Delhi District Court
Saroj Kumari W/O Sh. Lalit Parsad vs Adarash Kumar & Ors on 7 July, 2018
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
In the Court of Sh. G. N. Pandey
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 15452/15
IN THE MATTER OF :
1 Saroj Kumari W/o Sh. Lalit Parsad, aged 41 years ( Mother )
2. Lalit Parsad S/o Sh. Roop Ram, aged 46 years ( Father )
R/o H. No. F249, Gali No. 13, Khajoori Khas,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi110094
................ Petitioners
V E R S U S
1. Adarash Kumar S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar
R/o 86, B1, Block,
Nand Nagari, Delhi93
2. Lrs of the respondent No. 2 ( the name of Lrs of the deceased
respondent No. 2 given as under follows:)
(i) Smt. Ramesh Devi, aged 45 years( Wife)
(ii) Sonu, aged 29 years ( Son )
(iii) Joni Singh, aged 23 years( Son ) R/o C132, Kanti Nagar Extn., Delh92
3. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2Nd Floor, BIG Jos Tower, A8, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitam Pura, New Delhi.
................. Respondents Date of Institution of petition : 25.05.2015 Date of Judgment/Order : 07.07.2018 MACT No. 15452/15 1 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
A W A R D:
1. By this order, I shall dispose off the claim petition filed by the petitioner / injured for grant of compensation in view of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 22.03.2015 at about 3 PM, Anil Prasad( since deceased) was going to Reliance Fresh from his house on foot for purchase of grocery item. When he reached in front of Bhajanpura Market, Main Road Wazirabad, Delhi in the meanwhile, a motorcycle No. DL 3 SCA 0226 which was being driven by its driver/ respondent No. 1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently in a zig zag manner came from front Khajoori chowk side and hit Anil Prasad with a great force. As a result of which, he fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. He was taken to GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden where his MLC was prepared and he died during the course of treatment. His postmortem was conducted at mortuary GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
3. The respondent No. 1 filed WS denying the averments made in the petition contending that this petition is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for filing of the same. As contended, the said vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident. It is denied that a motorcycle No. DL 3 SCA 0226 which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, rashly, negligently in a zig zag manner. It is further contended that the alleged vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 and answering respondent was also holding valid DL.
WS was filed by LRs of deceased respondent No. 2 contending that MACT No. 15452/15 2 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
respondent No. 2 and the alleged offending vehicle have been falsely implicated in the case. Respondent No. 2 was owner of the alleged offending vehicle and respondent No. 1 was having valid DL at the time of alleged accident.
The respondent No. 3 filed WS of the claim petition contended that offending vehicle No. DL 3 SCA 0226 was insured with the answering respondent vide policy No. FTW/S3146816/14/01/D1141J w.e.f. 14.01.2015 to 13.01.2016 in the name of late Sh. Banwari Lal.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether deceased Anil Prasad died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 22.03.2015 at about 3 PM at in front of Bhajanpura Market, Main road Wazirabad, Bhajan Pura, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Khajoori Khas, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. DL 3 SCA 0226 by respondent No. 1 ? OPP
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
5. Petitioner summoned and examined the witness i.e. Madhusudan from Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, Yamuna Vihar as PW1 appeared with the original record of attendance register of Anil Prasad of Class IXth B, admission and withdrawal register, result of Anil Prasad of class Ixth, admission form, school leaving certificate of Nav Bharat Adarash Public school. Attested copy of same Ex. PW 1/ A. As per school record, the date of MACT No. 15452/15 3 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
birth of Anil Prasad is 26.05.2000.
Mother of deceased filed her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW 2/A and examined as PW2. The witness deposed nothing but deposed regarding the contention in the petition. She also deposed regarding the relevant documents i.e:
(i) Copy of death certificate of Anil Prasad ( since deceased) Ex. PW 2/1
(ii) copy of birth certificate of Anil Prasad ( since deceased) Ex. PW 2/ 2
(iii) copy of educational certificates of Anil Prasad ( since deceased) Ex. PW 2/ 3
(iv) Copy of report card of Anil prasad ( since deceased) Ex.
PW 2/ 4 (v) Copy of adhar card of Smt. Saroj Kumari ( petitioner No. 1) Ex. PW 2/ 5 (vi) Copy of adhar card of Sh. Lalit Prasad ( petitioner No. 2) Ex. PW 1/ 6 (vii) Attested copy of DAR Ex. PW 2/ 7.
(viii) Copy of trade license in the name of petitioner No. 2 Ex.
PW 2/ 8(ix) Copy of income tax record assessment year 201516, 201415 and 201314 Ex. PW 2/ 9.
Petitioner also examined eyewitness i.e. Sh. Deepak as PW3 by way of affidavit Ex. PW 3/ A who deposed regarding the accident. PE was thereafter closed.
6. Respondent No. 3 examined the witness i.e. Amit Kumar, Asstt.
MACT No. 15452/15 4 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Manager( Legal) Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd as R3W1 by way of affidavit E.x R3W1/A. Witness has relied upon the documents i.e. E.x R3W1/1 authorization letter/ power of attorney issued by company and Ex. R3W1/2 insurance policy. RE was thereafter closed.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 3 and considered the relevant materials on record. My issue wise findings are as below : ISSUE No. 1.
1. Whether deceased Anil Prasad died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 22.03.2015 at about 3 PM at in front of Bhajanpura Market, Main road Wazirabad, Bhajan Pura, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Khajoori Khas, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. DL 3 SCA 0226 by respondent No. 1 ? OPP
8. To succeed in the petition in view of Section 166 of the MV Act, it is for the claimant to prove that vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Mother of deceased deposed about the facts of the case. She was crossexamined by ld. Counsel for respondents and during crossexamination nothing has come forward in her testimony to disbelieve the version of PW. On the other hand, the testimony of RW did not rebut the testimony of PW to deny the claim of the petitioner and mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the claim of the petitioner. No witness was produced or examined by respondents as well to prove as to how accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased; the respondent No. 1 was not at fault and MACT No. 15452/15 5 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The DAR filed by IO Ex. PW 2/7 which includes copy of FIR, site plan, MLC etc. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of witnesses. I have gone through the record and documents in respect of the accident caused to the petitioner which is prima facie suggestive of negligence of respondent No. 1 in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
Relied judgment in (Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530 and the judgment in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC
646).
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Ors. V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
9. In judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel & Ors., 2014 (2), T.A.C. 846 (Del.), it was held that in a case, where FIR is lodged, chargesheet is filed, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the vehicle in question was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side. In case of Cholamandalam MACT No. 15452/15 6 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the Claimant had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.
10. I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana to examine the aspect of negligence wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that: In case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo and the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to MACT No. 15452/15 7 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit.
11. Therefore, in view of the criminal case record, it is proved that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 22.03.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing No. DL 3 SCA 0226 driven by its driver i.e. respondent No. 1. The issue is decided accordingly.
Issue No. ii :
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa V/s Gurdayal Singh reported as 2003(2) SCC 274 ruled that the main guiding principle for determining the MACT No. 15452/15 8 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
compensation is that it must be just and further that it must be reasonable. As observed in UP State Road Transport corporation V/s Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the compensation awarded in such cases has primarily two elements; the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident and the pecuniary loss sustained by members of his family on account of his death in addition to the conventional award under non pecuniary heads of damages( e.g. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc).
13 The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation on pecuniary benefit or benefits reduceable to money value. In General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V/s Susamma Thomas reported as (1994) 2 SCC 176, the court ruled that in fatal accident action, the measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered or likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of death and that : "9.The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that that deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether".
MACT No. 15452/15 9 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma V/s DTC reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 held as under:
16. ... "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profits.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While, it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation same or similar facts should lead to award in the same range. When the factors/ inputs are the same, and the formula/ legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation.
15. No amount of compensation can restore, eliminate or ameliorate the loss suffered on account of death ( or injury with lasting effect) the endeavor by such award is to repair the damage done so as to restore the victim( which includes the dependent) to the extent possible to the preaccidental position. The pecuniary damages are meant to take care of the prospective pecuniary loss of future income and the non pecuniary damages to compensate, to an MACT No. 15452/15 10 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
extent, for pain and suffering , loss of love, companionship, expectation of life etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K Malik V/s Kiran Pal reported as 2009 (14) SCC 1 observed as under:
22. It is extremely difficult to quantify the non pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But, the same could not be a ground for non payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy.
23. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualised and understood. Perhaps , the only mechanism known to law in this kind of situation is to compensate a person who has suffered non pecuniary loss or damages as a consequence of the wrong done to him by way of damages / monetary compensation. Undoubtedly, when a victim of a wrong suffers injuries he is entitled to compensation including compensation for the prospective life, pain and suffering, happiness, etc., which is sometimes described as compensation paid for "loss of expectation of life".
16. The method for computation of compensation for the date of death of children appeared to be non informed and consistence. The challenge in determining the ' just and reasonable' compensation in such cases is mainly MACT No. 15452/15 11 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
due to the fact that there is virtually no evidence in actual loss of earning of the deceased child. Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K. Malik(supra) noted:
25. That being the position, the crucial problem arises with regard to the quantification of such compensation. The injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of a child is extremely difficult to quantify. In view of the uncertainties and contingencies of human life, what would be an appropriate figure, an adequate solatium is difficult to specify. The courts have therefore used the expression "standard compensation"
and conventional amount/ sum" to get over the difficulty that arises in quantifying a figure as the same ensures consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation."
17. In view of the aforesaid legal positions, the question of law concerning the method of calculation of compensation in accident claim cases involving deaths of children in motor Vehicle accident was thoroughly examined and analyzed by Delhi High Court in MAC Apps. No. 554/2010 & Conn. decided on 13.05.2016. The Hon'ble High Court laid down the formula to be adopted for computation of just compensation in case of death of children so that there is no disparity while considering the nature of future prospects and inflationary trends affecting the loss of real value of money. It was considered that there can hardly ever be a clear proof of pecuniary loss resulting from death and the cases for compensation on account of death of children in Motor Vehicle Accident cases ought to be dealt with by considering the claim towards pecuniary damages ( towards loss of estate), in accordance with the age group wise categories as in RK Malik (Supra). The income is to be notionally assumed on the basis of the second schedule of the M.V. Act and the MACT No. 15452/15 12 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal and living expenses would be appropriate. The award of compensation must necessarily take into account non pecuniary damages.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 71 of the judgment noted: Subject to all other requisite conditions being fulfilled, for the foregoing reasons, in order to bring about consistency and uniformity in approach to the issue, it is held that claims for compensation on account of death of children shall be determined as follows:
(i) Till such time as the law is amended by the legislature, or the Central Government notifies the amendment to the Second Schedule in exercise of the enabling power vested in it by Section 163A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and except in cases wherein the prospects of employability and earnings ( in future or present) of the deceased child are proved by cogent and irrefutable evidence, this having regard, inter alia, to the academic record or training in special talents or skills, for computing the pecuniary damages on account of the loss to estate, the notional income of nonearning persons( Rs. 15,000/ p.a) as specified in the second schedule ( brought in force from 14.11.1994), shall be assumed to be the income of the deceased child, and taken into account after it is inflation corrected with the help of Cost inflation Index (CII) as notified by the Government of India from year to year under Section 48 of the Income Tax , 1961 , by applying the formula indicated hereinafter.
(ii) For inflation correction, the financial year of
MACT No. 15452/15 13 of 19
Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
19971998 shall be treated as the "base year" and the value of the notional income relevant to the date of cause of action shall be computed in the following manner: Rs. 15,000/ X A /331 {Wherein the figure of Rs. 15,000/ ' represents the notional income specified in the second schedule requiring inflationcorrection; 'A' represent the CII for the financial year in which the cause of action arose (i.e. the accident/ death occurred); and the figure of '331' represent the CII for the 'base year'}.
(iii) After arriving at an appropriate figure of the present equivalent value of the notional income ( i.e. inflation corrected amount), it shall be rounded off to a figure in next thousands of rupees.
(iv) The amount of notional income thus calculated shall be reduced to twothird, the deduction to the extent of one third being towards personal & living expenses of the deceased, the balance taken as the annual loss to estate ( hereinafter also referred to as "the multiplicand").
(v) For assessment of the pecuniary damages on account of the death of children upto the age of 10 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated, capitalizing the multiplicand, by applying the multiplier of ten (10).
(vi) For children of the age group of more than 10 years upto 15 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of fifteen(15) MACT No. 15452/15 14 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
(vii) For Children of the age group of more than 15 years but less than 18 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of eighteen (18).
(viii) After the pecuniary loss to estate has been worked out in the manner indicated above, an amount equivalent to the amount thus computed shall be added to it as the composite non pecuniary damages taking care of not only the conventional heads but also towards future prospects as awarded in R. K. Malik V/s Kiran Pal (2009) 14 SCC 1.
(ix) The final sum thus arrived at, appropriately rounded off, if so required to the nearest ( if not next) thousands of rupees, shall be awarded as compensation for the death of the child.
18. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete records. The petitioners have prayed for compensation against respondents. It is argued by Ld counsel for respondents that petitioners have not suffered any monetary loss on account of the fatal accident and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation.
There is no dispute at all regarding the offending vehicle nor there is dispute that deceased received fatal injuries due to the accident. The factum of accident as well as death is not denied. As per the birth certificate of the deceased, the date of birth of deceased is 26.05.2000. The accident took place on 22.03.2015. The age of the deceased is taken as about 15 years on the date of accident.
19. There is no evidence regarding the academic record of the deceased child. The death occurred on 22.03.2015 and therefore the CII(cost inflation MACT No. 15452/15 15 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
index) for the financial year 20142015 i.e. 1,024/ would apply. The age of the deceased child was about 15 years and therefore the calculation is to be made on multiplier of 15. The inflation calculated notional income comes to Rs. 46,405/ (15,000/ x 1,024 /331), rounded off Rs. 47,000/. After deducting 1/3rd and applying the multiplier of 15, the pecuniary loss to estate is computed as ( Rs. 47,000/ x 2/3 x 15) Rs. 4,70,000/. Adding a similar amount towards composite non pecuniary damages, the total compensation works out to be Rs. (4,70,000/ x 2) = Rs. 9,40,000/.
Ld. counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that due to the contributory negligence of the deceased, petitioner are not entitled for the compensation. The contributory negligence of deceased is proved in view testimony of PW3 who categorically deposed during cross examination that deceased was crossing the road; there was no zebra crossing on the road from where deceased was crossing the road ; there was no red light at the spot from where deceased was crossing the road; there was no grill on the divider and there was no cut on the road from where the deceased was crossing the road. Keeping in view of circumstances of the case, the 20 % of the total compensation amount is deducted towards contributory negligence. The petitioner is accordingly entitled for compensation of Rs. 7,52,000/ from the respondents.
I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 7,52,000/ in favour of the Claimant and against Respondents. Liability: In this case, respondent No. 3 is the insurance company which admittedly has issued a valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle. During MACT No. 15452/15 16 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
the arguments, ld. counsel for insurance company stated that insurance policy was issued w.e.f. 14.01.2015 to 13.01.2016 to a dead person / late Banwari lal who died on 11.04.2014. Ld. Counsel for insurance company further stated that insurance policy is void in view of section 149 (2) (b) MV Act as same has been obtained by legal heirs of the late Banwari Lal in the name of dead person by not disclosing of material facts i.e. death of Banwari Lal who had died on 11.04.2014 therefore recovery right may be granted to insurance company against respondent No. 1 and 2 and in support of contentions, Ld. Counsel for insurance company relied upon the judgment reported as MAC. App. 124/14 title Seema & Ors. V/s Jasbir & Ors. date of decision 13.05.2016 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
I have gone through the record and judgment relied by the insurance company. In this case, the insurance policy is issued in the name of Banwari Lal w.e.f. 14.01.2015 to 13.01.2016 but Banwari Lal died on 11.04.2014 therefore recovery right be granted against the respondent No. 1 and 2. Hence, I am of the opinion that respondent No. 3 being insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2 with right to recovery. Interim award if any paid to injured/ petitioner be adjusted in the award amount.
Award :
20. Resultantly, the claim petition stands allowed. Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 7,52,000// within one month to the Claimant. Claimant is also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, MACT No. 15452/15 17 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC).
21. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.
22. Out of the total award amount of Rs. 7,52,000/, UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to keep the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/ in 6 FDRs of Rs. 1,00,000/ each for the maturity period of one year to six years respectively ( at the interval of one year each) with cumulative interest in the name of petitioner No. 1.
23. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to release the remaining amount alongwith interest in favour of petitioner No. 1 in her saving bank account after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).
24. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to the petitioner after due verification.
25. All the original FDRs shall be retained by the UCO bank, KKD Courts. However, the statement containing the FDRs number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the UCO Bank to the petitioner/ beneficiary. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiary. The beneficiary shall intimate regarding his bank and account number for automatic credit of the maturity amount.
26. No loan, advance or premature discharge of the FDRs shall be permitted without permission of this court.
MACT No. 15452/15 18 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
27. The maturity amount of the FDRs alongwith interest thereon be transferred to the saving bank accounts of the beneficiary.
28. The liberty is given to the petitioner/ injured to approach this court for release of further amount in event of any financial exigency.
29. On request of Claimant, bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch in the name of petitioner and the bank of the petitioner are directed not to issue any cheque book or Debit Card to the account holder.
30. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 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 Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.
31. FormIV shall be read as a part of the judgment.
Digitally signed by GORAKH GORAKH NATH PANDEY
Location: Court No.69, North
Announced in open Court NATH East District, Karkardooma
Court, Delhi
on this 07th day of July, 2018 PANDEY Date: 2018.07.07 16:48:38
+0530
G. N. Pandey
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 15452/15 19 of 19 Saroj Kumari & ors V/s Adarash Kumar & Ors.