Delhi District Court
Sanchita Das And Ors vs Vipn Kumar And Ors on 21 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
SANCHITA DAS & ANR. VS. VIPIN KUMAR & ORS.
MACP No. 226/19
1. Smt. Sanchita Das (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Dibas Das
R/o C-162, Ist Floor, New Ashok Nagar,
P.O Vasundhra Enclave,
East Delhi-110096.
2. Sh. Dibas Das (Father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Bijan Bihari Das
R/o Village Gopalchak, PS Uttar Haraschak,
East Midnapore, West Bengal.
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Vipin Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Pratap Singh,
R/o Village Noorjan, PS Sahanigate,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Delhi Transport Corporation (Owner)
Through its Manager
CW1, (Central Workshop-I), BBM Depot,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009.
3. United Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Through its Manager,
E-85, Himalaya House,
K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
.........Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 21.12.2019 Date of framing of issues : 09.02.2023 Date of concluding arguments : 16.01.2025 Date of decision : 21.01.2025 MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 1 of 21 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present claim petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Sh. Dilip Das in a motor accident that took place on 16.08.2019, at about 6:40 pm, in front of Nexa Showroom, Sector-10, Noida, U.P., regarding which one FIR No.1037/2019, under Sections 279/304A/427 IPC was registered at PS Sector-20, Noida. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a DTC bus bearing registration No. DL-1PC-7497, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R1) Sh. Vipin Kumar, owned by respondent no. 2 (R2) Delhi Transport Corporation and insured with respondent no. 3 (R3) United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 16.08.2019 at about 6:40 PM, the deceased was going to deliver food being Zomato Delivery Boy on the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3SCG-2668. When he reached in front of Nexa Showroom, Sector-10, Noida, U.P., the offending vehicle i.e. DTC Bus bearing registration No. DL-1PC-7497, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, hit him from behind due to which he sustained fatal injuries. The deceased was removed to Metro Hospital where he was declared brought dead by the doctors.
3. Respondent no. 1 and 2 have filed their joint reply wherein it is submitted that the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 3. It is further submitted that the alleged accident has not occurred due to negligence of MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 2 of 21 respondent no. 1. It is further submitted that the alleged accident occurred due to negligence of deceased himself and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation.
4. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company filed its written statement wherein it is submitted that the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present claim petition as the accident took place within the jurisdiction of PS Sector-20, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, U.P. and the FIR was also registered in the said police station. It is further submitted that the alleged accident took place due to negligence of the deceased. It is further submitted that the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with them w.e.f. 21.01.2019 to 20.01.2020.
5. On 09.02.2023, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal as:-
1. Whether the deceased Dilip Das sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 16.08.2019 at about 06:40 PM, infront of Nexa Showroom, Sector-10, Noida, U.P. caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-1PC-7497 being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Sanchita Das examined herself as PW1. Her affidavit in evidence is Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon various documents. Copy of her MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 3 of 21 Aadhaar card and PAN card are Ex. PW1/1 (colly) (OSR). Certified copy of criminal case record is Ex. PW1/2 (colly). Copy of educational qualification certificate of deceased is Ex. PW1/3 (OSR). Copy of Aadhaar card, PAN card and election ID card of deceased are Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/6 (OSR). Copy of disability certificate of brother of deceased is Ex. PW1/7 (OSR). Copy of Aadhaar card of father of deceased is Ex. PW1/8 (OSR). Copy of birth certificate and death certificate of deceased are Ex. PW1/9 and Ex. PW1/10 (OSR).
7. The petitioners have also examined Sh. Satyajit Pattanayak, an eye witness of the accident, as PW2. His affidavit in evidence is Ex. PW2/A. Copy of his Aadhaar card is Ex.PW2/1. Copy of his driving license is Ex. PW2/2 and copy of registration certificate of vehicle No. DL-2CAZ-5711 is MarkPW2/3.
8. However, no witness was examined by the respondents in rebuttal.
9. The Tribunal heard the final arguments advanced by Sh. B.P. Saxena, Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Sh. Harshit Kuchhal, Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2 and Sh. Ajay Shankar, Ld. Counsel for R-3/Insurance Company and has carefully perused the entire case record along with written submissions filed on behalf of petitioners and Insurance Company.
10. The findings on the aforementioned issues are rendered hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
11. ISSUE NO. 11. Whether the deceased Dilip Das sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 16.08.2019 at about 06:40 PM, infront of Nexa MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 4 of 21 Showroom, Sector-10, Noida, U.P. caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-1PC-7497 being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP.
12. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PC-7497.
13. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have examined one Sh. Satyajit Pattanayak, an eye witness of accident as PW2 who in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A has deposed as under :-
"2. That on 16-8-2019, deponent was going on a Baleno car bearing registration No. DL-2CAZ-5711 and was going towards Sector-10, Noida, at about 16:40 hrs, on reaching road in front of Nexa Showroom Sector 10 Noida, a speeding DTC bus bearing No. DL-1PC-7497 overtook the Baleno car bearing No. DL-2CAZ-5711 of deponent in high speed and after passing about 100 steps ahead, said DTC bus hit a motorcyclist with Zomato delivery bag having registration No. DL-3SCG-2668 from behind , deponent stopped on seeing the road accident and when deponent stopped to see the victim, he was aghast to see Sh. Dilip who was his relative was hit by offending bus DL-1PC-7497. Public person gathered and as police picket was near the spot of accident, police arrived on the spot of his own and deponent along with police took injured Dilip to Metro Hospital, Noida, where he was declared dead due to road accident injuries. This accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending DTC MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 5 of 21 bus bearing No. DL-1PC-7497 and non- else. That PS Sector 20 Noida recorded the statement of deponent and FIR No. 1037 dated 16-8-2019 u/s 279/304A/427 IPC was lodged against the erring driver of DTC bus bearing No. DL-1PC-7497, who was apprehended from the spot and offending DTC bus was impounded from the spot of accident. Had the driver of offending DTC bus been vigilant this accident would not have occurred. Copy of driving licence of deponent is exhibited as Ex. PW2/2 and copy of registration certificate of deponent vehicle is exhibited as Ex. PW2/3."
14. During cross examination, PW2 deposed that he was alone in his Baleno car bearing No. DL-2CAZ-5711 and was going towards Sector-10, Noida for his personal work. He further deposed that he was not aware that his bhanja (nephew) was also going on the same route prior to the accident. He admitted that the DTC bus was just ahead of his car and his bhanja was ahead from DTC bus. He volunteered to state that the DTC bus overtook his Baleno car just before the accident. His nephew was ahead of the DTC bus. Though he was not able to see the motorcycle but he could see the red colour Zomato bag going ahead of DTC bus. He further deposed that the DTC bus had hit the bike from its front right side. After the accident, public persons stopped the DTC bus. PW2 reiterated that he saw the accident happening.
15. PW2 stood steadfast in his testimony and nothing substantial could be elicited from his cross-examination that would render his testimony doubtful.
16. The mechanical inspection reports of the vehicles involved show that the motorcycle suffered damage on its right MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 6 of 21 side while the offending bus suffered damage on left side of front bumper and left body.
17. Certified copies of criminal case record in the present case corroborate the assertion of the petitioners that the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R-1.
18. Reliance has been 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 petitioners 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 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."
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has 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.
20. 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 MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 7 of 21 required to be established on 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 petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
21. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to deny his involvement in the accident or to deny negligence on his part, which he failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the respondent no. 1 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.
22. In the written submissions, R3/Insurance Company has taken the defence of (i) territorial jurisdiction, (ii) criminal case record not having been proved by petitioners, and (iii) there being no prima-facie evidence of negligence. During the course of addressing final arguments, however, these grounds were not stressed upon.
23. So far as territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal is concerned, it is not disputed that a working branch of R3/Insurance Company is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It has been held in Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1022 by MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 8 of 21 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that there is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the Insurance Company which is the main contesting party in such cases had its business. Further, certified copies of criminal case record (Ex.PW1/2 Colly) are on record. Neither in the cross-examinations of the PWs nor during the course of final arguments has the Insurance Company questioned the genuineness of these documents. Tribunal finds no ground to doubt them. Rash and negligent act of R1 has already been discussed above.
24. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on preponderance of probability that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1PC-7497 and the said vehicle at that time was 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.
25. ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
26. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No. 1 has been proved, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated 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 entitled shall be under the heads as discussed hereinafter.
MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 9 of 21(i) Loss of dependency
27. The petitioner no. 1 being mother of deceased stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A wherein she claimed that her deceased son was gainfully employed as Delivery Boy with Zomato in Delhi through Info Edge India Ltd., having office at GF 12A, 94 Meghdoot Towers, Nehru Place, Delhi and earning Rs.22,000/- per month. She has tendered on record copy of educational qualification certificate of deceased as Ex. PW1/3 (OSR), as per which the deceased was matriculate at the time of accident. Perusal of record shows that in the FIR which was lodged immediately, it has been mentioned that the deceased was resident of Delhi and worked as Zomato delivery boy. PW1 has reiterated the same. Tribunal does not find any ground to disbelieve this consistent assertion of the petitioners regarding employment of the deceased. However, no income proof of the deceased has been placed on record.
28. Since the income of the deceased has not been established on record, the minimum wages of matriculates is taken into account as per rates prevalent in Delhi, which was Rs. 17,508/- per month at the time of accident.
29. In order to prove the age of deceased, the petitioners have tendered on record copy of Aadhaar card, PAN card and election ID card of deceased as Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/6 (OSR). In Aadhaar card of deceased Ex. PW1/4, as well as in his PAN card Ex. PW1/5, his date of birth is mentioned as 05.08.1992. Hence, going by these documents, the age of deceased on the MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 10 of 21 date of accident, i.e. 16.08.2019 comes out to be 27 years and 11 days. 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 the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of '17' is applicable in the present case.
30. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, the present claim petition has been filed by two petitioners i.e. mother and father of deceased. PW1 in her affidavit admitted 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 cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra) and Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), half of earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
31. Further, in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are held entitled to the addition of 40% towards future prospects. Thus, the loss of dependency in the petitioners case comes to Rs.25,00,142/- (rounded off){(Rs.17,508/-X 12 X 17 X 1/2 X140/100)}.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
32. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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.
MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 11 of 21Further, 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'.
33. 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 6 years since then stands already 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' after expiry of three years and further 10% after expiry of another three years. The petitioners are thus awarded a total sum of Rs.1,33,100/- [(Rs.40,000/- + 10% of Rs.40,000/-= Rs. 44,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/- = Rs. 48,400/- X 2 = Rs.96,800/-) + (Rs. 30,000/- + 10% of Rs.30,000/- = Rs.33,000/- + 10% of Rs. 33,000/- = Rs. 36,300/-)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
34. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.26,33,242/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred Fourty Two only) (Rs.25,00,142/- + Rs.1,33,100/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. However, it is MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 12 of 21 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
35. Out of the awarded amount, 60% amount is being awarded to petitioner no. 1, i.e. mother of deceased and the remaining 40% amount each is being awarded to petitioner no. 2, i.e. father of deceased.
RELEASE
36. Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 1, 90% 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 125 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 125 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 her saving/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 056322010002206, having PAN Card No. CDWPD3153L and IFSC Code UBIN090563, being maintained with Union Bank of India, Vasundhra Enclave, Delhi-110096 and the remaining 10% amount each is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 13 of 2137. Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 2, 90% 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 saving/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 0182200100010599, having PAN Card No. CFGPD6401P and IFSC Code PUNB0018220, being maintained with Punjab National Bank, Conta Branch, Purba Medinipur-721401 the remaining 10% amount each is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him.
38. The disbursement to the petitioners 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.
39. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme accounts of petitioners i.e. the bank account of petitioners shall be individual account and not a joint account.
40. 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 MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 14 of 21 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.
41. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank accounts of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence.
42. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of petitioners.
43. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
44. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner(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 petitioner(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the petitioner(s) from any other branch of the bank.
45. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner(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 petitioner(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
46. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 15 of 21 the passbook(s) of the petitioner(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
47. 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 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 Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
48. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioners and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
49. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 16 of 21 No.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
50. 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.
51. 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:
1. Date of the accident 16.08.2019
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A. Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from N.A. the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from N.A. the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A. Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing Form-VII-
of NA as it is an Detailed Accident Report (DAR) outstation matter
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of NA the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 17 of 21 DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies 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 not filed petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 21.01.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 21.12.2019 petitioner(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 issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) 02.09.2024 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 Address of As mentioned above the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings Yes bank account(s) is near his place of residence?MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 18 of 21
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
52. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 25.04.2025.Digitally signed by VRINDA
VRINDA KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
2025.01.21
16:57:01 +0530
Announced in the open court. (Vrinda Kumari)
on 21.01.2025 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN FORM XV
MACP No. 226/19
Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 19 of 21
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident 16.08.2019
2. Name of the deceased Sh. Dilip Das
3. Age of the deceased 27 years and 11 days
4. Occupation of the deceased Minimum wages of matriculates in Delhi
5. Income of the deceased Rs.17,508/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased :
Sl. No. Name Age Relation
i) Sanchita Das 49 years Mother
ii) Dibas Das 54 years Father
Sl. No. Head Amount Awarded
(Rs.)
7. Income of deceased (A) Rs.17,508/-
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Rs.7,003.2
9. Less-Personal expenses of the Rs.12,255.6 deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.12,255.6/-
[(A+B) - C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,47,067.2/-
(D x 12) 12. Multiplier 17
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.25,00,142/-
(D x 12 x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love Nil MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 20 of 21 and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.96,800/-
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.26,33,242/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date AWARDED of filing of claim petition till the date of award to be deposited within 30 days and 9% thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.10,03,924/-
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.36,37,166/-
(L + M) (rounded off to
Rs. 36,37,500/-)
23. Award amount released P-1=10% share
P-2=10% share
24. Award amount kept in FDRs/ P-1=90% share MACAD P-2=90% share
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award amount to petitioner(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 25.04.2025 award VRINDA Digitally signed by VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI 16:57:56 +0530 Date: 2025.01.21 (Vrinda Kumari) PO/MACT, New Delhi 21.01.2025 MACP No. 226/19 Sanchita Das & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar & Ors. 21.01.2025 Page 21 of 21