Delhi District Court
Aakash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs Upsrt & Ors on 19 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI, PO : MACT01
(SOUTHWEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. 743/17
Aakash Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs UPSRT & Ors
CNR No.DLSW010072292017
1. Sh. Aakash Bhardwaj (son)
S/o Late Sh. S. K. Upadhyay
R/o 271, Vijay Vihar Awas,
Sector18A, Dwarka,
New Delhi
Mobile No. 9538312088
PAN : BCSPB8576R
2. Ms. Shalini Mishra (daughter)
D/o Late Sh. S. K. Upadhyay
W/o Maj. P. K. Mishra,
R/o 271, Vijay Vihar Awas,
Sector18A, Dwarka,
New Delhi
Mobile No. 7767804040
PAN : COTPM5908J
... Petitioners
Vs.
1. UP State Road Transport Corporation (Owner)
inadvertently mentioned as
UP State Road Transport Authority
Through : Principal Secretary,
HQTehri Kothi, MG Marg,
Lucknow, U. P. 226001.
Mobile No. 9911829872
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 1 of 41
2. Raj Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Chidda Lal
R/o Village Kharkhari
Hapur, UP 245101
Vehicle no. UP81R9230.
Mobile no. 9412573868
3. Insurance Company of the offending vehicle (unknown Insurer)
4. Ms. Shipra Upadhyay(daughter)
D/o Late Sh. S. K. Upadhyay
W/o Shitanshu Tiwari,
R/o E903, Rohan Vasantha Varthur,
Main Road, Marathali, Bangalore,
Karnataka.
Mobile No.9900222850
PAN :BGDPS9241K
5. Ms. Shweta Upadhyay(daughter)
D/o Late Sh. S. K. Upadhyay
W/o Mr. Sudhir Dubey,
R/o 137380, St. Paul St. Thornton Colorado,
United States.
Mobile No. 0017203200731
PAN : Not Available
....Respondents
MACP No. 744/17
Aakash Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs UPSRT & Ors
CNR No.DLSW010072282017
1. Sh. Aakash Bhardwaj (son)
S/o Late Sh. S. K. Upadhyay
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 2 of 41
R/o 271, Vijay Vihar Awas,
Sector18A, Dwarka,
New Delhi
Mobile No. 9538312088
PAN : BCSPB8576R
2. Ms. Shalini Mishra (daughter)
D/o Late Sh. S. K. Upadhyay
W/o Maj. P. K. Mishra,
R/o 271, Vijay Vihar Awas,
Sector18A, Dwarka,
New Delhi
Mobile No. 7767804040
PAN : COTPM5908J
... Petitioners
Vs.
1. UP State Road Transport Corporation (Owner)
inadvertently mentioned as
UP State Road Transport Authority
Through : Principal Secretary,
HQTehri Kothi, MG Marg,
Lucknow, U. P. 226001.
Mobile No. 9911829872
2. Raj Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Chidda Lal
R/o Village Kharkhari
Hapur, UP 245101
Vehicle no. UP81R9230.
Mobile no. 9412573868
3. Insurance Company of the offending vehicle (unknown Insurer)
4. Ms. Shipra Upadhyay(daughter)
D/o Late Sh. S. K. Upadhyay
W/o Shitanshu Tiwari,
R/o E903, Rohan Vasantha Varthur,
Main Road, Marathali, Bangalore,
Karnataka.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 3 of 41
Mobile No.9900222850
PAN :BGDPS9241K
5. Ms. Shweta Upadhyay(daughter)
D/o Late Sh. S. K. Upadhyay
W/o Mr. Sudhir Dubey,
R/o 137380, St. Paul St. Thornton Colorado,
United States.
Mobile No. 0017203200731
PAN : Not Available
...Respondents
Date of institution of MACP No. 743/17 21.05.2011
Date of institution of MACP No. 744/17 21.05.2011
Date on which, judgment have been reserved - 24.01.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 19.02.2022
JUDGMENT:
1.a. Vide this common judgment, this Tribunal shall dispose of two petitions bearing MACP No. 743/17 & MACP No. 744/17 arising out of the same accident, which took place on 10.07.2010. b. The first claim petition (bearing MACP No. 743/17) u/s 166 & 140 of MV Act has been filed on behalf of petitioners Aakash Bhardwaj & Ors against respondents UPSRTC & Ors. for grant of compensation in respect of death of deceased Smt. Usha Upadhyay, caused in the accident, which took place on 10.07.2010.
c. The connected petition (bearing MACP No.744/17) u/s 166 & 140 of MV Act has been filed on behalf of petitioners Aakash Bhardwaj & Ors against respondents UPSRTC & Ors. for grant of compensation in respect of death of deceased Sh. S. K. Upadhyay,caused in the same road traffic accident.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 4 of 41
2. CLAIM a. Brief facts as made out from the material on record are that on 10.07.2010, petitioner Sh. Aakash Bhardwaj alongwith his parents Sh. S. K. Upadhyay and Smt. Usha Upadhyay (both since deceased) were going towards their home on his Santro Car bearing no. UP16E1634. b. When he reached at Green Light of Stadium Chauraha Sector 101221, Noida, a bus bearing no. UP81R9230 (UPSRT) came in a rash and negligent manner in a very high speed and hit the car of deceased with great force. Due to this accident, both Sh. S. K. Upadhyay and Smt. Usha Upadhyay became unconscious.
c. After the accident, his father was evacuated to Kailash Hospital, Noida and his mother Smt. Usha Upadhyay was evacuated to Pakash Hospital where she was declared brought dead and after one month twenty three days, his father Sh. S. K. Upadhyay had also expired. d. In this regard a FIR no. 701/2010, u/s 279/337/338/427/304A IPC was lodged on 10.07.2010 in PS Sec20, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, UP.
e. It is further stated that accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2, who was driving the offending vehicle with the permission and consent of respondent no. 1 / owner i.e. UPSRT and the said vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 Insurance Company (the bus was belonging to R1 / UPSRTC and was not required to be insured according to the submissions of the Road Transport Corporation).
f. It is stated that the deceased parents of petitioner Sh. S. K. Upadhyay was 62 years of age (DOB 09.06.1948 as per retirement letter) and was retired from Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd as JE was getting pension of ₹8563/ per month as on 22.06.2009 (as per record of MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 5 of 41 UPCL placed in the case file) and ₹18,988/ (as per the affidavit of the petitioner filed in evidence) and Smt. Usha Upadhyay was 56 years of age (DOB01.11.1953 as per office Icard) at the time of accident and was working as Advisor at Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd and was getting Retainership Fee of ₹1,00,000/ per month (as mentioned in his affidavit).
g. It is stated that the both the deceased were parents of petitioners as well as respondent no. 4 & 5. It is also stated that all the petitioners were totally dependent upon the income of deceased and due to the sudden death of deceased, entire family has suffered a great mental, physical and financial loss.
h. In the written submissions filed on behalf of petitioners, it has been claimed that an award for a sum of ₹27,64,954/alongwith interest @ 18% pa from the date of filing of the petition bearing no. 743/17 qua deceased Sh. S. K. Upadhyay till realization may be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
i. In the written submissions filed on behalf of petitioners, it has been claimed that an award for a sum of ₹1,34,35,000/alongwith interest @ 18% pa from the date of filing of the petition bearing no. 744/17 qua deceased Smt. Usha Upadhyay till realization may be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
3. DEFENCES a. The perusal of the record reveals that WS has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 / UPSRTC i.e. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, who is the owner of the bus in question. It is submitted that on 10.07.2010, the Bus no. UP81R9230 was plying on his route from Hapur to Noida and was driven by the driver Raj Kumar S/o MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 6 of 41 Chhidda Lal. At about 07.30 pm, the bus of the corporation reached at the Red Light of the Stadium Chouraha, Noida. A Santro Car bearing no. UP 16E1634 which was driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came from the wrong side by wrongly jumping the red light signal and hit the bus from the driver side, resulting in the said accident. Whereas the bus of the Corporation was moving on the correct side of the road at slow speed. It is further submitted that there was no fault of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the Santro Car driver, who drove the car without caring for traffic rules and wrongly jumped the red light, hitting the bus himself. b. It is further averred that respondent no. 1 has unnecessarily been implicated in the present case as the respondent no. 1 is not the owner of the bus in question. The bus is owned by Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, who is necessary party in the present proceedings. The petition is thus not maintainable against respondent no. 1.
c. Further, it is also averred in the WS that the bus of the Corporation was not insured at the time of accident. d. WS was also filed on behalf of respondents No.2 / driver Raj Kumar in the present case wherein it is stated that respondent no. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner / Legal Heirs. Further, he reiterated the same defence as taken by R1 in its WS.
4.a. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 10.09.2012 by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 7 of 41 ISSUES :
1. Whether Smt. Usha Upadhyay and Sh. S. K. Upadhyay sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt. 10.07.2010 caused due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (Bus) No. UP81R9230 being driven by Respondent No. 2 Raj Singh, owned by Respondent No. 1 UPSRTC and insured by Respondent No. 3 ? ...OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ?
...OPP
3. Relief.
b. Since common question of law and facts were involved in both these cases i.e petitions bearing MACP No. 743/17 & MACP No. 744/17, the same were consolidated for the purpose of recording the evidence by treating the case bearing MACP No. 743/17 as "Leading Case" by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
5. In support of their case, petitioners have examined petitioner no.1 Sh. Aakash Bhardwaj as PW1 and Sh. Brijesh Ojha, HR Representative, M/s Sahara Prime City Ltd as PW2. Thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of petitioners.
6. In their evidence, respondent no. 2 Raj Kumar has examined himself as RW1. Thereafter, RE was closed on behalf of respondents vide order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
7. Arguments have been heard. Material on record perused. Submissions considered. It is pertinent to mention here that arguments have MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 8 of 41 not been addressed in this case on behalf of R1 and R2, despite opportunity being given.
8. The issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 1Whether Smt. Usha Upadhyay and Sh. S. K. Upadhyay sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt. 10.07.2010 caused due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (Bus) No. UP81R9230 being driven by Respondent No. 2 Raj Singh, owned by Respondent No. 1 UPSRTC and insured by Respondent No. 3 ? ...OPP a. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioners have examined petitioner no. 1 Sh. Akash Bhardwaj as PW1 and and filed his evidence by way of affidavit as (Ex. PW1/A) and further relied upon documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/10 and Mark A. b. PW1 deposed that on 10.07.2010, he alongwith his parents Sh.
S. K. Upadhyay and Smt. Usha Upadhyay(both since deceased) was going towards his home on his Santro Car bearing no. UP16E1634, and he was driving the car at that time and was having valid DL. Thereafter, they met with an accident and his mother died at spot in that accident. Whereas his father Sh. S. K. Upadhyay received grievous injuries and after one month twenty three days, i.e. on 03.09.2010, his father also expired in the hospital. c. The witness categorically stated that the traffic light from his side was green and the speed of his car was around 2030 Km/hr. It was stated that the offending vehicle had hit his car from the back side. It is noteworthy that the only suggestion given to him on behalf of R1 and R2 MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 9 of 41 that he was not driving the Santro Car at the time of the accident. It is not stated that if not for the petitioner no.1, then who was driving the Santro Car. No suggestions has also been given regarding the manner in which the Santro Car was being driven. R2. in his evidence, has not denied the accident or his involvement. He has merely stated that the Santro Car came from wrong side and jumped the red light. It is stated that it hit the bus from the driver side. In his crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that the Santro car was damaged from the rear left side or that he was driving at fast speed. He also denied that he was driving in rash and negligent manner. In this regard, it is noteworthy that neither party has filed site plan of the criminal case on record. However, the FIR has been registered at the instance of the petitioner. If the driver of the Santro Vehicle was at fault, then the bus driver should have made the first move to get the FIR registered. Let alone the first move, he did not make any police complaint at all. Even the chargesheet was filed against him. Leaving aside everything else, it is noteworthy that the duty to take care of the driver of a big commercial vehicle is anyway greater than the driver of a small private vehicle. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence led by the respondent establishing negligence on part of the petitioner, the version of the petitioner is rendered more believable than that of respondent no. 2. d. The important fact is that the petitioner was cross examined on behalf respondent no. 1 & 2, but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness. e. In these circumstances, nothing material has come on record which could shake the credibility of this witness qua his deposition regarding the manner in which the accident was caused in this case. f. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as contended by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, appears to apply to the facts of the present case.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 10 of 41 If there was one phrase to best describe the aforesaid doctrine, it would be "You say it best, when you say nothing at all". Thus, the application of the doctrine warrants that nothing be said about the circumstances surrounding the incident and let the circumstances speak for themselves. The fact that the bus driven by R2 hit the Santro Car of the petitioner on a public road without the surrounding circumstances to explain why it did so speaks of negligence on its own.
f. Thus, the involvement of the offending vehicle and the manner in which the accident took place as alleged by the petitioners remains more probable.
g. Hence, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that deceased Sh. S. K. Upadhyay and Smt. Usha Upadhyay sustained fatal injuries and died in a motor vehicle accident dated 10.07.2010 due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle i.e. bus bearing no. UP81R9230, which was being driven by R2 Raj Kumar, owned by R1 UPSRT at the time of accident.
h. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
9. ISSUE No. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP a. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus the petitioners have examined PW1 Sh. Akash (petitioner no.1 / son of deceased), who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), wherein it has been stated that his deceased MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 11 of 41 father Sh. S. K. Upadhyay was 62 years of age (DOB 09.06.1948 as per retirement letter) and he retired from Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd as JE was getting pension of ₹8563/ per month (as per record of UPCL placed in the case file) and ₹18,988/ (as per the affidavit of the petitioner filed in evidence) and his mother Smt. Usha Upadhyay was 56 years of age (DOB01.11.1953 as per office Icard) at the time of accident and was working as Advisor at Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd and was getting Retainership Fee of ₹1,00,000/ per month. Petitioner has also relied upon documents i.e. Form no. 16A issued in the name of his mother by Sahara India Commercial Corporation as Ex. PW1/4 (colly) & Ex. PW1/5 (colly) and Copy of passbook of Allahabad Bank showing that his father was receiving pension of ₹12,633/ as Mark A. b. PW1 relied upon documents i.e. original death certificate of mother as Ex. PW1/1; Certified copy of chargesheet as Ex. PW1/2; Form no. 16A for the period 1st April, 2008 to 30th June 2008, 1st July 2008 to 30th September 2008, 1st October 2008 to 31st December 2008, 1st January 2009 to 31st March 2009 as Ex. PW1/3 (colly); Form no. 16A given by Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. in the name of Smt. Usha Upadhyay from April 2007 till March 2008 as Ex. PW1/4(colly); Form no. 16A for the period of 1st April 2009 to 30th June 2009, 1st July 2009 to 30th September 2009, 1st October 2009 to 31st December 2009, 1st January 2010 to 31st March 2010 as Ex. PW1/5(colly); Identity Card of Smt. Usha Upadhyay as Ex. PW1/6 (OSR); Driving Licence of petitioner Akash Bhardwaj as Ex. PW1/7 (OSR); the final bill of Kailash Health Care as Ex. PW1/9; Letter dated 04.06.2006 regarding retirement of Sh. S. K. Upadhyay as Ex. PW1/10; Copy of Allahabad Bank showing pension of ₹12,633/ of Sh. S. K. Upadhyay, as on April 2010 is Mark A. MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 12 of 41 c. Petitioner has also examined PW2 Sh. Brijesh Ojha, H. R. Representative of M/s Sahara Prime City Limited to prove that deceased Usha Upahdyay was engaged as Advisor at Sahara India Commercial Corporation at a retainership fee of ₹1,00,000/ and further proved documents Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/5 in support of his averments. d. Further, it was contended that petitioner have three elder sisters namely Shweta Upadhyay, Ms. Shalini Mishra and Ms. Shipra Upadhyay and that all three sisters are married and are not dependent upon deceased persons.
e. PW1 also deposed in his financial status, needs and liabilities that his sisters had spent a sum of ₹75,000/ in the last rites of deceased persons.
f. Thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of petitioners. g. Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence record, petitioners, being the LRs of the deceased - Akash Bhardwaj, Shweta Upadhyay, Ms. Shalini Mishra and Ms. Shipra Upadhyay have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of said deceased persons in the abovesaid accident.
Compensation in Case MACP no. 743/17 Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners/LRs of deceased Smt. Usha Upadhyay is ascertained as under:
10. AGE & MULTIPLIER As per her office identity card, Ex. PW2/4, DOB of Smt. Usha Upadhyay is 01.11.1953. Therefore, her age at the time of the accident would be taken as '56'. Hence, the multiplier of '9' is taken in this case.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 13 of 41
11. NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS a. In the present case, in view of the material/evidence on record, it is evident that at the time of accident, the deceased - Smt. Usha Upadhyay was married and has left behind four LRs i.e. Akash Bhardwaj, Shweta Upadhyay, Ms. Shalini Mishra and Ms. Shipra Upadhyay.
b. It is an admitted fact that the all the three daughters of the deceased were married. Hence, in view of the judgment in the case of Manjuri Bera (Smt) vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr 1, they cannot be considered as dependents but would be entitled to claim compensation nevertheless under other heads.
c. So far as son of the deceased is concerned, his son Akash Bhardwaj has stated in his statement regarding financial status, needs and liabilities that at present he is unemployed. Even in his affidavit he has stated that at the time of accident, he was a student. In National Insurance Company Limited vs Birender and Ors.2,it was held that :
"It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only".
1 (2007) 10 SCC 643 2 CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 242243 with 240 OF 2020 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 13.01.2020.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 14 of 41 d. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the said case, the evidence on record would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between ₹1,00,000/ and ₹1,50,000/ per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years. It was also observed that if the dependent family members are 2 to 3, as in this case, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be taken as one third (1/3rd).
e. There is nothing on record which would show that the son of the deceased was having any income at that time. No such suggestions have been given to him on part of the respondents also. In that sense, petitioner Akash Bhardwaj was dependent on the earning of his parents and in fact, was staying with his parents, who met with an accident. Further, at the time of accident i.e. on 10.07.2010, petitioner Akash Bhardwaj was of 19 years of age ( as per matriculation certificate). Hence, more or less, petitioner was dependent upon his parents.
f. Now, what is noteworthy in this case is that due to a cruel act of fate, the petitioner lost both his parents to the same accident. One would argue that this would reduce the number of dependents on deceased Usha Upahdyay to one. However, this interpretation cannot be accepted as this would tantamount to allowing the respondents to take benefit of their own wrong. Thus, the number of dependents in respect of deceased Smt. Usha Upadhyay must be calculated irrespective of the fact that her husband also died in the same accident. Even otherwise, the husband of the deceased was a pensioner while his wife was allegedly earning a handsome amount. He died a month after her. Thus, if dependency was to be calculated at the MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 15 of 41 time of her death then also he would be considered as her dependent alongwith their son.
g. It is settled position of law that if the dependent family members are 2 to 3, as in this case, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be taken as one third (1/3rd). Thus, the total number of dependents in the present case would be 2. h. In these circumstances, in view of the law/guidelines laid down in the case titled as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr 3 one third (1/3rd) of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted from the total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
12. INCOME AND PROFESSION a. In the instant case, PW1 Sh. Akash Bhardwaj, (son/LR of deceased) deposed that at the time of accident, his deceased mother was working as Advisor in S.I.C.C.L., Lucknow, U. P and was getting Retainership Fee of ₹1,00,000/ per month plus other benefits. Further, he has also placed on record copy of appointment letter / CTC showing her fee and perks dated 23.08.2004 as Ex. PW2/1, in respect of his deceased mother. He has also filed Ex. PW2/5 dated 18.08.2010 as per which the deceased was so employed till the time of her death. As per form 16A, issued in respect of the deceased for the months of January 2010 to March 2010, TDS of ₹10,000/ was being deducted from the emoluments of the deceased. The same has also been stated by PW2 in his crossexamination. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased according to the said witness was ₹90,000/ and the same is taken as the basis for calculation of loss of dependency.
3 reported as (2009 )6SCC 121 MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 16 of 41 b. Further, in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi4, deceased was 56 years of age at the time of accident and hence, 10% future prospects be can be given at such age as she was having fixed salary.
13. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY a. In view of the above and in view of the material on record, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family multiplied by a multiplier as per above guidelines shall give the loss of dependency to the entire family.
b. Hence, the same is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of dependency in this case and as such, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceased - Smt. Usha Upadhyay can be calculated as under: Income of the deceased (annual)(90,000/ X 12) ₹10,80,000/ After adding future prospects 10% (10,80,000/ +1,08,000/) ₹11,88,000/ Deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses ₹3,96,000/ of deceased (11,88,000/ 3,96,000/) Annual loss of dependency (D) ₹7,92,000/ Total loss of dependency to the family due to death of ₹71,28,000/ deceased (A X Multiplier i.e. 9) c. Hence, in view of the above, the total loss of dependency to the family on account of death of the deceased Smt. Usha Upadhyay comes to ₹71,28,000/ and as such, the petitioners shall be entitled to the said 4 2017 (13) SCALE 12 MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 17 of 41 amount i.e.₹71,28,000/ as compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
14. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Pranay Sethi5(Supra), a sum of ₹15,000/ is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
15. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case Pranay Sethi (Supra), a sum of ₹15,000/ is awarded to the petitioners towards 'funeral expenses'.
16. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In the instant case, due to the death of deceased Usha Upadhyay, her children i.e. petitioner no. 1 Sh. Akash Bhardwaj (Son), petitioner no. 2 Shweta Upadhyay, petitioner no. 3 Ms. Shalini Mishra and petitioner no.4 Ms. Shipra Upadhyay (daughters) have suffered loss of consortium. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case and in view of law /guidelines laid down in the case Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram 6 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur7, a sum of ₹1,60,000/ (40,000 x 4) is awarded as compensation under the head 'loss of consortium'.
5 Supra, Note 4 6 2018 SCC Online SC 1546 7 2020 SCC Online SC 410.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 18 of 41
17. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners have been tabulated as below: S. HEAD AMOUNT No.
1. Loss of dependency ₹71,28,000/
2. Loss of Consortium (40,000 x 4) ₹1,60,000/
3. For funeral expenses ₹15,000/
4. Loss of estate ₹15,000/ TOTAL ₹73,18,000/ Accordingly, a sum of ₹73,18,000/ only is awarded as compensation to the petitioners in the present case.
18. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.8 Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation / award amount i.e ₹73,18,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.05.2011 till realization.
8 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 19 of 41
19. APPORTIONMENT The abovesaid award amount i.e. ₹73,18,000/ shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceased Smt. Usha Upadhyay in the following manner with proportionate interest.
S. Name of the petitioner/relation with deceased Amount No.
1. Petitioner no. 1 Sh. Ashok Upadhyay(Son) ₹70,18,000
2. Petitioner no. 2 Ms. Shalini Mishra(Daughter) ₹1,00,000/
3. Petitioner no. 3 Ms. Shipra Upadhyay (Daughter) ₹1,00,000/
4. Petitioner no. 4 Ms. Shweta Upadhay (Daughter) ₹1,00,000/ Total ₹73,18,000/
20. FORMIVA SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THEAWARD
i) Date of accident : 10.07.2010
ii). Name of the deceased : Smt. Usha Upadhyay
iii). Age of the deceased : 56 years (at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the deceased: Working as Advisor at Sahara India Ltd. Lucknow, U. P.
v). Income of the deceased : ₹1,00,000/ per annum alongwith perks.
vi). Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased
S.No. Name Age Relation with deceased
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 20 of 41
(at present)
(i) Sh. Akash Bhardwaj 30 years Son
(ii) Ms. Shalini Mishra 42 years Daughter
(iii) Ms. Shipra Upadhyay 41 years Daughter
(iv) Ms. Shweta Upadhyay 44 years Daughter
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
1. Income of the deceased (A) ₹10,80,000/ p.a.
2. AddFuture Prospects (B) (10%) ₹1,08,000/
3. LessPersonal expenses of the ₹3,96,000/
deceased (C) (one third)
4. Monthly loss of dependency
[ (A+B)C=D]
5. Annual Loss of dependency ( D x12) ₹7,92,000/
6. Multiplier (E) 9
7. Total loss of dependency (D x 12x ₹71,28,000/ E=F)
8. Medical Expenses (G)
9. Compensation for loss of love and NA affection (H)
10. Compensation for loss of consortium ₹1,60,000/ (40,000 x 4) (I)
11. Compensation for loss of estate (J) ₹15,000/
12. Compensation towards funeral ₹15,000/ expenses (K)
13. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹73,18,000/ (F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
14. Deduction of Interim Award RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
15. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 21 of 41 (M) the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.05.2011 till realization.
16. Total amount including interest ₹73,18,000/ + @9% per ( L+M) annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.05.2011 till realization.
17. Award amount released As per table given below
18. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
19. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) Account of the petitioners
20. Next Date for compliance of the 19.05.2022 award. (Clause 31)
21. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited/ transferred within 30 days by respondent no. 1 / UPSRTC in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi ' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
Further, the statement of petitioner/LRs of the deceased regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/LRs of the deceased & having regard to fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 22 of 41 S. Name Status Age Amount of Release Amount of FDR N (at Award Amount o pres ent
1. Aakash Son 30 ₹70,18,000/ ₹4,18,000/ ₹66,00,000/ be Upadhy year kept in 132 FDRs ay of ₹50,000/ each for the period from 1 month to 132 months in the name of petitioner no.1 with cumulative interest.
2. Shalini Daught 42 ₹1,00,000/ ₹1,00,000/ Nil Mishra er years
3. Ms. Daught 41 ₹1,00,000/ ₹1,00,000/ Nil Shipra er years Upadhy ay
4. Ms. Daught 44 ₹1,00,000/ ₹1,00,000/ Nil Shweta er years Upadhy ay The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 23 of 41 Compensation in case MACP no. 744/17
22. At the outset, it is noteworthy that accident took place on 10.07.2010 and the father of the petitioner died on 03.09.2010. In his cross examination, petitioner Akash Bhardwaj has stated that his father was moved to Kailash Hospital after the accident where he died during treatment. Thus, he attributed the death of his father to the accident itself. In the death certificate of the father of the petitioner, his place of death is mentioned as B13, Sector23, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. However, this aspect stands clarified vide Ex. PW1/2 which is certified copy of General Diary no. 39 recorded at 03.30 pm on 03.09.2010 wherein it has been recorded that the injured S. K. Upadhyay who was under treatment at Kailash Hospital after the accident dated 10.07.2010 has expired at the hospital and panchnama proceedings were carried out for handing over his body. The panchnama also provides the ground for his death i.e. the injury suffered by him due to the accident. Thus, the quantum of compensation in respect of deceased S. K. Upahdyay shall be assessed accordingly.
Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners/LRs of deceased Sh. S. K. Upadhyay is ascertained as under:
23. AGE & MULTIPLIER As per the retirement letter filed on record, DOB of Sh. S. K. Upadhyay is given as 09.06.1948. Therefore, his age at the time of the accident would be taken as '62'. Hence, the multiplier of '7' is taken in this case.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 24 of 41
24. NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS a. In the present case, in view of the material/evidence on record, it is evident that at the time of accident, the deceased - S. K. Upadhyay was married and has left behind four LRs i.e. Akash Bhardwaj, Shweta Upadhyay, Ms. Shalini Mishra and Ms. Shipra Upadhyay.
b. It is an admitted fact that the all the three daughters of the deceased were married. Hence, in view of the judgment in the case of Manjuri Bera (Smt) vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr 9, they cannot be considered as dependents but would be entitled to claim compensation nevertheless under other heads.
c. So far as son of the deceased is concerned, his son Akash Bhardwaj was unemployed at the time of death of his parents. Discussions in this regard have already been held while calculating the loss of dependency regarding deceased Usha Upadhyay in the forgoing paragraphs. In that sense as well as decided earlier, petitioner Akash Bhardwaj was largely dependent on his parents and in fact, was staying with them, who met with an accident. Moreover, his father died after one month of the death of her mother. Further, at the time of accident i.e. on 10.07.2010, petitioner Akash Bhardwaj was of 19 years of age ( as per matriculation certificate). Hence, the petitioner Akash Bhardwaj is considered dependent upon his father.
d. Now, what is noteworthy in this case is that due to a cruel act of fate, the petitioner lost both his parents to the same accident. One would argue that this would reduce the number of dependents on deceased S. K. Upahdyay to one. However, this interpretation cannot be accepted as this would tantamount to allowing the respondents to take benefit of their own wrong. Thus, the number of dependents in respect of deceased Sh. S. K. 9 Supra, Note 1 MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 25 of 41 Upadhyay must be calculated irrespective of the fact that his wife also died in the same accident. Dependency is to be seen as per the position in the family immediately before the accident and not what the position became as a result of the accident so that the petitioner can be placed in a position which is as good as his position was before the accident. Before the accident, the deceased S. K. Upadhyay would have had two dependents. His wife and his son. There is no reason why the same should not be considered for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency also. e. So far as the wife of the deceased earning more than him is concerned, the Tribunal is of the opinion that dependency is a relative term and may include much more than mere survival. A person having his own earning can also be dependent upon another who is having independent income for running their household as it is natural for a household having higher earning to have higher expenditure as well. It is not as if the wife of the deceased is in a good service then she cannot be dependent upon her husband who was retired from Govt. Job and must be bringing various benefits related to his service to the family than mere pension. Hence, for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency in respect of deceased S. K. Upadhyay, his wife must also be considered dependent upon him. f. It is settled law that if the dependent family members are 2 to 3, as in this case, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be taken as one third (1/3rd). Thus, the total number of dependents in the present case would be 2.
g. In these circumstances, in view of the law/guidelines laid down in the case titled as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr10 one third (1/3rd) of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted from the total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. 10 Supra, Note 3 MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 26 of 41
25. INCOME AND PROFESSION a. In the instant case, PW1 Sh. Akash Bhardwaj, (son/LR of deceased) deposed that at the time of accident, his deceased father was retired as Jr. Engineer from Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Noida and was getting pension of ₹12,633/ per month. Further, he has also placed on record copy of passbook of Allahabad Bank showing his pension as on April, 2010 as MarkA, in respect of his deceased father. The same has not been disputed by the respondents.
b. Further, in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi11, deceased was 62 years of age at the time of accident and hence, no future prospects be can be given at such age.
26. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY a. In view of the above and in view of the material on record, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family multiplied by a multiplier as per above guidelines shall give the loss of dependency to the entire family.
b. Hence, the same is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of dependency in this case and as such, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceased - Sh. S. K. Upadhyay can be calculated as under: 11 Supra, Note 4 MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 27 of 41 Income of the deceased (annual)12633 X 12 ₹1,51,596/ Future prospects Nil Deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses ₹50,532/ of deceased Annual loss of dependency (D) (1,51,59650,532) ₹1,01,064/ Total loss of dependency to the family due to death of ₹7,07,448/ deceased (A X Multiplier i.e. 7) c. Hence, in view of the above, the total loss of dependency to the family on account of death of the deceased S. K. Upadhyay comes to ₹7,07,448/ and as such, the petitioners shall be entitled to the said amount i.e.₹7,07,448/ as compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
27. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Pranay Sethi12, a sum of ₹15,000/ is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
28. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case Pranay Sethi13, a sum of ₹15,000/ is awarded to the petitioners towards 'funeral expenses'.
29. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In the instant case, due to the death of deceased Sh. S. K. Upadhyay, his four children i.e. petitioner no. 1 Sh. Akash Bhardwaj (Son), 12 Ibid 13 Ibid MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 28 of 41 petitioner no. 2 Shweta Upadhyay, petitioner no. 3 Ms. Shalini Mishra and petitioner no. 4 Ms. Shipra Upadhyay (daughters) have suffered loss of consortium. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case and in view of law / guidelines laid down in the case Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram 14 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur 15, a sum of ₹1,60,000/ (40,000 x 4) is awarded as compensation under the head 'loss of consortium'.
30. MEDICAL EXPENSES a. In the present case, as per record, the injured S.K. Upadhyay was treated at Kailash Healthcare Ltd. from 10.07.2010 to 03.09.2010. b. Petitioners have placed on record medical bills/ receipts, amounting to ₹14,37,954/.
c. It is noteworthy that the bills mentioned the employee code and I card number of deceased S. K. Upadhyay. However, there is nothing on record to show that these bills were reimbursed by any Govt. authority as otherwise the petitioner would not have been able to place the original bills on record in this case. In his crossexamination, the petitioner has specifically stated that he had applied for reimbursement of cost of treatment of his father but the claim was rejected. In these circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the said bills/receipts regarding treatment undergone by the injured before he finally expired on 03.09.2010. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of ₹14,37,954/ and accordingly, the petitioners are 14 2018 SCC Online SC 1546 15 2020 SCC Online SC 410.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 29 of 41 awarded the said amount i.e ₹14,37,954/ towards 'medicines and medical treatment'.
31. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners have been tabulated as below: S. HEAD AMOUNT No.
1. Loss of dependency ₹7,07,488/
2. Loss of Consortium (40,000 x 4) ₹1,60,000/
3. For funeral expenses ₹15,000/
4. Loss of estate ₹15,000/
5. Medical Expenses ₹14,37,954/.
TOTAL ₹23,35,442/
Rounded off to
₹23,36,000/
Accordingly, a sum of ₹23,36,000/ (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirty Six Thousand only) is awarded as compensation to the petitioners in the present case.
32. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.16 Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid 16 Supra, Note 8 MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 30 of 41 compensation / award amount i.e ₹23,36,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.05.2011 till realization.
33. LIABILITY in both cases MACP no. 743/17 & 744/17 a. The offending vehicle bearing no. UP81R9230 was being driven by R2 Raj Kumar and owned by R1 UPSRTC. There was no insurance of the vehicle. One feeble defence taken by the UPSRTC is that the petitioners have impleaded UP State Road Transport Authority whereas the vehicle was owned by UP State Road Transport Corporation. However, it is noteworthy that the WS itself has been filed on behalf of UP State Road Transport Corporation and it is UPSRTC which has contested the entire case. Thus, the respondent cannot be allowed to take benefits of this clerical error on part of the petitioner as no prejudice has been caused to them. As a matter of fact, there is no such entity known as UP State Road Transport Authority.
b. The offending vehicle bearing no. UP81R9230 belonging to R1(UPSRTC), was being driven by respondent No.2 Raj Kumar (driver) in the course of his duties, in the service of R1. As such, R1 shall be vicariously liable to pay the awarded amount in both these cases. c. Hence, in view of the above, Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
34. RELIEF in MACP No. 743/17a. Thus, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹73,18,000/ (Rupees Seventy Three Lacs Eighteen Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 31 of 41 petition i.e 21.05.2011 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
b. The abovesaid compensation amount shall be payable within 30 days by the R1(UPSRTC), Ltd to the petitioners.
35. RELIEF in MACP no. 744/17a. Thus, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹23,36,000/ (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirty Six Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 21.05.2011 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
The abovesaid compensation amount shall be payable within 30 days by the R1(UPSRTC) to the petitioners.
36. APPORTIONMENT The abovesaid award amount i.e. ₹23,36,000/ shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceasedSh. S. K. Upadhyay in the following manner with proportionate interest.
S. Name of the petitioner/relation with deceased Amount No.
1. Petitioner no. 1 Sh. Ashok Upadhyay(Son) ₹20,36,000/
2. Petitioner no. 2 Ms. Shalini Mishra(Daughter) ₹1,00,000/
3. Petitioner no. 3 Ms. Shipra Upadhyay (Daughter) ₹1,00,000/
4. Petitioner no. 4 Ms. Shweta Upadhay (Daughter) ₹1,00,000/ Total ₹23,36,000/ MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 32 of 41
37. FORMIVA SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THEAWARD
i) Date of accident : 10.07.2010
ii). Name of the deceased : Sh. S. K. Upadhyay
iii). Age of the deceased : 62 years (at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the deceased: Retired as Junior Engineer From Uttar Padesh Power Corporation Ltd.
v). Income of the deceased : ₹12,633/ per annum.
vi). Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased
S.No. Name Age Relation with deceased
(at present)
(i) Sh. Akash Bhardwaj 30 years Son
(ii) Ms. Shalini Mishra 42 years Daughter
(iii) Ms. Shipra Upadhyay 41 years Daughter
(iv) Ms. Shweta Upadhyay 44 years Daughter
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
1. Income of the deceased (A)(12663 X ₹1,51,596/ p.a.
12)
2. AddFuture Prospects (B) Nil.
3. LessPersonal expenses of the ₹50,532/ MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 33 of 41 deceased (C) (one third)
4. Monthly loss of dependency [ (A+B)C=D]
5. Annual Loss of dependency ( D x12) ₹1,01,064/ 6. Multiplier (E) 7
7. Total loss of dependency (D x 12x ₹7,07,448/.
E=F)
8. Medical Expenses (G) ₹14,37,954/
9. Compensation for loss of love and NA affection (H)
10. Compensation for loss of consortium ₹1,60,000/ (40,000 x 4) (I)
11. Compensation for loss of estate (J) ₹15,000/
12. Compensation towards funeral ₹15,000/ expenses (K)
13. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹23,35,442/ (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) Rounded off to ₹23,36,000/
14. Deduction of Interim Award NA RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
15. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from (M) the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.05.2011 till realization.
16. Total amount including interest ₹23,36,000/ + @9% per ( L+M) annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.05.2011 till realization.
17. Award amount released As per table given below
18. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
19. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) Account of the petitioners MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 34 of 41
20. Next Date for compliance of the 19.05.2022 award. (Clause 31)
38.a. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited/ transferred within 30 days by R1 / UP State Road Transport Corporation (Owner) in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this Tribunal. b. Further, the statement of petitioner/LRs of the deceased regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/LRs of the deceased & having regard to fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S. Name Statu Age Amount of Release Amount of FDR N s (at Award Amount o pres ent
1. Ashok Son 30 ₹20,36,000/ ₹56,000/ ₹19,80,000/ be Upadhyay yrs kept in 132 FDRs of ₹15,000/ each for the period from 1 month to 132 months in the name of petitioner no.1 with cumulative interest.
2. Shalini Daug 42 ₹1,00,000/ ₹1,00,000 Nil Mishra hter yrs / MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 35 of 41
3. Ms. Shipra Daug 41 ₹1,00,000/ ₹1,00,000 Nil Upadhyay hter yrs /
4. Ms. Daug 44 ₹1,00,000/ ₹1,00,000 Nil Shweta hter yrs / Upadhyay The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.)
39. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 520101253523362 in the name of petitioner no.1- Akash Bhardwaj has been opened at Corporation Bank, Branch at 0705 Bangalore Whitefield No. 77, Ground Floor, Hope Farm Circle, Near ITPL Bangalore, Karnataka, Vikas Puri Branch, Delhi (IFSC Code:CORP0000705), PAN: BCSPB8576R wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of abovementioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 36 of 41 Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
40. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 10887705304 in the name of Son / petitioner no.2 - Ms. Shalini Mishra has been opened at State Bank of India, Railway Colony MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 37 of 41 Branch, Gorakhpur, U. P. (IFSC Code: SBIN0001494), PAN:COTPM5908J, wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded to the said petitioner in the form of abovementioned FDR.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of the said petitioner.
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to the said petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the said petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to the said petitioner.
The petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 38 of 41
41. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 38782757059 in the name of Daughter / petitioner no. 3 - Ms. Shipra Upadhyay has been opened at State Bank of India, Whitefield Bangalore, Karnataka Branch, (IFSC Code: SBIN0004456), PAN:
BGDPS9241K wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded to the said petitioner in the form of abovementioned FDR.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of the said petitioner.
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to the said petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the said petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to the said petitioner.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 39 of 41 The petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
42. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank / Active Asset Account no. 320057189169 at Morgan Stanley Bank, at 121, South Tejon, Suite 700, Colardo, Springs, Co 80903 is in the name of Daughter / petitioner no. 4 - Ms. Shweta Upadhyay.
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to release the above said amount awarded to the said petitioner in the saving bank account of the said petitioner.
43. The insurance company shall inform the petitioners / LRs as well as their counsel through registered post that the award amount is being transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioners to know about the deposit in the account.
Certified copy of this award be sent to the concerned Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi, for information / compliance.
Certified copy of this award be also given ''Dasti' to the petitioners/ their counsel and Ld. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company.
Certified copy of this award be also sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 40 of 41 Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate misc. file and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 19.05.2022.
File be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
(Announced in the open Court on KUMAR Date:
this 19th day of February, 2022) SETHI 2022.02.19
18:11:34 +0530
(Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
PO, MACT 01, (South West District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
19.02.2022
MACP No. 743/17 & 744/17 Akash Bhardwaj & Ors. vs UPSRT & Ors. 41 of 41