Delhi District Court
Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 1 Of 20 on 6 April, 2019
Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 1 of 20
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL, PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No. 4926916
MACT PETITION No. : 743/09
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010000012009
1.Smt. Swati Sharma W/o Late Sh. Manmohan Sharma
(wife of deceased )
2. Ms. Harshita @ Aarohi Sharma
(minor daughter of deceased).
3. Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Late Sh. Raja Ram Sharma
All R/o G3256, Nanda Colony,
Ram Park Extension, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
4. Sh. Raja Ram Sharma
(father of deceased who has since expired on 09.10.2018
& vide order dated 28.02.2019 the share of his LR's
has to be given to his wife Smt. Sushila Devi/petitioner no. 3)
........ Petitioners/claimants
Vs.
1. Sh. Lal Babu Mehto S/o Sh. R.B. Mehto
R/o A16, Sector16A, JJ Colony,
Pocket2, Kakrola, New Delhi64
....... Driver /R1
2. Sh. Dhani Ram Birhman S/o Sh. Sher Singh
R/o ½/19/6 Ch. Hari Chand Building,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt, Delhi.
...Owner/R2.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Divisional Office, C32, Community Centre,
Industrial Area Phase1, Nariana, Delhi.
... Insurance co/R3
..... Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.12.2009
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 03.04.2019
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.04.2019
Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 1 of20
Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 2 of 20
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH
TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 13.11.2009
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the No provision of DAR
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal was at that time.
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the No provision of DAR
investigating officer to the insurance company. was at that time.
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 No provision of DAR
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate was at that time.
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information No provision of DAR
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before was at that time.
Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance No provision of DAR
Company (Clause 11) was at that time.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). No provision of DAR
(Clause 11) was at that time.
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? No provision of DAR
(Clause 16) was at that time.
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed No provision of DAR
later on? was at that time.
10. Whether the police has verified the documents No provision of DAR
filed with DAR? (Clause 4) was at that time.
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No provision of DAR
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, was at that time.
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer No provision of DAR
by the insurance Company. (Clause20) was at that time.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. Kumar Alok,
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
(Clause 20)
Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 2 of20
Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 3 of 20
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No provision of DAR
Company submitted his report within 30 days of was at that time.
the DAR? (Clause 20)Without insurance
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No provision of DAR
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of was at that time.
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No provision of DAR
the part of the Designated Officer of the was at that time.
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer No provision of DAR
of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24) was at that time.
18. Date of the Award 06.04.2019
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 09.02.2018
directed to open saving bank account (s) near
his place of residence and produce PAN Card
and Aadhar 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(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 01.08.2018
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s) (Clause 27)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner no.1 Smt.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Swati Bhatt savings
IFSC Code (Clause 27) bank a/c No.
01771000008107
petitioner no. 2
Aarohi Sharma
savings bank a/c no.
0177100008108
with Punjab & Sind
Bank, Srinagar
Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 3 of20
Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 4 of 20
Garhwal branch,
Uttrakhand &
petitioner no. 3 Smt.
Sushila savings bank
a/c no.
11872413001081
with OBC, Tronica
City Branch, Loni,
Uttar Pradesh.
IFSC : ORBC0101187
PSIB0000177
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition. (Clause 27)
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427,
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to SBIN0010323, SBI,
be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. Present claim petition has been preferred under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 26,25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Six lakhs Twenty Five thousand Only) along with interest @ 18% p.a. in respect of accidental death of Sh. Manmohan Sharma s/o Late Sh. Raja Ram Sharma in a motor vehicular accident.
The record would show that an Accidents Information Report (AIR) was also filed in this case which was clubbed with the main file vide order dated 05.02.2010 of the ld predecessor of this court.
2. The facts mentioned in the petition are that on 13.11.2009 at about 9:20 am, Mr. Manmohan Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was going to attend his office on a Motor Cycle bearing no. DL4SAQ6598. When he reached near T point Dhaka Village, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, then a Blue Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 4 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 5 of 20 Line bus bearing registration no. DL1PA7540 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/R1 at a fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle of deceased, ran over him and caused his death at the spot. It has been mentioned that the deceased was driving the said motorcycle on his left side of the road.
The Postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by the doctors of BJRM hospital wherein cause of death was opined as due to combined effects of craniocerebral injuries and hemorrhagic shock due to injuries to abdominal structures, all injuries were antemortem in nature and possible in road traffic accident as alleged.
3. R1/ Lal Babu Mehto who was the driver and Sh. Dani Ram Birhman/owner of the offending vehicle have filed their written statement jointly wherein they have denied all the allegations. It was submitted that they are not liable to pay any compensation as the said fatal accident of deceased was not caused by any rash and negligent driving of R1 while driving the offending bus at the material time and date. They have submitted that offending vehicle was insured with R3 which was valid from 06.11.2009 to 05.11.2010 and that R1 was holding a valid driving licence.
4. R3/Insurance co has filed its written statement to AIR as well as petition separately wherein it was admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 36180031096300002770 w.e.f 06.11.2009 to 05.11.2010 i.e. covering the date of accident 13.11.2009. It was submitted that the deceased sustained injuries due to his sole negligence while driving the motorcycle and there was no wrongful or negligence on the part of the offending vehicle.
5. The record would show that Mr. Raja Ram Sharma who was petitioner no. 4 has expired on 09.10.2018 during the course of the enquiry proceedings and vide order dated 28.02.2019, in view of the joint recorded statement of his LR's, it was directed that his entire share of compensation would be given to petitioner no. 3 Smt. Sushila Devi who was his wife.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 5 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 6 of 20 Ld predecessor of this court vide order dated 22.11.2010: (1) Whether on 13.11.09 at about 9:25 am near Tpoint Dhaka Village, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, vehicle no. DL1PA7540 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle of deceased and caused his death ?
(2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(3). Relief.
7. Petitioners have examined Smt. Swati Sharma (wife of deceased) as PW1, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Manager, HR, from Adroit Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, UP as PW2, Sh. Raja Ram Sharma, father of deceased, as PW3 and Smt. Sushila Devi, mother of deceased, as PW4.
Respondents have not lead any evidence in support of their case.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioners no1 & 2, ld counsel for petitioner no. 3 and ld counsel for R3/Insurance co. None appeared for R1 and R2 to address final arguments. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
9. Issue wise findings are as under: ISSUES NO. 1 The onus to prove this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities is upon the petitioners.
Petitioners/claimants have examined Smt. Swati Sharma (wife of deceased) as PW1. PW1 has filed and proved her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. She has relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/8 i.e. the FIR, postmortem report, site plan, RC, fitness, permit of offending vehicle and insurance policy of offending vehicle and DL of R1 respectively. She has also proved the DL of deceased as Mark B, death certificate of deceased as Ex. PW1/9, salary receipt of deceased as Ex. PW1/10 and copy of bank pass book of deceased as Mark C. Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 6 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 7 of 20 PW1 deposed that on 13.11.2009 at about 9:20 am her husband Manmohan Sharma ( 'deceased') was going to attend his office on motorcycle no. DL4SAQ6598. She deposed that when he reached near Tpoint Dhaka Village, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi9, then a Blue Line bus bearing no. DL1PA 7540 (offending vehicle) which was being driven at a fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle of deceased, ran over him and caused his death.
PW1 was cross examined by ld counsel for R3 wherein she has admitted that she was not an eye witness of the accident.
Petitioners/claimants have also examined Sh. Raja Ram Sharma (father of deceased) as PW3. PW3 has filed and proved his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW3/1.
PW3 was cross examined by ld counsel for R3 wherein he has also admitted that he was not an eye witness of the accident. He also deposed that he has one more son and two daughters.
Petitioners/claimants have also examined Smt. Sushila Devi (mother of deceased) as PW4. PW4 has filed and proved her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW4/1.
PW4 was cross examined by ld counsel for R3 wherein she has also admitted that she was not an eye witness of the accident. She also deposed that she has one more son and two daughters.
The certified copy of criminal case record would show that the case FIR No. 374/09 u/s 279/304A IPC PS Mukherjee Nagar was registered against R1/Lal Babu Mehto. The said FIR has been proved as Ex. PW1/1. The certified copy of charge sheet u/s 279/304A IPC in FIR No. 374/09 PS Mukherjee Nagar is also on record which would show that it has been filed against R1.
The certified copy of mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle/bus bearing registration no. DL1PA7540 would show that there were fresh damages on the left side of the offending vehicle and its left side body Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 7 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 8 of 20 was scratched. It would also show the involvement of the offending vehicle in the case accident.
The Postmortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted by the doctors of BJRM hospital wherein cause of death was opined as due to combined effects of craniocerebral injuries and hemorrhagic shock due to injuries to abdominal structures, all injuries were antemortem in nature and possible in road traffic accident as alleged. The certified copy of the said report has been proved as Ex. PW1/2 which would show that the deceased expired due to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
The certified copy of criminal case record would also show that Head Constable Shamsher Singh after receipt of DD no. 10A along with Constable Gambhir Singh reached at the spot of accident at Dhaka Chowk, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi where they found the above said offending bus and motorcycle standing in accidental condition along with one dead person whose dead body was shifted to the mortuary of BJRM hospital through Constable Gambhir. The criminal case would also show that R1 was also found present at the spot. The photographs of the offending bus with route no. 726A and registration no. DL1PA7540 were also on record. The certified copy of seizure memo dated 13.11.2009 of the offending bus and the above said motorcycle of the deceased are also on record.
The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimants beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt. In view of above said discussion, it has been proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused by R1 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
In the said circumstances and other record including the FIR, mechanical inspection report etc. it has been clearly proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused at the above said date, time and place and in the above said manner by the rash and negligent driving of R1 by which he drove the offending vehicle rashly and Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 8 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 9 of 20 negligently and hit the motorcycle of deceased thereby causing his death.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents accordingly.
10. Issue No. (2) In view of my findings on issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
(a) PW1 ( wife of the deceased) has deposed through her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. PW1 deposed that the deceased was aged about 26 years as on the date of his death. She has proved the copy of driving licence of her deceased husband as Mark B which mentions his date of birth as 20.05.1983, hence, on the date of accident (13.11.2009) the age of deceased was about 26 years 5 months. PW1 deposed that her deceased husband was working with Adroit Finance Service (P) Ltd, Karkardooma as Sr. Executive Dealer and was earning Rs. 21,000/ per month.
Petitioners have examined Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Manager (HR) from Adroit Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, UP as PW2. The working proof of deceased has been proved as Ex. PW2/2 for the years 2007, 2008 & 2009 (colly). He has also proved the salary details of deceased as Ex. PW2/3.
He was cross examined only on behalf of insurance co/R3 wherein he deposed that he had not brought any document towards the salary payment to the deceased. He admitted that he had not brought the employment register of the company. He denied the suggestion that computerised documents filed by him were totally fabricated.
The salary of the petitioner for the month of September 2009 is on record showing his total income as Rs. 21,000/ per month. PW2 also proved the salary details of the deceased for the financial year 200910 as Ex. PW2/3. It would show that his total salary income for 6 months @ Rs. 21,000/ per month (for the month of April 2009 to September 2009) was Rs. 1,26,000/ Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 9 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 10 of 20 and no tax was deducted. In the said circumstances, the monthly income of deceased is taken as Rs. 21,000/ on the date of accident in question.
(b) Addition of future prospects If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made In this regard, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017.
In the said judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(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 selfemployed 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 the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 10 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 11 of 20 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.
(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 future 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. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied) In the case in hand, the deceased was on a fixed salary and in terms of above said judgment, while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
The age of the deceased, as discussed above, in the present case was 26 years & 5 months . In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the deceased would be entitled to an addition of 40% of the established income as he was below the age of 40 years at the time of his death.
The monthly income of the deceased is thus calculated as Rs. 21,000/+40% of Rs. 21,000/ which comes to Rs. 21,000/+ Rs.8400/. = Rs.29,400/.
(c) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
Claimants are the wife, minor daughter and mother of deceased. The record would show that father of deceased has expired during the course of enquiry and even otherwise he being father cannot be treated as a Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 11 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 12 of 20 dependent upon the deceased.
In the present case, the deceased was married and her wife, minor daughter and mother were dependent family members, hence, there were only 3 dependents upon the deceased. Hence, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd in view of the settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298: (2009) 6 SCC 121 which has been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) in paragraph no 61 (v) of the judgment.
(d) Selection of multiplier:
As discussed above, the age of the deceased was about 26 years & 5 months at the time of his death. In view of paragraph no. 61(vii) of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the age of deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Accordingly, the relevant multiplier would be "17" as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61 (vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
(e) Loss of financial dependency In the light of aforesaid facts, loss of financial dependency of the petitioner comes to Rs.39,98,400/ [i.e. Rs. 29,400/ per month income of the deceased) X12 X17 (multiplier) X2/3 (dependency)].
11. Compensation under nonpecuniary heads/conventional heads:
In view of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), as held in paragraph number 61 (viii) of the said judgment, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/ towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/ towards funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/ for loss of consortium to the wife of deceased.
12. LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the latest case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pooja & Ors, MAC Appeal 798/2011, date of decision 02.11.2017 after referring to the judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 12 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 13 of 20 No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17 delivered by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, accepted the submissions of the ld counsel for the insurer that nonpecuniary heads of damages would have to be restricted to the total of Rs. 70,000/ only, in view of the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said case further held that the Constitution Bench decision did not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages (except loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses).
In view of above said discussion, the petitioners would not be entitled to any amount under the said head of loss of love and affection.
13. Petitioner/claimant is accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 39,98,400/ Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/ ________________ Total Rs. 40,68,400/ ________________ [Rounded off to Rs. 40,69,000/] (Rupees Forty Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand only) The claimants/petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. for the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f 15.12.2009 till realisation of the compensation amount. The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) .
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
14. Liability In the case in hand, the National Insurance co./R3 has not lead any evidence and has not been able to show anything on record that R1 who was the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 13 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 14 of 20 drive the offending vehicle or that the permit of offending vehicle was not valid and as per settled law. Since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
15. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., National Insurance co./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 40,69,000/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3/Insurance co to the petitioners and their advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3/insurance co further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank alongwith the name of the claimants mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
16. Statement of petitioner no. 1 (wife of deceased) in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 01.06.2018. Statement of petitioners no. 3 & 4 (parents of deceased) in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 01.08.2018. It was stated by petitioner no. 1 that petitioner no. 2 aged about 9 was also the minor daughter of the deceased and that they are living separately from petitioners no. 3 & 4. I have heard the petitioners and ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 14 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 15 of 20 their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, on realization, an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/ be given to Smt. Sushila Devi who is mother of deceased (aged about 70 years & now a widow after the death of petitioner no. 4), out of which an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ be released to her in her savings bank account a/c no. 11872413001080 with OBC, Tronica City branch, Loni, Uttar Pradesh as per rules i.e. the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in his name in 60 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 60 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
An amount of Rs. 25,00,000/ be given to Aarohi @ Harshita Sharma who is minor daughter of deceased and same be kept in FDR in her name till she attains the age of majority without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal and after maturity the same be released to her in her savings bank a/c no. 01771000008108 with Punjab & Sind Bank, Srinagar Garhwal branch, Uttrakhand.
Remaining amount be given to Smt. Swati who is wife of deceased, out of which an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ be released to her in her savings bank account a/c no. 01771000008107 with Punjab & Sind Bank, Srinagar Garhwal branch, Uttrakhand. i.e. the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in his name in 60 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 60 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dasted 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to fixed Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 15 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 16 of 20 deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to 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.
(g) 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.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 16 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 17 of 20 claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
17. Relief As discussed above, R3/Insurance co is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 40,69,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 15.12.2009 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and their advocates failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today.
A copy of this judgment/award be sent to R3 for compliance within the granted time.
Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
It is clarified that latest directions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court regarding opening of MACT Claims SB account by the claimants in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi and Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. FAO 842/2003 under the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme have been given separately in the order sheet. It is further clarified that the present award has only been passed as the statement of the claimants under clause 29 of MCTAP had already been recorded. It is also clarified that if the claimants fail to comply with the said directions then the compensation amount shall not be disbursed to them till compliance of the aforesaid directions by them.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 17 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 18 of 20 Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (02222741336/9414048606) {other details Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioners no. 1, 3 & 4 were recorded on 01.06.2018 & 01.08.2018 respectively wherein they stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they shall submit form 15G so that no TDS is deducted.
18. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules. R3 is directed to obtain the copy of PAN Card of Digitally signed petitioners from the court record. by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2019.04.08 10:44:30 +0530 Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL) on 6h April 2019 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 18 of20
Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 19 of 20
FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 13.11.2009
2. Name of deceased: Sh. Manmohan Sharma
3. Age of the deceased: 26 years & 5 months
4. Occupation of the deceased: Self employed/private job
5. Income of the deceased: 29,400/ per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Swati Bhatt 31 years Wife
(ii) Ms. Aaorhi @ Harshita Sharma 9 years Minor daughter
(iii) Smt. Sushila Devi 70 years Mother
(iv)
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 21,000/ .
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 40% of Rs. 21,000/=8400
9. LessPersonal expenses of the 1/3rd
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 19,600/
{ (A+B) - C =D}
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 2,35,200/
12. Multiplier (E) 17
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE Rs. 39,98,400/ = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 40,000/ consortium (I) Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 19 of20 Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 20 of 20
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 15,000/
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/ expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 40,69,000,/ (F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 34,17,958/ award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 74,86,958/ (L+M)
23. Award amount released Rs. 4,00,000/ to the petitioners.
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 70,86,958/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms amount to the claimant (s) (Clause of clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 21.05.2019.
award. (Clause 31) Digitally signed by AMIT BANSAL AMIT Date:
BANSAL 2019.04.08
10:44:44
+0530
(AMIT BANSAL)
PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
06.04.2019
Swati Sharma vs Lal Babu Mehto Page 20 of20