Kumar suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 28.03.2013 at about 00:15 hours involving Car bearing No.HR10S8855 driven by the respondent No.1, owned by the respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent No.3? OPP
2. Whether petitioner/petitioners is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
9. Common evidence was led in all three claim petitions and accordingly photocopies of the testimonies recorded in claim petition no.77252/16 were placed in claim petition 77251/16 and 77250/16.
10. No evidence was adduced by the respondents in support of their averments made in WS.
11. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the court record.
12. My findings on the issues are as under:
Issue No.1:
Whether the deceased Sh.Rahul suffered fatal injuries and the petitioners Sh.Ravinder Kumar and Sh.Sumit Kumar suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 28.03.2013 at about 00:15 hours involving Car bearing No.HR10S8855 driven by the respondent No.1, owned by the respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent No.3? OPP
13. In a claim petition filed under the provisions of M. V. Act, onus is on the claimant/petitioner to prove that he or she suffered injuries in a vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
14. In support of their claim that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of respondent No.1, petitioners examined Ravinder Kumar and Sumit Kumar (injured/petitioners in claim petition No.77251/16 and 77250/16 respectively) as PW1 and PW2. In their evidence by way of 6 affidavits, they gave a vivid description of the accident as detailed in para No.3 of this award.
15. In the crossexamination by respondents, it was reiterated by both PW1/Ravinder Kumar and PW2/Sumit Kumar that the accident had taken place due to negligence of respondent No.1/Deepak Dahiya as he was driving the offending vehicle at a fast speed without observing traffic rules. Both PW1 and PW2 categorically denied that the accident took place due to negligence of Sumit Kumar/PW2 who was driving the motorcycle. However, both PW1 and PW2 admitted that all three of them i.e. deceased Rahul, Sumit Kumar and Ravinder Kumar were riding on the same motorcycle without helmets. That, Sumit Kumar was driving without a driving licence was negated.
16. The testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are reliable and credible. Nothing could be elicited from them to doubt their veracity. The testimonies are thoroughly corroborated and supported by the documents placed in DAR i.e. FIR, chargesheet, Mechanical Inspection Reports, site plan etc. The bare perusal of the site plan and mechanical inspection reports of both the vehicles reveal that the offending vehicle was speeding to the extent that it had hit the approaching motorcycle on its right side and due to the impact, the motorcycle was dragged to a considerable distance resulting into the injuries sustained by its riders.
17. Regarding the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled in KAUSHNUMMA BEGUM AND ORS. VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 2001 ACJ 421 SC, held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Section 166 and 140 of the Act.
18. In BASANT KAUR AND ORS. VS. CHATTAR PAL SINGH & ORS., reported as 2003 7 ACJ 369 MP (DB), it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the owner of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident.
19. Further, in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PUSHPA RANA reported as 2009 ACJ, 287, it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
20. In a case titled as UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. RINKI @ RINKU & ORS. in MAC APP. NO.200/2012 decided on 23.07.2012, Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.P. Mittal reiterated the aforesaid view and held as under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."8
21. In view of the testimonies of PW1/Ravinder Kumar and PW2/Sumit Kumar coupled with the ratios of the citations mentioned above, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
22. Finding on Issue No.2:
Whether petitioner/petitioners is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
23. Since issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners, undoubtedly they are also entitled for compensation.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION IN CLAIM PETITION NO.77252/16
24. In SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121, which has 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principals 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.
This 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.
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 wellsettled steps:
Step1 (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 9 living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step3 (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 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."
Therefore, in view of the aforecited judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters: Age of the deceased
25. PW3/Smt.Sandhya, wife of deceased Rahul, in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW3/A) has proved photocopy of ration card as Mark B in which the birth year of deceased Rahul is mentioned as 1995. The accident took place on 28.03.2013. Accordingly, the age of deceased was 19 years at the time of accident.
Income of the deceased
26. The deceased was stated to be doing a private job and earning Rs.11,500/ per month as per salary certificate (Ex.PW3/3) issued by M/s Malik Hosiery, but the same was not got proved by the employer. However, matriculation certificate of the deceased was placed on record.
Accordingly, deceased Rahul is considered as matriculate. On the basis of Minimum Wages Rate of a Matriculate prevailing in Delhi at the time of accident, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8,814/ per month.
10Addition in the income towards future prospects
27. This issue was recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI & ORS.(SUPRA). Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"58. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is selfemployed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma (supra) has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category.
59. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the selfemployed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty.
But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a selfemployed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance.
The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is selfemployed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is selfemployed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality.
And, therefore, degreetest is imperative. Unless the degreetest is applied and 11 left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degreetest has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.
60. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of selfemployed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts."
28. In view of the ratio of PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA), an addition of 40% of Rs.8,814/ (Rs.3525.60 p.m.) is made towards future prospects in the income of the deceased Rahul. Thus, total monthly income of the deceased after making an addition of future prospects would be Rs.8814+ Rs.3525.60 = Rs.12,339.60.
Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased
29. The deceased left behind two dependants i.e. his wife PW3/Smt.Sandhya and his minor son Jai Kumar. Although, the parents of deceased are also claimants, however, as they were aged 39 years at the time of the death of deceased, they cannot be considered as dependants.
30. Applying the criteria laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), deduction in the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses would be 1/3rd (onethird) of his income (Rs.12,339.60) i.e. Rs.4,113.20. Selection of multiplier
31. As the age of the deceased was 19 years at the time of the accident, keeping in view the criteria laid down in SARLA VERMA CASE (SUPRA), 12 multiplier applicable according to age of deceased would be 18 (eighteen).
Loss of financial dependency
32. Accordingly, total loss of financial dependency of the LRs of deceased Rahul would be:
Rs.8,814 + Rs.3,525.60 (40% of Rs.8814) = Rs.12339.60 Rs.12339.60 - Rs.4,113.20 (1/3rd expenses) = Rs.8226.40 Rs.8,226.40 x 12 = Rs.98,716.80 (annual income) Rs.98,716.80 x 18 (multiplier) = Rs.17,76,902.40 Thus, total loss of financial dependency is assessed as Rs.17,76,902.40 (rounded off to Rs.17,77,000/) (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines
33. The bare perusal of MLC of DDU Hospital and case summary of Khetarpal Hospital reflects that deceased remained under treatment from 28.03.2013 and during the course of treatment, he died on 02.04.2013. The medical bills amounting to Rs.1,52,058/ placed on record for treatment given to deceased during hospitalization were also verified by the respondent No.3/Insurance Co. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,52,058/ (rounded off to Rs.1,52,100/) is granted as compensation under this head.
34. In the judgment PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA), the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with the view expressed in RAJESH AND OTHERS VS. RAJBIR SINGH AND OTHERS reported as (2013) 9 SCC 54 and held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/, Rs.40,000/ and Rs.15,000/ respectively. It also observed as under:
"The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be factcentric or quantumcentric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three year and the enhancement should be @ 10% in 13 a span of three years."
35. Accordingly, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/ (Rupees Forty Thousand) as compensation towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) as compensation towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards Loss of Love and Affection is granted as compensation.
36. The total compensation is assessed as under:
SN Heads Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of Financial Dependency 17,77,000
2 Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and 1,52,100
medicines
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000
4 Loss of Estate 15,000
5 Loss of Consortium 40,000
6 Loss of love and affection 15,000
TOTAL 20,14,100
Accordingly, the total compensation is assessed as Rs.20,14,100/ (rounded off to Rs.20,15,000) (Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand) COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION IN CLAIM PETITION NO.77251/16 Pecuniary Damages (SPECIAL Damages) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines
37. Petitioner Ravinder Kumar/PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that as a result of the accident, he sustained multiple grievous injuries and other serious injuries on different parts of his body. He also deposed that he had spent a huge amount which included his savings on his treatment. He also proved on record Discharge Summary of Ortho Care Hospital as Ex.PW1/1, treatment record as Ex.PW1/2 (colly) 14 and Bill Summary of medical bills as Mark Z. As per Ex.PW1/2 (colly), petitioner visited K.K. Hospital on 30.03.2013 for his treatment and was referred to higher centre for treatment. Thereafter, he was admitted to Ortho Care Hospital on 23.07.2013 and discharged on 30.07.2013. During his admission, he was diagnosed fracture proximal end of femur and was operated on 24.07.2013. As per Mark Z, he spent an amount of Rs.6,57,773/. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company verified the medical bills of the petitioner and certified that an amount of Rs.2,90,520/ was spent on medical treatment by the petitioner which was conceded by the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.2,90,520/ under this head.
Expenses relating to Conveyance, Food (Special Diet) and attendant charges
38. Considering his followup treatment and the nature of injuries sustained by him, an amount of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) is awarded as compensation towards Conveyance and Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) for Special Diet.
39. PW1/Ravinder Kumar has not placed on record any document to prove that he spent expenditure on attendant charges. In the absence of any evidence qua the same, I am guided by the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case titled as DTC VS. LALIT, AIR 1981 DELHI 558 , wherein it has been held that the victim is entitled to compensation even if no attendant is hired as some family member renders gratuitous services.
40. In UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. RAMA SWAMY AND OTHERS, 2012 (2) T. A. C. 34 (DEL.) , value of gratuitous services rendered by a family member of the claimant has been assessed at Rs. 2,000/ per month.
41. Keeping in view the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the surgeries undergone by him and duration of his treatment which may have lasted 15 for about 04 months, he would have required assistance of a family member during the entire period of treatment. In view of above discussion, petitioner Ravinder Kumar is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,000/ (Rupees Eight Thousand only) under this head. Loss of earning during the period of treatment
42. It was claimed by the petitioner in his evidence that he was earing Rs.10,000/ per month at the time of accident by doing a private job but same was not proved. He, however, placed on record photocopy of marksheet of his 12th class examination. Accordingly, petitioner Ravinder Kumar is considered as Matriculate as on date of accident. Thus, the income of the petitioner is assessed as Rs.8,814/ per month as on date of accident.
43. Considering all circumstances, his loss of income during period of treatment is assessed as Rs.8814 x 4 = Rs.35,256/ and he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.35,256/ under this head. Loss of future earning on account of permanent disability
44. In RAJ KUMAR VS. AJAY KUMAR & ANOTHER (2011) 1 SCC 343, broad criteria for assessment of permanent disability for ascertaining the purpose of future loss of earning was discussed and Hon'ble Apex court laid down step by step procedure for assessment of disability and for ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity.
45. PW4/Dr.Naresh Chandra, Specialist Orthopedics, Guru Govind Singh Hospital, Delhi proved Permanent Disability Certificate in respect of petitioner Ravinder Kumar as Ex.PW3/1. According to Ex.PW3/1, petitioner Ravinder Kumar was found to be having permanent physical disability of 50% in relation to his right lower limb. Considering the fact that he was unable to prove his vocation, functional disability of the petitioner in the present case is assessed as 25% in relation to whole body.
46. Accordingly, loss of future earning of petitioner Ravinder Kumar amounts 16 to Rs.2203.50 per month (Rs.8814 x 25/100). On this basis, annual loss of future earning would be Rs.26,442/ (Rs.2203.50 x 12) which is ascertained as multiplicand.
Age of the petitioner
47. Petitioner Ravinder Kumar has placed on record his Aadhar Card (Ex.PW1/3). As per Ex.PW1/3, his age was 20 years at the time of the accident.
48. Applying the criteria of multiplier laid down in SARLA VERMA (SUPRA), the multiplier applicable in this case would be 18.
49. Therefore, the total loss of future earning of the petitioner Ravinder Kumar on account of permanent physical disability would be Rs.4,75,956/ {Rs.26442 (multiplicand) X 18 (Multiplier)}. Future Medical Expenses
50. Since no claim or evidence has been led by the petitioner Ravinder Kumar regarding his future treatment, same is assessed as NIL.
NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES) Pain, Sufferings & Trauma
51. Applying the criteria according to judgment of SATYA NARAIN VS. JAI KISHAN, FAO NO: 709/02 decided on 02.02.2007 to the facts of the present case and considering the nature of injuries, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand) would be just and fair compensation for pain, sufferings and trauma suffered by the petitioner as consequences of injury.
52. The total compensation is computed as under:
SN Heads Amount
1. Treatment, hospitalization and medicines 2,90,520
2. Conveyance 15,000
3. Special Diet (Food) 15,000
3. Attendant Charges 8,000
4. Loss of earning during the period of treatment 35,256
17
5. Loss of future earning on account of permanent disability 4,75,956
6. Future Medical Expenses Nil
7. Pain, Suffering & Trauma 30,000
Total 8,69,732
53. Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs.8,69,732/ (rounded off to Rs.8,70,000/) (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Thousand).
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION IN CLAIM PETITION NO.77250/16 Pecuniary Damages (Special Damages) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines
54. Petitioner Sumit Kumar/PW2 has placed on record medical bills for the amount of Rs.6,82,277/ which after verification by respondent No.3/Insurance Co., were certified for an amount of Rs.5,45,283/, duly conceded by the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.5,45,283/ under this head. Expenses relating to Conveyance, Food (Special Diet) and Attendant Charges
55. Considering his followup treatment and the nature of injuries sustained by him, an amount of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) is awarded as compensation towards Conveyance and Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) for Special Diet.
56. PW1/Sumit Kumar has not placed on record any document to prove that he spent any expenditure on an attendant, however, keeping in view the injuries sustained by him and duration of his treatment, he would have required assistance of a family member during the entire period of treatment. Accordingly, petitioner Sumit Kumar is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,000/ (Rupees Eight Thousand only) under this head.
Loss of earning during the period of treatment
57. According to the treatment record placed on record by the petitioner 18 Sumit Kumar, he was admitted to the hospital thrice as he had sustained multiple grievous injuries and other serious injuries on different parts of his body. He was firstly admitted to Jaipur Golden Hospital on 28.03.2013 and discharged on 10.04.2013 and then again on 20.04.2013 and discharged on 22.04.2013 for revision plating. Thirdly, he was admitted to Mansaram Hospital Pvt.Ltd. for removal of implants with bone grafting on 15.09.2013 and discharged on 19.09.2013. Meaning thereby, he remained under treatment for about six months.
58. It was claimed by the petitioner in his evidence that he was working with M/s Nibbles Computer Sakshrta Kendra and earing Rs.12,000/ per month at the time of accident. He has placed on record a certificate issued by M/s Nibbles Computer Saksartha Kendra but same was not got proved from the employer. He, however, placed on record photocopy of his matriculation examination. Accordingly, petitioner Sumit Kumar is considered as Matriculate as on date of accident. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the income of the petitioner is assessed as Rs.8,814/ per month as on date of accident.
59. Considering all circumstances, his loss of income during period of treatment is assessed as Rs.8814 x 6 = Rs.52,884/ and he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.52,884/ under this head. Loss of future earning on account of permanent disability
60. PW4/Dr.Naresh Chandra, Specialist Orthopedics, Guru Govind Singh Hospital, Delhi proved Permanent Disability Certificate as Ex.PW2/5. As per Ex.PW2/5, petitioner Sumit Kumar was found to be suffering with permanent physical disability of 45% in relation to his right lower limb. Considering the fact that he was unable to prove his vocation, functional disability of the petitioner in the present case is assessed as 22% in relation to whole body.
61. Accordingly, loss of future earning of petitioner Ravinder Kumar amounts to Rs.1,939.08 per month (Rs.8814 x 22/100). On this basis, annual loss 19 of future earning would be Rs.23,268.96 (Rs.1939.08 x 12) which is ascertained as multiplicand.
Age of the petitioner
62. Petitioner Sumit Kumar has placed on record his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW2/3. As per Ex.PW2/3, his age was 23 years at the time of the accident.
63. Applying the criteria of multiplier laid down in SARLA VERMA (SUPRA) , the multiplier applicable in this case would be 18.
64. Therefore, the total loss of future earning of the petitioner Ravinder Kumar on account of permanent physical disability would be Rs.4,18,841.28 {Rs.23,268.96 (multiplicand) X 18 (Multiplier)} (rounded off to Rs.4,18,850/).
Future Medical Expenses
65. Since no claim or evidence has been led by the petitioner Sumit Kumar regarding his future treatment, same is assessed as NIL.
NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES) Pain, Sufferings & Trauma
66. Applying the criteria of SATYA NARAIN (SUPRA) to the facts of the present case and considering the nature of injuries, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand) would be just and fair compensation under this head.
67. The total compensation is computed as under:
SN Heads Amount
1. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines 5,45,283
2. Conveyance 15,000
3. Food (Special Diet) 15,000
3. Attendant Charges 8,000
4. Loss of earning during the period of treatment 52,884
5. Loss of future earning on account of permanent disability 4,18,850
6. Future Medical Expenses Nil
20
7. Pain, Suffering & Trauma 30,000
Total 10,85,017
68. Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs.10,85,017/ (rounded off to Rs.10,85,000/) (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand). LIABILITY
69. During the course of arguments, it was very vehemently argued by learned Counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Co. that it is the admitted case of the petitioners that they were triple riding and none of them were wearing helmets, hence, it was a case of contributory negligence.
70. The argument of Insurance Company/respondent No.3 is without any merit as it is evident from the site plan, mechanical inspection reports and the photographs of the scene of accident placed on record that the offending vehicle hit the approaching motorcycle from its right side with such a force that due to the impact, the motorcycle was dragged for a considerable distance. The accident was thus not caused due to triple riding or because the petitioners and deceased Rahul were not wearing helmets but because of the negligent act of respondent No.1.
71. Respondent No.1/Deepak Dahiya is, therefore, liable to pay compensation being the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR10S 8855 as the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. Respondent No.2/Harsh Dahiya is vicariously liable for the conduct of the driver, being the owner of the offending vehicle.
72. Since, it is a proved case that the offending vehicle was duly insured vide Policy No.2311200431143000000 valid from 14.02.2013 to 13.02.2014 including the date of accident i.e. 28.03.2013, therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was duly insured to cover the third party risk, respondent No.3/Insurance company is under the statutory liability to pay compensation to the petitioner.
21RELIEF In Claim petition No.77252/2016
73. In view of above findings on Issues No.1 & 2, Rs.20,15,000/ (Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand) is granted as compensation to petitioner Nos.1 to 4.
Apportionment
74. Share of petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in the award amount shall be as under:
SN Name Relationship with Share in the award deceased amount 1 Smt.Sandhya Wife 40% 2 Prem Kumar Father 15% 3 Smt.Rani Devi Mother 15% 4 Jai Kumar Son (minor) 30% In Claim petition No.76251/2016
75. In view of above findings on Issues No.1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.8,70,000/ (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Thousand) as compensation to petitioner Ravinder Kumar. In Claim petition No.76250/2016
76. In view of above findings on Issues No.1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.10,85,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand) as compensation to petitioner Sumit Kumar.
77. Petitioners (in all three claim petitions), are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 11.07.2013 till its realisation. Amount of Interim Award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount.
MODE OF PAYMENT AND DISBURSEMENT
78. Respondent No.3/Insurance Co. shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, in the name of petitioner(s) under intimation to the petitioner(s) and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, respondent 22 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
79. While making the deposit, respondent No.3/Insurance Co. shall mention the particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision on the back side of the cheque. Respondent shall also file copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank at the time of deposit. Respondent is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to the petitioner(s) in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc. in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today. In Claim petition No.77252/2016
80. Out of total award amount of Rs.20,15,000/, a sum of Rs.1,15,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand), be released to the petitioners in proportion to their shares mentioned above, immediately in their savings accounts in a nationalised bank near their place of residence.
81. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, balance amount of Rs.19,00,000/ (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs) as per share of money as mentioned above would be kept in FDRs in the following manner in accordance with the order dt. 15.12.2017 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in SOBAT SINGH VS. RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR.:
(i) Rs.7,60,000/ be kept in 15 FDRs (14 FDRs of Rs.50,000/ each and one FDR of Rs.60,000/) for a period of six months, one year, one & a half years, two years and so on till 7 ½ (seven & a half) years in the name of petitioner No.1/Smt.Sandhya (wife of the deceased).
(ii) Rs.2,85,000/ be kept in 06 FDRs of Rs.47,500/ each for a period of six months, one year, one & a half years, two years and so on till three years in the name of petitioner No.2/Prem Kumar (Father of the deceased).
23(iii) Rs.2,85,000/ be kept in 06 FDRs of Rs.47,500/ each for a period of six months, one year, one & a half years, two years and so on till three years in the name of petitioner No.3/Smt.Rani Devi (Mother of the deceased).
(iv) Rs.5,70,000/ be kept in one FDR in the name of minor petitioner No.4/Jai Kumar (Son of the deceased) and be released to him on attaining the age of majority.
In Claim petition No.77251/2016
82. Out of total award amount of Rs.8,70,000/, a sum of Rs.1,70,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand), be released to petitioner Ravinder Kumar immediately in his savings accounts in a nationalised bank near his place of residence.
83. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/ (Rupees Seven Lakhs) would be kept in 10 FDRs of Rs.70,000/ each for a period of six months, one year, one & a half years, two years and so on till five years in the name of petitioner Ravinder Kumar in accordance with the order passed in SOBAT SINGH (SUPRA).
In Claim petition No.77250/2016
84. Out of total award amount of Rs.10,85,000/, a sum of Rs.1,85,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand), be released to petitioner Sumit Kumar immediately in his savings accounts in a nationalised bank near his place of residence.
85. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, balance amount of Rs.9,00,000/ (Rupees Nine Lakhs) would be kept in 15 FDRs of Rs.60,000/ each for a period of six months, one year, one & a half years, two years and so on till 7½ (seven & a half) years in the name of petitioner Sumit Kumar in accordance with the order passed in SOBAT SINGH (SUPRA).
86. The following conditions are imposed with respect to the fixed deposits:
24(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 savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposits 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 monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s).
(d)The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s).
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned nationalised bank shall not 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. The bank shall freeze the debit card(s) of the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(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 along with their 25 PAN cards before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
87. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of cost.
88. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 19.03.2018.
89. Form IVA, IVB and V in accordance with the order passed in SOBAT SINGH (SUPRA) is annexed with the award.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
on 19th February, 2018
HEMANI Digitally signed by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date: 2018.02.19 16:42:57
+0530
(Hemani Malhotra)
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FORM IVA (In Claim Petition No: 77252/2016) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 28.03.2013
2. Name of the deceased Rahul
3. Age of the deceased 19 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Matriculate
5. Income of the deceased Rs.8,814/ p.m.
6. Name, age and relation of legal representatives of deceased:
SN Name Age/DOB Relation
(i) Smt.Sandhya 22.07.1991 Wife
(ii) Prem Kumar 09.10.1974 Father
(iii) Smt.Rani Devi 20.05.1974 Mother
(iv) Jai Kumar 03.04.2013 Son
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
SN Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.8,814
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) Rs.3,525.60
9. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased (C) Rs.4,113.20
10. Monthly loss of dependency
Rs.8,226.40
( A+B)C = D
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D X 12) Rs.98,716.80
12. Multiplier (E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency (D X 12 X E = F) Rs.17,76,902.40 (rounded
off Rs.17,77,000/)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Rs.1,52,100/
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs.15,000/
(H)
16 Compensation for loss of consortium (I) Rs.40,000/
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.15,000/
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs.15,000/
19. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Rs.20,15,000/
(rounded off)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% p.a.
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.8,35,163/
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.28,50,163/
23. Award amount released Rs.1,15,000/
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.19,00,000/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to As per order of award
the claimant(s). (Clause 29)
26. Next Date for compliance of the award (Clause 19.03.2018
31)
HEMANI Digitally signed by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date: 2018.02.19 16:43:17 +0530
(Hemani Malhotra)
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FORM IVB (In Claim Petition No: 77251/2016) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 28.03.2013
2. Name of the injured Ravinder Kumar
3. Age of the injured 20 yrs
4. Occupation of the injured Matriculate
5. Income of the injured Rs.8,814/ p.m.
6. Nature of Injury Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by Ortho Care Hospital the injured
8. Period of hospitalization 23.07.2013 to 30.07.2013
9. Whether any permanent Yes disability If yes, give details 50% in relation to his right lower limb
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment 2,90,520
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance 15,000
(iii) Expenditure on special diet 15,000
(iv) Cost of nursing attendant 8,000
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income 35,256
(vii) Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12 NonPecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering 30,000
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature of 25% disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income (income x % Earning 4,75,956 Capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION 8,69,732 (rounded off Rs.8,70,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs.3,60,591/
17. Total amount including interest Rs.12,30,591/
18. Award amount released
19. Award amount kept in FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to FDRs the claimant(s). (Clause 29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award (Clause 19.03.2018
31) Digitally signed by HEMANI MALHOTRA HEMANI MALHOTRA Date: 2018.02.19 16:43:31 +0530 (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FORM IVB (In Claim Petition No: 77250/2016) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 28.03.2013
2. Name of the injured Sumit Kumar
3. Age of the injured 23 yrs
4. Occupation of the injured Matriculate
5. Income of the injured Rs.8,814/ p.m.
6. Nature of Injury Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by Jaipur Golden/Mansaram Hospital the injured
8. Period of hospitalization (i) 28.03.13 to 14.04.13
(ii)20.04.13 to 22.04.13
(iii)15.09.13 to 19.0913
9. Whether any permanent Yes disability If yes, give details 45% in relation to his right lower limb
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment 5,45,283
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance 15,000
(iii) Expenditure on special diet 15,000
(iv) Cost of nursing attendant 8,000
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income 52,884
(vii) Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12 NonPecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering 30,000
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature of 22% disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income (income x % Earning 4,18,850 Capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION 10,85,017 (rounded off Rs.10,85,000
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs.4,49,703/
17. Total amount including interest Rs.15,34,703/
18. Award amount released
19. Award amount kept in FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to FDRs the claimant(s). (Clause 29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award (Clause 19.03.2018
31) (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FORM - V (In Claim Petition No: 77252/2016) COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 28.03.2013 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal 11.02.2014 (Clause 2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company 11.02.2014 (Clause 2) 4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate 04.11.2013 (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before 11.02.2014 Claims Tribunal (Clause 10) 6 Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 11.02.2014 Company. (Clause 11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) 11.02.2014 (Clause 11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects?
Yes (Clause 16) 9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents Yes filed with DAR? (Clause 4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 11.02.2014 by the Insurance Company (Clause 20) 13 Name, address and contact number of the Sh.M.Awasthi, Adv. Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20) 14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of Yes the DAR? (Clause 22) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer 11.02.2014 of the Insurance Company. (Clause 24) 18 Date of award 19.02.2018 19 Whether the award was passed with the consent Yes of the parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of Yes residence? (Clause 18) 21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and 08.02.2018 Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18) 22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the P1 & P4 on 15.02.2018.
passbook of their savings bank account(s) near P2 & P4 have undertaken to the place of their residence alongwith the open the accounts and produce endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card?
passbooks within 15 days (Clause 18) 23 Permanent residential address of the P1 & P4:
claimant(s). (Clause 27) H.No.144, Block1, Bapu Dham, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi P2 & P3:
H1/32, Kanwar Singh Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi
24 Details of savings bank account(s) of the SBI, Patel Dham Branch claimant(s) and the address of the bank with the IFSC: SBIN0010440 IFSC Code. (Clause 27) 25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near their place of residence? (Clause 27) 26 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the Award to ascertain Yes his/their financial condition? (Clause 27) HEMANI Digitally signed by HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA (Hemani Malhotra) Date: 2018.02.19 16:43:59 +0530 Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FORM - V (In Claim Petition No: 77251/2016) COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 28.03.2013 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating 11.02.2014 Officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clause 2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating 11.02.2014 Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause 2) 4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
04.11.2013 before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims 11.02.2014 Tribunal (Clause 10) 6 Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company.
11.02.2014 (Clause 11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) (Clause 11) 11.02.2014 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause Yes
16) 9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents filed Yes with DAR? (Clause 4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the 11.02.2014 Insurance Company (Clause 20) 13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Sh.M.Awasthi, Adv. Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20) 14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of the Yes DAR? (Clause 22) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 23) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If No so, whether any action/direction warranted? 17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of the 11.02.2014 Insurance Company. (Clause 24) 18 Date of award 19.02.2018 19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of the Yes parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause Yes
18) 21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card 08.02.2018 and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause
18) 22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near the place of their 19.02.2018 residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card? (Clause 18) 23 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s). H1/52, Kunwar Singh (Clause 27) Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi 24 Details of savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) Union Bank of India, and the address of the bank with the IFSC Code. Nilothi Branch, (Clause 27) IFSC: UBIN0575399 25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is Yes near their place of residence? (Clause 27) 26 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the Award to ascertain his/their financial Yes condition? (Clause 27) HEMANI Digitally signed by HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.02.19 16:44:32 +0530 (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FORM - V (In Claim Petition No: 77250/2016) COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 28.03.2013 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating 11.02.2014 Officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clause 2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating 11.02.2014 Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause 2) 4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
04.11.2013 before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims 11.02.2014 Tribunal (Clause 10) 6 Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company.
11.02.2014 (Clause 11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) (Clause 11) 11.02.2014 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause Yes
16) 9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents filed Yes with DAR? (Clause 4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the 11.02.2014 Insurance Company (Clause 20) 13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Sh.M.Awasthi, Adv. Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20) 14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of the Yes DAR? (Clause 22) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 23) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If No so, whether any action/direction warranted? 17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of the 11.02.2014 Insurance Company. (Clause 24) 18 Date of award 19.02.2018 19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of the Yes parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause Yes
18) 21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card 08.02.2018 and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause
18) 22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook Petitioner has of their savings bank account(s) near the place of their undertaken to open the residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and accounts and produce Aadhaar Card? (Clause 18) passbooks within 15 days 23 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s). H.No.650, Mundka (Clause 27) Village, Nangloi, Delhi 24 Details of savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and the address of the bank with the IFSC Code. (Clause 27) 25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is Yes near their place of residence? (Clause 27) 26 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the Award to ascertain his/their financial Yes condition? (Clause 27) HEMANI Digitally signed by HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.02.19 16:44:45 +0530 (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi