Delhi District Court
Vikas Sachdeva vs Rajesh Tomar on 3 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH, DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No. 138/2019
CNR No.-DLWT010015972019
1. Sh. Vikas Sachdeva
S/o Late Sh. Yashpal/Yashpal Sachdeva
R/o 11310, Ballantyne Crossing Ave,
Charlotte NC-28277
through his SPA Holder
Ms. Nirmal Chawla (Bhalla)
C/o E-608, KKD Court, Delhi
..............Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Rajesh Tomar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Randhir Tomar
R/o F-162, Dabar Enclave Jaffarpur, Delhi
2. DTC (Owner)
through Authorized owner
Sh. Dharampal
S/o Sh. Parbhuram,
R/o C-39, G Block, Sant Nagar,
Najafgarh, Delhi
3. United India Insurance Company Limited (Insurer)
E-85, Himalya House,
K. G Marg, Connaught Place, new Delhi
............. Respondents
Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.1 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:20:06 +0530
Date of Institution : 27.02.2019
Date of reserving order/judgment : 03.10.2024
Date of pronouncement : 03.10.2024
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 07.09.2018
2. Date of filing of Form-I - Form-1 (FAR) was not filed First Accident Report (FAR) in the present matter
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to Form-II was not filed in the the victim(s) present matter
4. Date of receipt of Form-III Form-III was not filed in the from the Driver present matter
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV Form-IV was not filed in the from the Owner present matter
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Form-V (IAR) was not filed Interim Accident Report in the present matter (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA Form VIA & VIB were not and Form-VIB from the filed in the present matter Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 27.02.2019 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Incident took place on or deficiency on the part of 07.09.2018 and DAR was the Investigating Officer? If filed on 27.02.2019 so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned Designated Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.2 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:20:12
+0530
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed by claimant(s) to the offer of the insurance company in this Insurance Company case
14. Date of the award 03.10.2024
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 27.02.2019 claimant(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) Yet to be produced produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along-with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential 11310, Ballantyne Crossing Address of the claimant(s). Ave, Charlotte NC-28277 through his SPA Holder Ms. Nirmal Chawla (Bhalla) C/o E-608, KKD Court, Delhi
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yet to be produced savings bank account(s) is/are Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.3 of 33 HARVINDER Digitally signed by
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:20:16
+0530
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) No
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide claim of compensation on account of death of Sh. Yashpal Sachdeva @ Yashpaul Sachdeva in a road vehicular accident which took place on 07.09.2018 at about 3:30 PM, in front of DTC Depot, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
CASE OF PETITIONER SIDE
2. Succinctly, the case put forward by petition/DAR is that on 07.09.2018 at about 3:30 PM, deceased was waiting for bus at Bus Stand Near Hari Nagar Depot. In the meantime, offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL1PC0934 which was being driven by respondent no.1/driver in rash manner, in negligent manner, came and hit the deceased. Due to same, deceased sustained fatal injuries. Deceased expired on 09.09.2018 during treatment. FIR No. 394/2018 was registered at PS Hari Nagar against the respondent no.1. The incident happened solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. It is averred that deceased was doing business of share trading and was earning Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month at the time of incident. Petitioner was dependent upon deceased. The petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.4 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:20:20 +0530
3. Notice of the application/petition was issued to the respondents, they appeared and filed their WS/reply to the present petition/application.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.01 & 024. In gist, the response of the respondent no.01 & 02 as discernible from their reply/written statement is that their vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case. The vehicle in question was insured with respondent no.3 vide policy No. 0411003118P104663971 valid for 07.07.2018 to 06.07.2019. The respondent no.01&02 denied all other averments of the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition. RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.03
5. In gist, the response of the respondent no.03 as discernible from its reply/written statement is that incident in question took place due to sole negligence of the deceased. Deceased was in the middle of the road. Vehicle bearing No. DL01PC0934 was insured with it vide policy no. 0411003118P104663971 period 07.07.2018 to 06.07.2019 covering the date of incident. It is also denied all other averments of petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition. ISSUES 6.1 After completion of pleadings, on 24.07.2019, this tribunal framed following issues: -
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Yashpal @ Yashpaul Sachdeva suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 07.09.2018 at about 03:30 pm due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle DTC Bus bearing registration number DL1PC0934 by respondent no.01 Sh.
Rajesh Tomar, being owned by DTC i.e. the respondent no.3 and insured with the respondent no.4? OPP Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.5 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:20:23 +0530
2. Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
6.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE 7.1 The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) examined Sh. Sachin, Technician, MRD Department, Aakash Healthcare Private Limited Hospital as PW-1. He has exhibited his authority letter Ex.PW1/1, photocopies of medical records of deceased Ex.PW1/2 and summary of bills Ex.PW1/3 in his evidence. He deposed that Yashpal Sachdeva was admitted in their hospital on 07.09.2018 at 8:37 PM after being referred by DDU Hospital and he expired on 09.09.2018 at 9:50 PM during treatment. He was examined, cross-examined and was discharged. 7.2 The petitioner side also examined Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Senior Manager, Adroit Financial Service Pvt. Ltd. as PW-2. PW-2 has deposed that Adroit Financial Service Pvt. Ltd is a broking firm. He is Senior Manager in the said firm. Sh. Yashpal Sachdeva having PAN No. ANVPS2889K was maintaining a demat account No. 00008481 with their firm. He exhibited the holding statement of demat account no. 00008481 of deceased Yashpal Sachdeva as on 07.09.2018 as Ex.PW2/1, client master of DP account of deceased Yashpal Sachdeva as Ex.PW2/2 and holding statement of said account of deceased as on 24.04.2023 as Ex.PW2/3 in his evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
7.3 Petitioner side also examined Ms. Nirmal Chawla Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.6 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:20:27 +0530
Bhalla, SPA of petitioner to establish their claim as PW-3. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/X reiterating and supporting the contents of their application/petition. She relied upon SPA dated 28.09.2018 Ex.PW3/A, death certificate of deceased Yashpal Sachdeva Ex.PW3/B, copy of PAN Card of deceased Ex.PW3/C, copy of passport of claimant Vikas Sachdeva Mark PW3/D, copy of Aadhar card of deceased Ex.PW3/E, copy of Aadhar Card of claimant Ex.PW3/F, copy of PAN card of claimant Ex.PW3/G and copy of her ID Ex.PW3/H in her evidence. PW1 was cross-examined at length by respondent side which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged.
7.4 Petitioner side also examined HC Balram as PW-4. He has brought on record the records of case FIR No. 394/2018 PS Hari Nagar as Mark PW4/A in his evidence. He was examined and discharged.
7.5 Petitioner side also examined Sh. Subhash Chand, Record Clerk from DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi as PW-5. He has brought on record the copy of post mortem report of deceased Yashpal Sachdeva as Mark PW5/A, copy of MLC of deceased as Mark PW5/B and attested copy of emergency registration number record certified by their medical record department as Ex.PW5/C in his evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE
8. No evidence has been led by respondent side in this matter.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.7 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:20:30 +0530 9.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are
that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01. The deceased was 75 years of age, was doing the business of share trading and used to earn Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month at the time of incident. Award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of applicant(s)/claimant(s)/LR(s).
9.2 Submissions/contentions of respondent no.01& 02 are that petitioner side has failed to prove that incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Petitioner side has failed to prove the job and income of the deceased. They have been falsely implicated in the present case. With these contentions, respondent no.01 & 02 has prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition. 9.3 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.03 are that the petitioner side has failed to prove that incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Petitioner side has failed to prove the profession and income of the deceased. The petitioners have failed to prove dependency upon deceased. With these main submissions/contentions, the respondent no.03 has prayed for dismissal of the petition/DAR.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES 10.1 (1) Whether the deceased Sh. Yashpal @ Yashpaul Sachdeva suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 07.09.2018 at about 03:30 pm due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle DTC Bus bearing registration number DL1PC0934 by respondent no.01 Sh. Rajesh Tomar, being owned by DTC i.e. the Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.8 of 33respondent no.3 and insured with the respondent no.4? OPP 10.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil court. In civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy as it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under the M. V. Act, this burden is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. "
reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgments in the case of "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 10.3 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties. The petitioner side has not examined any eye witness to the incident in present matter, therefore, in given circumstances, it needs to decided whether the evidence brought on record is sufficient in itself to establish rashness and negligence in driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.9 of 33 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:20:32 +0530
driver upto the standard of proof required in such matters as is discussed above.
10.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its full bench decision in matter "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta & Ors." (2011) 10 SCC 509 has made following observations about inquiry contemplated under MV Act:-
"5. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the dependant family members) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Tribunals and determination of compensation by Tribunals:
(i) A proceedings for award of compensation in regard to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated either on an application for compensation made by the persons aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or section 163A of the Act or suo moto by the Tribunal, by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the tribunal under section 158(6) of the Act as an application for compensation under section 166 (4) of the Act.(iii) In a proceedings initiated suo moto by the tribunal, the owner and driver are the respondents. The insurer is not a respondent, but a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act. Where a claim petition is filed by the injured or by the legal representatives of a person dying in a motor accident, the driver and owner have to be impleaded as respondents. The claimants need not inplead the insurer as a party. But they have the choice of impleading the insurer also as a party respondent.
When it is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal is required to issue a notice under section 149(2) of the Act. If the insurer is impleaded as a party, it is issued as a regular notice of the proceedings.
(v) Though the tribunal adiudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. On receipt of an application (either from the applicant or suo motu registration), the Tribunal gives notice to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act, gives an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the claim petition as also the insurer, Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.10 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:20:35 +0530
holds an inquiry into the claim and makes an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. (Vide Section 168 of the Act).
(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide section 169 of the Act).
We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute."
10.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Dulcina Fernandes & ors. Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr." (2013) 10 SCC 646 while relying upon the above full bench decision has held/observed as under:- .
"8. However, there are certain other features of the case which are more fundamental and, therefore, have to be specifically noticed. CW-2, who was at the relevant time working as the Head Constable of Main Eurtorim, Police Station, had deposed that a criminal case was registered against the first respondent in connection with the accident and that after investigation he was chargesheeted and sent up for trial. Though it is submitted at the Bar that the first respondent was acquitted in the said case what cannot be overlooked is the fact that upon investigation of the case registered against the first respondent, prime facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial.. "
10.6 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in matter "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & ors." 2009 ACJ 287 has held/observed as under:-
"11. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.11 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:20:38 +0530
the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR NO. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver.
10.7 In view of the abovecited case law, it is clear that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals only hold inquiry for determination of compensation on occurrence of an accident and they do not sit in a suit or adversarial lis in traditional sense. The factum of the driver of offending vehicle being chargesheeted by police after investigation of the criminal matter is also prima facie sufficient to infer that he was negligent and responsible for the incident in question. A Tribunal can certainly rely upon the records of the case of criminal matter to reach such a conclusion. 10.8 In this matter to prove the rashness and negligence, the petitioner side has examined PW-3 who has specifically deposed that deceased was hit by offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL1PC0934. She has also specifically deposed that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 of said vehicle. The matter was registered as claim petition on filing of DAR by the IO. Copy of DAR consists of FIR, site plan of place of incident, the mechanical inspection Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.12 of 33report of vehicle, copy of final report filed under Section 173 Cr. PC after conclusion of investigation, the recovery/seizure memo(s), photographs etc etc. The factum that driver of vehicle in question i.e. respondent No.1 was challaned under Section 279/304A IPC after conclusion of investigation also supports and affirms the case of the petitioner side that incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. As far as contention of respondent no.1 & 2 that incident in question has not happened with their vehicle is concerned, it could be noted from MLC of deceased and arrest memo of respondent no.1 that it was the respondent no.1 only who got admitted the deceased at hospital. Same affirms that incident has happened with vehicle in question of respondent no.1 & 2. Hence, said contention is rejected.
10.9 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant side has been able to bring on record such facts which establishes at the scales required that the incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL1PC0934 by its driver/respondent no.01 on the date and time of the incident. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s) and against the respondents. Issue No.(ii) : - Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
11.1 The petitioner(s) is/are certainly entitled for compensation in view of decision of above issue. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.13 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:20:41
+0530
Court of India in its guiding lamp post judgments qua methodology and considerations for assessing/ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular death cases. 11.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121 has held : -
QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES "9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the
(c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions.
There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps : -
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.14 of 33 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:20:44 +0530
incurred) should also added."
QUA ADDITIONS
"11. ..................... In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
QUA DEDUCTIONS "14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself.
Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."
QUA MULTIPLIER "21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.15 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:20:48 +0530
years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
11.3 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its constitution bench decision in matter of "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : -
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.16 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:20:52 +0530
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
11.4 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in matter titled as Keith Rowe vs. Prashant Sagar & ors MAC. App. No. 601/2007 decided on 15.01.2010 while relying upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in matter of A- Mananvalagan Vs. A. Krishanamurthy & Ors 2005 ACJ 1992 has held that in cases where there are no dependents upon the deceased/victim of Road Vehicular Accident, the main compensation/pecuniary loss needs to be awarded under head of loss of estate. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has made following observations:-
9. The appellant was not financially dependent upon the deceased and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the compensation for loss of dependency. However, the appellant is entitled to the loss of estate. The law in this regard is well settled by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Ors., I(2005) ACC 304/ 2005 ACJ 1992, wherein it was held as under...
"8. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for consideration:
(i) What are the principles for determining compensation, where the claimant is not a dependant?"
"12. In GOBALD MOTOR SERVICE v. R.M.K. VELUSWAMI, MANU/SC/0016/1961 :
[1962]1SCR929 referring to Sections 1 and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act (Sections 1A and 2 after 1951 amendment to the said Act), the Supreme Court pointed out the difference between damages recoverable under the said two Sections. It was held that while under Section 1 (new Section 1A) damages are recoverable for the benefit of the persons mentioned therein, under Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.17 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:20:56 +0530
Section 2, compensation goes to the benefit of the estate; whereas under Section 1, damages are payable in respect of loss sustained by the persons mentioned therein, under Section 2 damages can be claimed inter alia for loss of expectation of life and loss to the estate. The Supreme Court held that persons who claim benefit under Section 1 and 2 need not be the same as the claims under the said two Sections are based upon different causes of action. The Supreme Court held:
"The principle in its application to the Indian Act has been clearly and succinctly stated by a division bench of the Lahore High Court in SECRETARY OF STATE v. GOKAL CHAND (AIR 1925 Lah 636). In that case, Sri SHADILAL CJ observed thus:
"The law contemplates two sorts of damages: the one is the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident; the other is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The action for the latter is brought by the legal representatives, not for the estate, but as trustees for the relatives beneficially entitled; while the damages for the loss caused to the estate are claimed on behalf of the estate and when recovered from part of the assets of the estate.
An illustration may clarify the position X is the income of the estate of the deceased, Y is the yearly expenditure incurred by him on his dependants (we will ignore the other expenditure incurred by him). X-Y, i.e., Z is the amount he saves every year. The capitalised value of the income spend on the dependants, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family though his death. The capitalised value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. If the claimants under both the heads are the same, and if they get compensation for the entire loss caused to the estate, they cannot claim again under the head of personal loss the capitalised income that might have been spent on them if the deceased were alive. Conversely, if they got compensation under Section 1, representing the amount that the deceased would have spent on them, if alive, to that extent there should be deduction in their claim under Section 2 of the Act in respect of compensation for the loss caused to the estate. To put it differently, if under Section 1 they got capitalised value of Y; under Section 2 they could get only the capitalised value of Z, for the capitalised value of Y+Z, i.e., X, would be the capitalised value of his entire income."
"The rights of action under Section 1 and 2 of the Act Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.18 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:20:59 +0530
are quite distinct and independent. If a person taking benefit under both the Sections is the same, he cannot be permitted to recover twice over for the same loss. In awarding damages under both the heads, there shall not be duplication of the same claim, that is, if any part of the compensation representing the loss to the estate goes into the calculation of personal loss under Section 1 of the Act, the portion shall be excluded in giving compensation under Section 2 and vice versa."... "15. Where a breadwinner dies and his wife, children and parents, who are normally depending on the deceased, claim compensation, the method of computation is now standardized. The Court first finds out the income of the deceased, then estimates how much he would have spent for himself (for his personal and living expenses). The balance is taken as the contribution to the dependents (family). The said estimate of the amount contributed to the family per year, which is the annual dependency, becomes the basis for arriving at the compensation. It is converted into a lump sum by multiplying it by the number of years during which he would have contributed to the family (duly scaled down to take several uncertainties into account). Thus, the annual dependency becomes the multiplicand and the number of years' purchase becomes the multiplier. As it is well settled that there cannot be a duplication of award under Sections 1A and 2 of the FA Act, where the main head for award of compensation is loss of dependency, the Courts will not duplicate the award under the head of loss of estate. Instead a conventional sum (Say Rs. 10,000/-) is awarded under the head of loss of estate, where the income has already been taken note of under the head of loss of dependency.
16. But, what would be the position if the claimant, though a legal heir is not a dependant of the deceased? Obviously, the question of awarding any amount under the head of loss of dependency would not arise, as there was no financial dependency. In fact in this case, the deceased was not even managing the 'house hold' as is normally done by a housewife as the husband and wife were living in different places due to exigencies of service and the couple had no children. In such a case, the main head of compensation will be loss to estate under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. The claim petition becomes one on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation received becomes part of the assets of the estate. Consequently what is to be awarded under the head of loss of dependency under Section 1A would be nil, as there is no real pecuniary Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.19 of 33 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:21:01 +0530 loss to the members of the family.
17. In GAMMELL v. WILSON, 1981(1) ALL ER. 578 the House of Lords held that in addition to the conventional and moderate damages for loss of expectation of life, damages for loss to the estate should include damages for loss of earnings of the lost years. The annual loss to the estate was computed to be the amount that the deceased would have been able to save after meeting the cost of his living and damages for loss to the estate were computed after applying a suitable multiplier to the annual loss. GAMMEL was relied on in SUSAMMA THOMAS (Supra) and by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in RAMESH CHANDRA v.
M.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 1983 ACC. C.J 221".
18. In MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SUDHAKAR, 1977 ACJ 290 the Supreme Court considered a case where an employed husband claimed compensation in regard to the death of his wife who was employed on a monthly salary of Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/-. The Supreme Court observed:
"We find it difficult to agree that only half of that amount would have been sufficient for her monthly expenses till she retired from service, so that the remaining half may be taken as the measure of her husband's monthly loss. It is not impossible that she would have contributed half of her salary to the household, but then it is reasonable to suppose that the husband who was employed at slightly higher salary would have contributed his share to the common pool which would have been utilised for the lodging and boarding of both of them. We do not therefore think it is correct to assume that the husband's loss amounted to half the monthly salary the deceased was likely to draw until she retired. If on an average she contributed Rs. 100/- every month to the common pool, then his loss would be roughly not more than Rs. 50/-per month."
19. We may summarise the principles enunciated, thus:
(i) The law contemplates two categories of damages on the death of a person. The first is the pecuniary loss sustained by the dependant members of his family as a result of such death. The second is the loss caused to the estate of the deceased as a result of such death. In the first category, the action is brought by the legal representatives, as trustees for the dependants beneficially entitled. In the second category, the action is brought by the legal representatives, on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation, when recovered, forms part of the assets of the estate. In the Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.20 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:21:08 +0530
first category of cases, the Tribunal in exercise of power under Section 168 of the Act, can specify the persons to whom compensation should be paid and also specify how it should be distributed (Note: for example, if the dependants of a deceased Hindu are a widow aged 35 years and mother aged 75 years, irrespective of the fact that they succeed equally under Hindu Succession Act, the Tribunal may award a larger share to the widow and a smaller share to the mother, as the widow is likely to live longer). But in the second category of cases, no such adjustments or alternation of shares is permissible and the entire amount has to be awarded to the benefit of the estate. Even if the Tribunal wants to specify the sharing of the compensation amount, it may have to divide the amount strictly in accordance with the personal law governing succession, as the amount awarded and recovered forms part of the estate of the deceased.
(ii) Where the claim is by the dependants, the basis for award of compensation is the loss of dependency, that is loss of what was contributed by the deceased to such claimants. A conventional amount is awarded towards loss of expectation of life, under the head of loss to estate.
(iii) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased who were not dependants of the deceased, then the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased. A conventional sum for loss of expectation of life, is added.
(iv) The procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalising it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependants claim loss of dependency, and in cases where the claimants who are not dependents claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate.
The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases.
20. The following illustrations with reference to the case of a deceased who was aged 40 years with a monthly income of Rs. 9000/ will bring out the difference between cases where claimants are dependents and cases were claimants are not Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.21 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:21:05 +0530
dependents.
(i) If the family of the deceased consists of a dependant wife and child, normally one- third will be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The balance of Rs. 6000/- per month (or Rs. 72000/- per annum) will be treated as contribution to the dependent family. The loss of dependency will be arrived by applying a multiplier of 14. The loss of dependency will be Rs. 10,08,000/- plus Rs. 10,000/- under the head of loss of Estate.
(ii) If the family of the deceased was larger, say consisting of dependent parents, wife and two children, necessarily the deceased would spend more on his family and the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased will H.R.ink to one-fifth instead of one-third (Note: In Gulam Khader v. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., - ILR 2000 Kar 4416 details of this illustration have been given). Therefore the deduction toward personal and living expense would be Rs. 1800/- per month (one-fifth of Rs. 9000/-) and contribution to the family would be Rs. 7200/- per month or Rs. 86,400/- per annum. Thus loss of dependency will be Rs. 12,09,600/- (by applying the multiplier of 14). The award under the head of loss of estate would be Rs. 10000/-.
(iii) If the deceased was a bachelor with dependent parents aged 65 and 60 years, normally 50% will be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. This is because a bachelor will be more care free as he had not yet acquired a wife or child and therefore would tend to spend more on himself. There was also a possibility of the bachelor getting married in which event the contribution to parents will get reduced. Therefore the contribution to the family (parents) will be Rs. 4500/- per month or Rs. 54000/- per annum. As the multiplier will be 10 with reference to age of the mother, the loss of dependency will be Rs. 5,40,000/-. Loss of Estate would be a conventional sum of Rs. 10,000/-.
Note: The above three illustrations relate to cases where the claimants are dependants. The said illustration demonstrate that even though the income of the deceased and age of the deceased are the same, the 'loss of dependency' will vary, having regard to the number of dependants, age of the dependants and nature of dependency. The ensuing illustrations relate to cases where the legal heirs of the deceased are not dependants.
(iv) If the deceased is survived by an educated employed wife earning an amount almost equal to that Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.22 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:21:12 +0530
of her husband and if each was maintaining a separate establishment, the question of 'loss of dependency' may not arise. Each will be spending from his/her earning towards his living and personal expenses. Even if both pool their income and spend from the common income pool, the position will be the same. In such a case the amount spent for personal and living expenses by each spouse from his/her income will be comparatively higher, that is H.R.ee-fourth of his/her income. Each would be saving only the balance, that is one fourth (which may be pooled or maintained separately). If the saving is taken as one-fourth (that is 25%), the loss to the estate would be Rs. 2250/- per month or Rs. 27000/- per annum, By adopting the multiplier of 14, the loss to estate will be Rs. 3,78,000/-.
Note: The position would be different if the husband and wife, were both earning, and living together under a common roof, sharing the expenses. As stated in BURGESS v. FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE HOSPITAL (1955(1) Q.B. 349), 'when a husband and wife, with separate incomes are living together and sharing their expenses, and in consequence of that fact, their joint living expenses are less than twice the expenses of eah one living separately, then each, by the fact of sharing, is conferring a benefit on the other'. This results in a higher savings, say, one-third of the income; In addition each spouse loses the benefit of services rendered by the other in managing the household, which can be evaluated at say Rs. 1,000/- per month or Rs. 12,000/- per annum). In such a situation, the claimant (surviving spouse) will be entitled to compensation both under the head of loss of dependency (for loss of services rendered in managing the household) and loss to estate (savings to an extent of one- third of the income that is Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36000/- per annum). Therefore, the loss of dependency would be 12000x14=168,000/- and loss to estate would be 36000x14=504,000/-. In all Rs. 6,72,000/- will be the compensation.
(v) If the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are two non- dependent brothers/sisters aged 47 years and 45 years with independent income, the position would be different. As the deceased did not have a 'family', the tendency would be to spend more on oneself and the savings would be hardly 15%. If the saving is taken as 15% (Rs. 1350/- per month), the annual savings would be Rs. 16,200/- which would be the multiplicand. The multiplier will be 13 with reference to the age of the claimants and the loss of estate would be Rs. 2,10,600/- per annum.
Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.23 of 33
HARVINDER Digitally signed by HARVINDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:21:16
+0530
Though the quantum of savings will vary from person to person, there is a need to standardise the quantum of savings for determining the loss to estate (where the claimants are not dependants) in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary. The quantum of savings can be taken as one-third of the income of the deceased where the spouses are having a common establishment and one-fourth where the spouses are having independent establishments. The above will apply where the family consists of non-dependant spouse/children/parents. Where the claimants are non- dependant brothers/sisters claiming on behalf of the estate, the savings can be taken as 15 % of the income. The above percentages, one of course, subject to any specific evidence to the contrary led by the claimants."
11.5 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Tribunal needs to ascertain the age of deceased/victim, the appropriate multiplier, income of the deceased at the time of incident, the educational qualification of deceased, the number of dependents, if any, whether deceased was married or unmarried, whether deceased was having permanent employment or private job etc. etc. to workout just compensation in this case. Award also needs to be passed qua non-pecuniary heads as envisaged and in terms of above judgments. Hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above prepositions. DETERMINATION OF AGE & MULTIPLIER 11.6 The date of incident is 07.09.2018. As per Aadhar Card of deceased available on record as Ex.PW3/E, the date of birth of deceased was 24.09.1941. Hence, deceased was 77 years of age at the time of incident and his age is considered accordingly. He fell in age bracket of above 65 years. Hence, the multiplier applicable to this case would be 05.
Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.24 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:21:19 +0530
DETERMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION 11.7 No documentary proof has been filed by the petitioner side to prove the educational qualification of deceased. Hence, he/she shall be considered uneducated for purpose of present decision.
DETERMINATION OF MONTHLY INCOME 11.8 It is claimed that deceased was doing business of share trading and used to earn Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month at the time of incident. Though the records of trading account of the deceased has been brought on record in the evidence of PW-2, however, the said records only show the value of the investment made by the deceased in securities. They do not reflect income of the deceased from trading. So, the petitioner side has miserably failed to prove the earnings of the deceased. Since, there is no reliable proof filed with respect to the income of deceased, therefore, the income of deceased has to be assessed on the basis of chart available in Minimum Wages Act of a skilled person (as deceased was engineer) of State of NCT of Delhi as on date of incident. The minimum wages for a Skilled person of State of NCT as on date of accident i.e. 07.09.2018 were Rs.16,858/- per month.
DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE 11.9(i) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors." decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on the basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects has to be given in accordance with guidelines issued by Hon'ble Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.25 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.03 16:21:22 +0530
Supreme Court of India as applicable to self employed or privately employed persons.
11.9(ii) The deceased was aged about more than 60 years at the time of incident, so no future prospects/benefits is applicable to the present case.
DETERMINATION OF DEDUCTIONS 11.10(i) There is no dispute that the deceased was married and is survived by one son. The major son cannot be treated as dependents upon deceased as no special circumstances/case pleaded and proved. So, it is a case where there was no dependent upon deceased, hence the assessment under pecuniary head needs to be made qua loss of estate.
11.10(ii) Since, in the present matter, deceased is survived by one major son and further there is no specific evidence as to savings, therefore, 1/4th income of the deceased needs to be considered as the savings of the deceased for assessment of loss of estate or in other terms 3/4th deduction needs to be made. DETERMINATION OF MULTIPLICAND 11.11 The monthly income of the deceased to be considered as Rs.16,858/- as per previous discussions. Savings needs to be considered 1/4th only or in other words a deduction of 3/4th needs to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. So, monthly loss of estate would come out to be Rs.4215/- (after rounding off Rs.4214.5/-(after deducting 3/4th of Rs.16,858/-). This product needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of estate. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs.50,580/- (Rs.4215/- x 12). AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF ESTATE Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.26 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:21:25 +0530
11.12 In view of all above discussion, the total loss of
estate would come out to be Rs.2,52,900/- (Rs.50,580/-x 05), hence, is so awarded.
COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 11.13 Since, the claimant is son of deceased, so he is entitled to award under this head, hence, an amount of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000 + 20% enhancement) is awarded under this head.
COMPENSATION QUA FUNERAL EXPENSES 11.14. An amount of Rs.18,000/- (15,000/- + 20% enhancement) is awarded towards funeral expenses. DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL EXPENSES 11.15 The petitioner side has examined Sh. Sachin, Technician, MRD Department, Aakash Healthcare Private Limited as PW-1 who has proved on record photocopies of medical records of deceased Yashpal Sachdeva as Ex.PW1/2 and summary of bills as Ex.PW1/3 on record. Total medical bill comes out to be of Rs.2,05,000/-. Hence, petitioner side is entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- on account of medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, petitioner side is awarded Rs.2,05,000/- on account of medical expenses. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT OF ALL HEADS 11.16. In view of above discussions and awards passed under different heads, this Tribunal hereby pass an award of sum of Rs.5,23,900/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand and Nine Hundred Only) (Rs.2,52,900/- + Rs.48,000/- + Rs.18,000/- + Rs.2,05,000) in favour of claimant(s).
Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.27 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:21:28 +0530
R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.03
12. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of
Rs.5,23,900/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand and Nine Hundred Only) as compensation along-with interest @ 7% per annum (including interim award, if any) from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 27.02.2019 (excluding interest w.e.f. 12.08.2022 till 05.03.2024) till the date of the payment of award amount, in favour of the petitioner(s) against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
13. As the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the respondent no.03/Insurance company, respondent no.03/insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s). In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP) Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.28 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:21:32 +0530
14.1 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003
titled as "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. " has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018 which was made effective from 01.01.2019. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 14.2. Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.03/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.5,23,900/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand and Nine Hundred Only) as stated herein above with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202 CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code -SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in favour the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)/ claimant(s) as stated herein above.
14.3 The Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to release/disburse the award amount of petitioner in his MACT to be disclosed by the petitioner side vide separate application within 15 days from today as mentioned/directed hereinafter in tabulated form. 14.4 The compensation to the petitioners shall be distributed/disbursed as follows : -
Sr. Name of Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount kept Period of FDRs No. petitioner DOB with Amount award to be in FDRs with cumulative / injured/ released interest claimant deceased
1. Vikas 18.04.19 Son Rs.5,23,900/- Rs.5,23,900/- Nil NIl Sachdeva 69 with interest Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.29 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:21:40 +0530
accrued
TOTAL Rs.5,23,900/-
14.5 In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in "Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." , Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022-
22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e- mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
15. The respondent no.03/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount with the account of this Tribunal within 45 days. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on 23.11.2024.
16. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost through email.
17. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.30 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:21:43 +0530
Amendment) Rules, 2022[(Directions at serial nos.39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
18. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by HARVINDER Announced in the open Court HARVINDER SINGH today i.e. on 3rd of October, 2024SINGH Date:
2024.10.03 16:21:47 +0530 (HARVINDER SINGH) District Judge-cum-PO: MACT-01(West) THC/Delhi/03.10.2024 Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.31 of 33
FORM -XV SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident :
07.09.2018
2. Name of the deceased :
Yashpal Sachdeva @ Yashpaul Sachdeva
3. Age of the deceased : 77 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Not proved
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.16,858/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased : -
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
(i) Vikas Sachdeva 18.04.1969 Son
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.16,858/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) NIL
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 3/4th deduction has
deceased(C) been done
10. Monthly loss of dependency NIl
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D NIl
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 05
13. Total loss of dependency NIL
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) Rs.2,05,000/-
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.48,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.
[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.32 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
16:21:50 +0530
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.2,52,900/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,000/-
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.5,23,900/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs.1,47,812/-
of award (M) (W.e.f. 27.02.2019 to
03.10.2024 excluding
interest w.e.f.
12.08.2022 till
05.03.2024)
i.e. 4 years and 11 days)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 6,71,712/-
(L + M) (Rs.5,23,900/- +
Rs.1,47,812/-)
23. Award amount released Entire award amount
along with interest
24. Award amount kept in FDRs NIl
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award
award amount to the claimant
(s).
26. Next date for compliance of 23.11.2024
the award.
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.10.03
(HARVINDER SINGH)
16:21:53 +0530
District Judge-cum-PO: MACT-01(West) THC/Delhi/03.10.2024 Vikas Sachdeva vs. Rajesh Tomar & Ors.[MACT No.138/2019] Page No.33 of 33