Delhi District Court
Savitri Devi & Ors. vs . Awadesh Pandey & Ors. on 13 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
SAVITRI DEVI & ORS. VS. AWADESH PANDEY & ORS.
MACP NO. 45/19
1. Smt. Savitri Devi (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Veerpal
2. Sh. Veerpal (Father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Saraman
3. Sh. Jayaprakash (Handicapped Brother of deceased)
S/o Sh. Veerpal
4. Sh. Raj Kumar (Unmarried Brother of deceased)
S/o Sh. Veerpal
5. Kumari Sarvesh (Unmarried Sister of deceased)
D/o Sh. Veerpal
R/o Village Utsara, Post Office Gulaothi,
District Bulandshahar, U.P. 245408.
......Petitioners being LRs of
deceased Sh. Arvind Kumar
Versus
1. Sh. Awadesh Pandey (Driver of offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Ram Sundar,
R/o H.No. 1169, Mama Bhangi Chowk,
MACP No. 45/19 Page no.1 of 22
Gali No. 12, Kapashera Border,
New Delhi-110037.
Also at :-
Persuhi Gopal Ka Purwa,
Ghaure Bazar, Faridabad, U.P.
2. Sh. Mohit Bhatnagar (Owner of offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhatnagar,
R/o Village Bawal, District Rewari,
Haryana-123401.
3. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
RO:I, F-14, Bombay Life Building,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 30.07.2019
Date of filing of claim petition : 23.02.2019
Date of framing of issues : 16.10.2019
Date of concluding arguments : 31.01.2023
Date of decision : 13.02.2023
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in this petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Sh. Arvind Kumar in a road accident that took place on 07.12.2018, at about 10.10 pm, Near Jose Marti School, Kaifi Azmi Marg, Sector-12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, regarding which one FIR No.417/18, under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at PS R.K. Puram. The vehicle involved in this case is a car bearing registration No. HR-47D-8395, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R1), owned by respondent MACP No. 45/19 Page no.2 of 22 no. 2 (R2), insured with respondent no. 3 (R3).
2. The petitioners are the parents, brothers and sister of the deceased. Succinctly put, facts of case, as per claim petition, are that on the above said date and time, the deceased Sh. Arvind Kumar was going towards Ring Road R.K. Puram from PVR Sangam via Kaifi Azmi Marg by TSR bearing registration No. DL-1LR-7430. When he reached near Jose Marti School, Kaifi Azmi Marg, Sector-12, R.K. Puram, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-47D-8395, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came from the side of Ring Road and hit the TSR with great force due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries. It is further stated that after the accident, the deceased was removed to JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS where his MLC was prepared and he was declared as 'brought dead' by the doctors.
3. R-1 and R-2 have not filed written statement either to the DAR or to the claim petition.
4. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company has filed its written statement wherein it is stated that the deceased was holding driving license which was valid for driving MCWG and LMV (NT) and not for TSR and hence, the deceased was neither expert nor eligible for driving TSR. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 has not admitted the holding of a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It is further stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured with them in the name of respondent no. 2 w.e.f. 25.10.2018 to 24.10.2019.
5. On 16.10.2019, the following issues were framed by this MACP No. 45/19 Page no.3 of 22 tribunal:-
1. Whether Sh. Arvind Kumar sustained fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 07.12.2018 at about 22.10 hours, Near Jose Marti School, Kaifi Azmi Marg, Sector-
12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-47D-8395 driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3.Relief.
6. The Tribunal has heard the arguments advanced by Sh. A.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Sh. Akshay Kumar, Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2 and Sh. R.K. Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3/Insurance Company and has perused the entire record.
7. Now, the Tribunal proceeds to give findings on the issues framed in the succeeding paragraphs:
ISSUE NO. 1Whether Sh. Arvind Kumar sustained fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 07.12.2018 at about 22.10 hours, Near Jose Marti School, Kaifi Azmi Marg, Sector- 12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-47D-8395 driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the accident was caused by vehicle bearing registration No. HR-47D-8395. In order to prove the same, MACP No. 45/19 Page no.4 of 22 the petitioners have examined on record Sh. Ankush as PW2 who deposed that he had witnessed the accident near Som Vihar Footover Bridge between a car bearing No. HR-47D-8395 and an auto bearing registration No. DL- 1LR-7430. He further deposed that the car was driven at high speed rashly and negligently. Further, there was no divider on the road and the vehicles were involved in head on collision caused by the car crossing onto the area meant for vehicle plying in opposite direction.
During cross examination, he deposed that he had gone to Sector-3, RK Puram for Jaagran and the accident occurred between 10 to 10.30 pm. He volunteered that he had met the police official at the spot itself and therefore, he had not made a call to the police. He further deposed that he was neither shown any site plan nor assisted the police in making the site plan. He denied the suggestion that the auto was on the wrong side of the road and was being driven in rash and negligent manner.
8. Moreover, it has not been disputed that respondent no. 1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC.
9. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in cases National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del.) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein it was held that "......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the MACP No. 45/19 Page no.5 of 22 mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
Reliance is also placed upon the recent judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Jamanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Maheshwar Rai & Ors., MAC Appeal No. 831/2015, decided on 19.11.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken the similar view as taken in the aforesaid judgments that the charge-sheet is sufficient to prove the negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, especially when no evidence has been led on behalf of respondents.
Reliance has been further placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 wherein it has been observed that "......filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal."
10. Pertinently, Respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no. 1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
MACP No. 45/19 Page no.6 of 22
11. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters, the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants and the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
12. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. HR-47D- 8395 and the said vehicle at that time was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
13. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no. 1 has been proved, the petitioners have become entitled to compensation for death of their family member in the said accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided. The compensation to which the petitioners are MACP No. 45/19 Page no.7 of 22 entitled shall be under the heads as discussed hereinafter.
(I) Loss of dependency
14. The petitioner no. 1 Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of deceased has stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A wherein she has claimed that her deceased son was working as driver on TSR bearing registration No. DL-1LR-7430 with Sh. Mandan Lal, R/o A-455, Pandav Nagar, Delhi and was getting salary of Rs. 18,500/- per month, besides Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 7000/- per month as overtime. During cross examination, she admitted that she has no proof with regard to employment and income of her deceased son.
15. Perusal of record reveals that the deceased was working as driver on the TSR having registration of Delhi and the accident also took place in Delhi. Since the employment and income of deceased has not been established on record, the minimum wages for skilled worker in Delhi is applicable for calculating the loss of dependency, which were Rs. 16,962/- per month at the relevant time of accident.
16. Further, PW1 has claimed in her affidavit that her deceased son was aged about 25 years at the time of accident. In order to prove the same, PW1 has tendered on record copy of High School Examination Certificate cum Marksheet of her deceased son as Ex. PW1/1 as well as copy of driving license of her deceased son as Mark A. In the marksheet, the date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 01.01.1998 wherein as in the driving license, the date of birth of deceased is found recorded as 12.07.1993. This Tribunal is of the considered view that the date of birth of deceased should be taken as 12.07.1993 as mentioned in the driving license as PW1 has also admitted that her deceased son was aged about 25 years at the time of MACP No. 45/19 Page no.8 of 22 accident. Hence, going by the driving license of deceased as Mark A, the age of deceased at the time of accident i.e. on 07.12.2018 was about 25 years, 4 months and 26 days.
17. Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 and further in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harsh Wardhan & Ors., MAC App. No. 521/2008 decided on 20.07.2017, the nearest multiplier of '18' is applicable in the present case.
18. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, this claim petition has been filed by five petitioners being parents, brothers and sister of the deceased. PW1 during her cross examination has claimed that the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (Supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 50% of earning of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
19. Further, in view of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are entitled to addition of 40% of earning of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased was not having any permanent job MACP No. 45/19 Page no.9 of 22 and was aged below 40 years at the time of accident. Thus, the loss of dependency in the present case is calculated to be Rs.25,64,654/- (rounded off) (Rs. 16,962/- X 12 X 50/100 X 18 X 140/100).
(II) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
20. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional head of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses.
21. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 3 years have already elapsed since the deceased had expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium'. The petitioners are thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,53,000/- [(Rs.30,000 + 10% of 30,000= 33,000) + (40,000 X 5 + 10% of 2,00,000 = 2,20,000/-)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
22. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held MACP No. 45/19 Page no.10 of 22 entitled to a sum of Rs.28,17,654/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four only) (Rs.25,64,654/- + 2,53,000/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
APPORTIONMENT
23. Perusal of record reveals that the petitioner no. 3 is handicap brother and petitioners no. 4 and 5 are unmarried brother and unmarried sister of deceased. PW1 in her affidavit has claimed that all the petitioners were fully dependent upon the income of deceased and the deceased was only earning member in the family. Therefore, all the petitioners are considered as dependents upon the deceased. Therefore, out of the awarded amount, 35% amount each is being awarded to petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2, i.e. mother and father of deceased and the remaining 10% amount each is being awarded to petitioner no. 3 to petitioner no. 5, i.e. brothers and sister of deceased.
RELEASE
24. Out of share of petitioner no. 1, 75% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 75 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 75 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said MACP No. 45/19 Page no.11 of 22 case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 0670000100267272, having IFSC Code PUNB0067000 and PAN No. FWCPD6739J, being maintained with Punjab National Bank, Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr, U.P. and the remaining 25% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
Out of share of petitioner no. 2, 75% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 75 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 75 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 7266464051, having IFSC Code IDIB000G639 and PAN No. CCCPV4524N, being maintained with Indian Bank, Gandhi Ganj, Saidpur Road, Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr, U.P. and the remaining 25% amount is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him.
Entire share of petitioner no. 3 is directed to be released in his saving bank account bearing No. 11054288573, being maintained with State Bank of India, Gulaoti, Saidpur Road, District Bulandshahr, U.P. through RTGS/NEFT or any other electronic mode.
MACP No. 45/19 Page no.12 of 22 Entire share of petitioner no. 4 is directed to be released in his saving bank account bearing No. 0670000100351845, having IFSC Code PUNB006700 and PAN card No. JMMPK0627J, being maintained with Punjab National Bank, Gulaoti, District Bulandshahr, U.P. through RTGS/NEFT or any other electronic mode.
Entire share of petitioner no. 5 is directed to be released in her saving bank account bearing No. 0670000100354198, having IFSC Code PUNB006700 and PAN card No. OAKPS7839M, being maintained with Punjab National Bank, Gulaoti, District Bulandshahr, U.P. through RTGS/NEFT or any other electronic mode.
25. The disbursement to the petitioner is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
26. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the saving bank account or MACAD scheme account of petitioner i.e. the bank account of petitioner shall be individual account and not a joint account.
27. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioners and the above amount shall be released in account of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
28. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their MACP No. 45/19 Page no.13 of 22 residence.
29. The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of petitioner.
30. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
31. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
32. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
33. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
34. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submitted that the deceased did not have valid and effective driving license at the time of accident as the driving MACP No. 45/19 Page no.14 of 22 license of deceased was valid for driving MCWG and LMV (NT).
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011, decided on 03.07.2017 wherein it was held as under :-
"........46. (i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form...".
35. In view of judgment in case Mukund Dewangan (Supra), the Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the license of deceased was a valid license, which enabled him to drive a LMV, which includes a transport vehicle, i.e. TSR. Further, Insurance Company in its written statement has cast doubt upon the driving license of respondent no. 1. However, the copy of driving license of respondent no. 1 is already on record which reflects that the same was valid at the relevant time of accident.
36. Therefore, all the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners, but respondent no. 3. being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to MACP No. 45/19 Page no.15 of 22 deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
37. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the claimants and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
38. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
39. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
40. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
MACP No. 45/19 Page no.16 of 22
1. Date of the accident 07.12.2018
2. Date of filing of Form I- First NA
Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the NA
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the NA
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the NA
owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim NA
Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and NA
Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 30.07.2019
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or
deficiency on the part of the No
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the Insurance Not given
Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of
the Insurance Company submitted his No
report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or
deficiencies on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance No
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) Legal offer not filed.
of the offer of the Insurance
MACP No. 45/19 Page no.17 of 22
Company.
14. Date of the award 13.02.2023
15. Whether the claimant(s) were
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of Yes
residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s)
were directed to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of residence
and produce PAN Card and Adhaar
Card and the direction to the bank not 30.07.2019
issue any cheque book/debit card to
the claimant (s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s)
produced the passbook of their
savings bank account near the place
of their residence along with the 07.12.2022
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar
Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o Village Utsara, Post Claimant(s) Office Gulaothi, District Bulandshahar, U.P.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near his place of Yes residence?
MACP No. 45/19 Page no.18 of 22
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition? Yes
41. File be consigned to Record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 27.03.2023.
Announced in the open court. (Shefali Barnala Tandon) on 13.02.2023 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV MACP No. 45/19 Page no.19 of 22 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident : 07.12.2018
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Arvind Kumar
3. Age of the deceased : 25 years, 4 months and 26 days
4. Occupation of the deceased : Minimum wages for skilled worker in Delhi
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 16,962/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
Srl. Name Age Relation
No.
(i) Smt. Savitri Devi 48 years Mother
(ii) Sh. Veerpal 58 years Father
(iii) Sh. Jayaprakash 30 years Handicap Brother
(iv) Sh. Raj Kumar 21years Unmarried Brother
(v) Kumari Sarvesh 20 years Unmarried Sister
Computation of Compensation
Sr. Heads Amount Awarded
No.
7 Income of the deceased Rs.16,962/-
(A)
8 Add-Future Prospects Rs.6,784.8/-
(B)
9 Less-Personal expenses Rs.11,873.4/-
of the deceased (C)
10 Monthly loss of Rs.11,873.4/-
dependency
[(A+B) - C = D]
11 Annual loss of Rs.1,42,480.8/-
dependency (D x 12)
12 Multiplier (E) 18
MACP No. 45/19 Page no.20 of 22
13 Total loss of Rs.25,64,654/-
dependency
(D x 12 x E = F)
14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15 Compensation for loss Nil
of love and affection (H)
16 Compensation for loss Rs.2,20,000/-
of consortium (I)
17 Compensation for loss Rs.16,500.00
of estate (J)
18 Compensation towards Rs.16,500.00
funeral expenses (K)
19 TOTAL Rs.27,67,654/- (after deducting
COMPENSATION the amount of interim award)
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20 RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date of filing of
AWARDED claim petition till the date of
award to be deposited within 30
days and 9% thereafter.
21 Interest amount up to Rs.8,25,177.94/-
the date of award (M)
22 Total amount including Rs. 35,92,831.94/- (rounded off
interest (L+M) to Rs. 35,93,000/-)
23 Award amount released P-1 = 25% share
P-2 = 25% share
P-3 = Entire amount
P-4 = Entire amount
P-5 = Entire amount
24 Award amount kept in P-1 = 75% share
FDRs/ MACAD P-2 = 75% share
P-3 = Nil
P-4 = Nil
P-5 = Nil
25 Mode of disbursement Through bank
of the award amount to
claimant(s)
MACP No. 45/19 Page no.21 of 22
26 Next date for 27.03.2023
compliance of the award
(Shefali Barnala Tandon)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
13.02.2023
MACP No. 45/19 Page no.22 of 22