Delhi District Court
Sh. Baleswar (Husband Of The Deceased) vs Mact No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. ... on 28 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA, PO MACT01 (SOUTH
WEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. : 719/2017
CNR No.DLSW010062982017
FIR NO. 107/2017
P.S.Dwarka South
1. Sh. Baleswar (Husband of the deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Dahu Ram
2. Mukesh Kumar (son of the deceased)
S/o Sh. Baleshwar Ram
3. Smt. Usha Devi (Daughter of the deceased)
W/o Sh. Sanjay Rajvanshi
D/o Sh. Baleshwar
All R/o D557 Gali No. 63, Mahavir Enclave,
PartIII, New Delhi110059.
4. Ms. Jyoti (Daughter of the deceased)
W/o Sh. Amarjeet
D/o Sh. Baleshwar
R/o Vill: Sheotor ,P.O.Sheotor,
AnchalMohro, DisttGaya, Bihar805109
5. Sh. Rina Devi (Daughter of the deceased)
W/o late Sh. Akhilesh Rajvanshi
D/o Sh. Baleshwar
R/o Vill.Itawa, PostRajhat,
DistrictNawada, Bihar. ... Petitioners
Vs.
MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
1
1. Sh. Jai Mangal Sharma (Driver)
S/o Sh. Nageshwar Sharma
R/o B2/308, Tara Nagar, Old Palam
Road, Kakrola, Delhi
Also at:
VillageJarang, PS:GAYA Ghat,
DisttMuzaffarpur, Bihar
2. Ram Chander Manjhi(Owner)
S/o Sh. Jeetan Manjhi
R/o H99H, Block Sri Niwaspuri
New Delhi110065 ... Respondents
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1 Date of the accident 09.03.2017
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal (
Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Without Insurance
Investigating Officer to the Insurance
Company (Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Not clear from record
Cr. PC before the Metropolitan Magistrate
(Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 07.06.2017
Information Report (DAR) by the
Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
(Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance N.A.
Company. (Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 07.06.2017
(Clause 11)
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
2
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR N.A
removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency No
on the part of the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action / direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated N.A.
Officer by the Insurance company ( Clause
20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the N.A.
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company ( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Yes
Insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted N.A.
the liability? If so, whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company fairly
computed the compensation in accordance
with law ( Clause 23 )
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency N.A.
on the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action / directions warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the N.A
offer of the Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award
19 Whether the award was passed with the No.
consent of the parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to Yes
open savings bank accounts (s) near their
place of residence ? ( Clause 18)
MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
3
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were 20.01.2018
directed to open savings bank accounts(s)
near his place of residence and produce PAN
Card and Adhaar Card and the direction tot
he bank not issue any cheque book/debit card
to the claimants (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 near
the place of their residence alongwith the ...................
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
(Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the D557 Gali No. 63,
Claimant(s) (Clause 27 ) Mahavir Enclave,
PartIII, New Delhi
110059.
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with ................
IFSC Code( Clause 27)
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank .................
account(s) is near his 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 condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Account No.
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 37665570911 at SBI
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount Dwarka, Sector10
is to be deposited/transferred. Branch, Delhi(IFSC
Code SBIN0011566 an
MICR no. 110002483)
Date of institution 12.07.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment -28.04.2023
J U D G M E N T:
MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
41. The present DAR has been filed qua death of deceased Sh. Kalva Devi caused in a road accident which took place on 9.3.2017.
2. CLAIM:
The brief facts in narrow compass, relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that on 09.03.2017 at about 12:45 P.M. deceasedKalva Devi alongwith Shakuntala Devi were returning to home from the BSES office Sector6, Dwarka. When they were crossing the road from sector6 side towards sector2 side, one black colour motorcycle bearing No. DL3SB9605 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle) driven by the respondent no. 1Jay Mangal Sharma in a very rash and negligent manner hit the deceasedKalka Devi and Shakuntala Upon powerful impact, deceasedKalva Devi has suffered fatal injuries and Shakuntala received injuries over her body. Shakuntala was admitted to Ayushman Hospital by unknown person and Kalva Devi was admitted by the respondent no. 1/driver in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Dwarka Sector1 and later the family members of the deceased were informed that Kalva Devi is declared brought dead on arrival at the hospital.
That this accident occurred due to sole negligence of the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle.
It is also stated that in this regard, an FIR No. MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
5107/2017 U/s 279/337 IPC was registered at P.S. Dwarka South West, Delhi.
It is also stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was about 46 years old and was house wife and was contributing with her work towards the family and she was very hardworking and sincere.
It is also stated that because of death of deceased, the petitioners have suffered great mental pain and agony, loss of love and affection, social and financial loss and is still suffering from the same.
3. DEFENCE:
Joint reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 in which allegations levelled in the petition have been denied and certain preliminary objections have been taken. It is stated that the petitioner/complainant were themselves negligent while crossing the road and got injured on her own without any fault of the respondent and even the respondent helped them. The petitioner was going and respondent saw that a vehicle hit the petitioner and run away and respondent was at distance of about
4 to 5 feet behind the vehicle which hit the petitioner's slipped and due to that, the petitioner fell down on the road. The respondent stopped his vehicle and with the help of other person took her to MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
6the nearest nursing home and in the nursing home, the petitioner took first aid and thereafter, the respondent left from there. It is also stated that in connivance and after much consultation, the petitioner filed a false complaint against the respondent without even thinking that the respondent has helped him out. It is also stated that the respondent did not hit the petitioner. There is also prayer for the dismissal of the petition/DAR.
4. ISSUES:
It is relevant to pen down here that as per order dated 20.1.2018, it was observed by ld. Predecessor of this Court that case titled as "Baleshwar Vs. Jai Mangal Sharma (MACP No. 793/17) arising from the same accident and as common question of law and facts have been involved in these cases , therefore, common issues were framed and all these cases were ordered to be consolidated for the purpose of recording of evidence by treating the present case as leading being "Fatal Injury Case"
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether Kalva Devi sustained fatal injuries and Shakuntala sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt 09.03.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Motor cycle) no. DL 3SB9605 being driven by respondent no. 1 Jai Mangal Sharma and owned by respondent no. 2 Ram Chander?...OPP MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.7
2. Whether the petitioners in the above mentioned cases are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
5. PETITIONER EVIDENCE:
To prove their case, the petitioner no. 1Shakuntala examined herself as PW1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. PW1 relied upon the following documents.
S. No. No. of Details of Document
Exhibits
1. Ex. PW1/1 Copy of DAR
2. Ex. PW1/2 Photocopy of election ID card of
Shakuntala
To prove their case, the petitioner no. 2Baleshwar examined himself as PW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. PW2 relied upon Ex. PW2/1 i.e. photocopy of Aadhar Card of Baleshwar, Ex.PW2/2 i.e. photocopy of Aadhar card of Usha Devi, Ex.PW2/3 i.e. Photocopy of Aadhar card of Rina Devi, Ex.PW2/4 i.e. photocopy of Aadhar card of Mukesh Kumar & Ex.PW2/5 i.e. Photocopy of Aadhar card of Jyoti.
MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.8
6. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE:
Respondent No. 1Jai Mangal examined himself as RW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A. Respondents also got examined ASI Chitter Singh as RW2. He deposed that he was IO of the present case bearing FIR No. 160/17, P.S.Dwark South. He had not taken the photographs of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle during the investigation. There was no Zebra crossing near the place of accident. Injured could not identify the accused in TIP proceedings conducted during the investigation.
7. The issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 11. Whether Kalva Devi sustained fatal injuries and Shakuntala sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt 09.03.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Motor cycle) no. DL3SB9605 being driven by respondent no. 1 Jai Mangal Sharma and owned by respondent no. 2 Ram Chander?...OPP The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the petitioners.
In order to discharge their onus, the petitioner No. 1 Shakuntala examined herself as PW01 who claimed herself as eyewitness. PW01 Shakuntala deposed that on 09.03.2017 she alongwith Kalva Devi (deceased) were returning to home from MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
9the BSES office Sector6, Dwarka. It was around 12:45 P.M. while crossing the road from sector6 side towards sector2 side, one black colour motorcycle bearing No. DL3SB9605 driven by the respondent no. 1 in a very rash and negligent manner hit her and Kalva Devi. Upon powerful impact Kalva Devi has suffered fatal injuries and she sustained injury over her body. She was admitted in Ayushman Hospital by unknown person and Kalva Devi was admitted by the respondent no. 1/driver in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Dwarka Sector1 and later the family members of the deceased were informed that Kalva Devi was declared brought dead on arrival at the hospital.
She also deposed that the abovesaid accident had occurred due to sole negligence of the repondent no. 1/driver of the bike bearing number DL 3SB 9605 which was being driven by its driver Jay Mangal Sharma in a very rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed in total contravention of traffic rules and regulations.
On the other hand, as per the respondent no.1/RW1 Jai Mangal Sharma, the deceased was herself rash and negligent while crossing road and got injury on her own without any fault of the respondent and even the respondent helped her and accompanied her to the nearest nursing home. He further deposed that the respondent stopped his motor cycle and with the help of other person took him to the nearest nursing home and in the nursing home, the petitioner took first aid and thereafter, the respondent left from there. He also deposed that in connivance MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
10and after much consultation, the petitioner filed a false complaint against the respondent without even thinking that the respondent has helped him out. The respondent did not hit the petitioner but the petitioner has filed a false case against him for extorting money only.
It is relevant to pen down here that during the cross examination, PW1Shakuntla Devi stated that accident took place with a vehicle of black colour which was a two wheeler and she had seen the driver of the offending vehicle.
The important fact is that this witness i.e PW1Shakuntla Devi was cross examined on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness.
It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid offending vehicle also examined himself as RW01 and during crossexamination, he admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was seized by the police and was still lying in the Malkhana.
Furthermore, as per the crossexamination of RW2/ASIChitter Singh conducted by ld. Counsel for petitioner, he stated that the offending vehicle was lying at the spot of accident when he arrived there and the said offending vehicle belongs to R2 who had informed that the said vehicle was being driven by R1Jai Mangal.
MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
11Not only this, the Respondent No. 1 namely Jaimangal Sharma (accused in the State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/337/304(A) IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing Registration No. DL 3SB 9605 by respondent no. 1.
Even otherwise, while determining the negligence, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of 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 in addition to recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach at 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. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
12the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident is of 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.
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 a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
This aspect has also been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors in MAC App. No. 200/2012 decided on 23/07/2012.
The Hon'ble High Court has 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. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held as under:
"In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.13
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."
In view of abovedecision and considering facts and circumstances of the case, it stands proved that deceased Kalva Devi sustained fatal injures and died in motor accident dated 09.03.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. DL3SB 9605 which was being driven by respondent no. 1Jai Mangal Sharma and owned by respondent no. 2/Ram Chander Manjhi at the time of accident.
In light of above, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against respondents by holding that victimKalva Devi died in a vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bearing No. DL3SB 9605 by respondent no. 1.
08. ISSUE No. 2:
Whether the petitioners in the above mentioned cases are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.14
petitioners.
In order to discharge their onus, the petitioner/PW01 Smt. Shakutla Devi and PW02Baleshwar. As per their testimony, on 09.03.2017, deceased namely Kalva Devi met with an accident and received fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by R01 and resultantly died.
In the present case, from the material and evidence on record, it is clear that Kalva Devi received fatal injuries & died in motor vehicle accident dated 09.03.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle which was being driven by R1 Jai Mangal Sharma and as such, the petitioners, being the LRs of deceased Kalva Devi have become entitled to claim compensation for death of the said deceased.
Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners is ascertained under the following heads:
09. AGE & MULTIPLIER:
It is relevant to pen down here that as per the testimony of Baleshwar Ram, the deceased was about 46 years old. Further, as per attested copy of Voter ID card which is the part of Final ChargeSheet, her year of birth was 1971. So we take the age of deceasedKalva Devi as 46 years at the time of accident.
As per the mandate of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.15
DTC & Anr, a multiplier of 13 is applicable for the age of 46 years.
10. INCOME AND PROFESSION:
In the instant case, PW02Baleshwar Ram deposed that her wife (deceased) was a housewife and was contributing with her work towards the family and she was very hardworking and sincere.
In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218, while dealing with the grant of compensation for the death of a housewife due to a motor vehicle accident, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:"
26.In India the courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot beequated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She isin the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of the husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food,washing clothes and utensils, keeping the houseclean, etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children.27.It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.16
housewife/mother. In that context, the term "services" is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier."
It is relevant to pen down here that no document has been proved on record regarding educational qualification of the deceasedKalva Devi. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary proof, the case will be decided on the basis of applicable minimum wages. As per the DAR and Voter ID Card of the deceasedKalva Devi, she was resident of Delhi. Hence, the minimum wages for unskilled person applicable in the State of Delhi when the accident took place (09.03.2017) shall be considered. The same are ₹ 13,350/ per month.
Further, in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi1, the deceased would also have future prospects @ 25% as she was 46 years of age at the time of accident.
11. NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS:
It is not disputed during arguments that petitioner No. 1Baleswar is husband, petitioner No. 2Mukesh 1 MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.17
Kumar is son, petitioner no. 3Usha Devi W/o Sh. Sanjay Rajvanshi, Petitioner No. 4Smt. Jyoti W/O Sh. Amarjeet and petitioner no. 5Smt. Rina Devi W/o Sh. Akhilesh Rajvanshi are daughters of the deceasedKalva Devi .
In light of above, the petitioners have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of said deceased in the above- said accident.
In these circumstances, in view of the law/guidelines laid down in the case titled as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr, being married, one third (1/4th) of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted from her total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
12. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
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.
In view of the above, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceasedKalva Devi can be calculated as under:.
S. HEAD AMOUNT No. 1. Income of the deceased Rs. 13,350/ 2 25% addition towards future Rs. 16,687.5
MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.18
prospects (13,350/ +3,337.5)
3. 1/4th (one Fourth ) deduction Rs. 4171.87 towards on personal and living expenses of deceased.
4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 12,515.63 ( 16,687.5 4171.87)
5. Total loss of dependency to the Rs. 19,52,438.28 ( family due to death of deceased 12,515.63 x12x13) Hence, in view of the above, the total loss of dependency to the family on account of death of the deceasedSh. Kalva Devi comes to ₹ 19,52,438.28 (Rs. Nineteen Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Eight and Paise Twenty Eight only) and as such, the petitioners shall be entitled to the said amount i.e ₹ 19,52,438.28 as compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
13. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi2, a sum of ₹16,500/ is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
14. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down 2 MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
19in the case National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi3, a sum of ₹ 16,500/ is awarded to the petitioners towards ' funeral expenses'.
15. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In given fact and circumstances of the case and in view of law /guidelines laid down in the case Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur4, a sum of ₹ 2,20,000/ (₹ 44,000/ x
5) is awarded as compensation under the head 'Loss of Consortium'.
16. The break up of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners have been tabulated as below : Sl. HEAD AMOUNT No. 1 Loss of Dependency ₹ 19,52,438.28 2 Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/
4. Loss of consortium Rs. 2,20,000/ TOTAL Rs. 22,05,438.28 (rounded off to Rs.
22,06,000/)
3. 4 MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
20Accordingly, the total compensation comes to ₹ 22,06,000/ (Rs. Twenty Two Lakhs and Six Thousand only).
17. 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.5 Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation / award amount i.e ₹ 22,06,000/ (Rs. Twenty Two Lakhs and Six Thousand only) from the date of filing of petition i.e. 12.07.2017 till realization.
18. LIABILITY:
Now coming to the extent of liability.
The offending vehicle bearing no. DL3SB9605 was being driven by respondent no.1Jai Mangal Sharma and owned by respondent no.2 Ram Chander Manjhi at the time of accident. In the DAR, it has alleged that the offendinve vehicle was without insurance and the respondents have not brought anything on record to the contrary and as such, respondent no.1 5 MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.21
Jai Mangal Sharma and respondent no.2 Ram Chander Manjhi shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount to the LRs of the deceased Hence, issue no.2 is decided accordingly.
19. APPORTIONMENT:
The abovesaid award amount i.e. ₹ 22,06,000/ shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceasedKalva Devi in the following manner with proportionate interest:
S. Name of the petitioner/relation with deceased Amount No.
1. Petitioner no. 1 Baleswar (Husband) ₹14,06,000/
2. Petitioner no. 2 Mukesh Kumar (son) ₹2,00,000/
3. Petitioner no. 3Usha Devi (Daughter ) ₹2,00,000/
4. Petitioner no. 4Jyoti (Daughter ) ₹2,00,000/
5. Petitioner No. 5Rina Devi (Daughter) ₹ 2,00,000/ Total ₹22,06,000/ FORMIVA SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 09.03.2017
ii). Name of the deceased : Kalva Devi MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.22
iii). Age of the deceased : 46 years (at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the : House Wife deceased
v). ₹13,350/ per month.
Income of the deceased :
(minimum wages)
vi). Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased S.No. Name Age (at present) Relation with deceased (I) Baleswar 54 years Husband
(ii) Mukesh Kumar 27 years Son
(iii) Usha Devi 33 years Daughter
(iv) Jyoti 22 years Daughter
(v) Rina Devi 31 years Daughter Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
1. Income of the deceased (A) ₹ 13,350/ per month.
2. AddFuture Prospects (B) (25%) ₹ 13,350/+ 3337.5 =Rs.
(A+B) 16,687.5 per month
3. LessPersonal expenses of the ₹ 4171.87
deceased (C) (one Fourth)
4. Monthly loss of dependency {(A+B} Rs. 16,687.5
C=D 4171.87=12,515.63
5. Annual loss of dependency ₹
MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.23
[ DX12] 12,515.63X12=1,50,187. 56 6. Multiplier (E) 13 7. Total loss of dependency (D x E=F) ₹ 1,50,187.56x13= Rs. 19,52,438.28 8. Medical Expenses (G) 9 Compensation for loss of love and affection (H)
10. Compensation for loss of consortium ₹ 2,20,000/ (44,000 x 6) (I) 11 Compensation for loss of estate (J) ₹16,500/
12. Compensation towards funeral ₹16,500/ expenses (K)
13. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 22,05,438.28 (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) (rounded off to Rs.
22,06,000/)
14. Deduction of Interim Award Nil RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
15. Interest amount up to the date of @ 9% per annum from award (M) the date of filing of Petition i.e. 12.07.2017 till its realization.
14. Total amount including interest ₹22,06,000/+ @9% per ( L+M) annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.07.2017 till realization.
15. Award amount released As per table given below
16. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
17. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) Account of the petitioners
18. Next Date for compliance of the 05.06.2023 MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
24award. (Clause 31)
20. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited/ transferred within 30 days by respondents 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, in given fact and circumstances of the case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S Name Status Age Amount of Release Amount of FDR . at Award Amount N pres o ent (Ap prox .) 1 Balesw Husba 54 ₹14,06,000/ ₹ ₹ 12,60,000/ be . ar nd year 1,46,000/ kept in 72 FDRs of s ₹17,500/ each for the period from 1 month to 72 months in the name of petitioner with cumulative interest.
2 Mukesh Son 27 ₹2,00,000/ ₹ 20,000/ ₹ 1,80,000/ be kept
. Kumar year in 20 FDRs of
s ₹9,000/ each for the
period from 1 month
MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
25
to 20 months in the
name of petitioner
with cumulative
interest.
3 Usha Daught 33 ₹2,00,000/ ₹ 20,000/ ₹ 1,80,000/ be kept
. Devi er year in 20 FDRs of
s ₹9,000/ each for the
period from 1 month
to 20 months in the
name of petitioner
with cumulative
interest.
4 Jyoti Daught 22 ₹2,00,000/ ₹ 20,000/ ₹ 1,80,000/ be kept
. er year in 20 FDRs of
s ₹9,000/ each for the
period from 1 month
to 20 months in the
name of petitioner
with cumulative
interest.
Rina Daught 31 ₹ 2,00,000/ ₹ 20,000/ ₹ 1,80,000/ be kept
Devi er year in 20 FDRs of
s ₹9,000/ each for the
period from 1 month
to 20 months in the
name of petitioner
with cumulative
interest.
Total ₹22,06,000/
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
2607.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
21. Petitioners shall open saving bank account in terms of order dated 13.02.2018, if not opened so far.
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amounts to the respective saving bank accounts of the abovesaid petitioners after due verification and as per rules 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.).
Managers of the bank where the said petitioners will open their savings accounts (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners' bank) are directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid petitioners, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank accounts of petitioners.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
27amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioners.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioners 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 petitioners.
The abovesaid Petitioners' banks are also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioners 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 petitioners.
The abovesaid Petitioners' bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioners to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate misc. file and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 05.06.2023.
MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
28File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA Date:
2023.04.29
(Announced in the open Court 16:48:49
+0530
on this 28th day of April 2023 (Rekha)
PO, MACT01 (SouthWest District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
MACT No. 719/2017 Shakuntala & Ors. Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors.
29