Delhi District Court
Karuna And Ors vs Vipin And Ors on 23 November, 2024
IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. SHIVAJI ANAND,
==============================================
UID No. / CNR No. DLNW01-008495-2018 MACT CASE No. 515/18 FIR No. 3/17, PS Mangolpuri In the matter of :
Puneet Sagar, deceased LRs of deceased
1. Smt. Karuna Widow of Sh. Puneet Sagar (Wife)
2. Master Lavyansh Sagar S/o Late Sh. Puneet Sagar Both R/o 259, Sector 2, Rohini Delhi Presently at H No. 312, Pocket 5, Sector 2, Rohini, Delhi
1. Madan Lal S/o Sh. Sheetal Dass (Father)
2. Veena Rani W/o Sh. Madan Lal (Mother)
3. Umesh S/o Sh. Madan Lal (Brother) MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 27 SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND 15:36:33 +0530 Date: 2024.11.23 All three R/o RZ-586/5, Sadh Nager, Delhi .....Petitioners Vs.
1. Vipin S/o Sh. Raj Kumar R/o H No. 241, Income Tax Colony, Pitam Pura, Delhi ....Driver/R1
2. Malik Kumar Birla, S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Birla R/o 241, Income Tax Colony, Pitampura, Delhi .... Owner
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi ...Respondents
Date of filing of petition : 03.08.2018
Date of final Arguments : 18.10.2024
Date of Decision : 23.11.2024
Appearance (s) : Sh. Pradeep Hooda, Ld. Counsel for
petitioner alongwith petitioner.
Sh. Paritosh Yadav, Ld. Counsel for R1 & R2. Ms. Neeru Garg, Ld counsel for R3/Insurance Company.
JUDGMENT/AWARD Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the DAR ( in short "MV Act") pertaining to the death of Late Sh. Puneet Sagar (in short, the deceased) in road accident.
SHIVAJI Digitally signed by
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date: 2024.11.23
15:36:43 +0530
MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17)
Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 27
FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
1. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present DAR are that on 01.01.2017 at about 00.46 hrs, the deceased while driving the vehicle bearing no. DL-4SCB-3170 was coming from side of Mangopuri and when he reached in front of CNG Pump, Mangolpuri, Delhi, suddenly offending vehicle no. DL-8SBW-7807 which was being driven by Vipin Kumar under a drunk condition in a very rash and negligent manner at a high speed without obeying traffic rules and regulations. As a result, he sustained fatal injuries. A PCR call was made and ambulance came at the spot and deceased was removed to SGM Hospital, where doctors conducted treatment vide MLC no. 00006 undertook treatment from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital where he succumbed to injures on 06.01.2017 and postmortem was conducted vide PM No. 16/17 at SGM Hospital on 07.01.2017.
2. An FIR No. 3/17, PS Mangolpuri was registered U/s 279/304A IPC.
3. Respondent no. 1 & 2 have filed their WS wherein the allegations against him are denied and that respondent is not involved in any accident and that the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and was holding an effective and valid driving license and if arises any compensation, the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay.
4. Respondent no. 3 have filed his WS wherein it is stated that SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
ANAND 15:36:52 +0530 Date: 2024.11.23 Page no. 3 of 27 respondent is not liable to pay any amount as driver Vipin Kumar was not arrested and not chargesheeted. Even there was no eye witness of the accident. As per DAR, the deceased Puneet Sager was driving the motorcycle bearing no. DL4SCB 3170 and was trying to reach at Mangolpuri Flyover from wrong side and hit another motorcycle. Also, the investigation reveals that deceased was driving the motorcycle from wrong side and due to which hit another motorcycle. The Insurance Company denies all its liabilities as in the absence of any information from insured, in view of non supply of valid and effective driving license and its verification report by IO, it is stated that alleged vehicle was driven by a person without having valid and effective driving license and said vehicle was being used contrary.
5. Petitioners have examined three witnesses to prove his case.
6. PW1 Smt. Karuna deposed that he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon copy of Adhar Card as Ex. PW1/1, copy of Voter ID Card is Ex. PW1/2, copy of Account passbook of P1 is Ex. PW1/3, copy of Birth Certificate of P2 is Ex. PW1/4, copy of Adhar Card of P2 is Ex. PW1/5, copy of account passbook of P2 is Ex. PW1/6, copy of Educational certificate is Ex. PW1/7, copy of Voter ID Card of deceased is Ex. PW1/8, copy of Adhar Card of deceased is Ex. PW1/9, copy of PAN Card of deceased is Ex. PW1/10, copy of death certificate of deceased is Ex. PW1/11 and copy of medical bills is Ex. PW1/12. She was cross examined at length on behalf of respondents. SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND 15:36:59 +0530 Date: 2024.11.23 MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 27
7. PW-2 Sheeshpal tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A. He relied upon the following documents i.e 1). Copy of Aadhar Card is Ex. PW-2/1.(OSR). He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel Ms. Neeru Garg, Counsel for R-3/Insurer wherein he deposed that it is correct that he was not the summoned witness. He had been called by mother in law of the deceased. She used to visit temple regularly where he was working as Sevadar in Durga Mandir Tri Nagar. He denied that do not know the English language. The present affidavit was attested before 2 month from today. It is correct that he had not called the police. Vol. someone else called police. He had not given any statement to the police official regarding this alleged accident. It is correct that he do not remember complete registration no. of vehicles involve in the accident vol. He can recall only 3170 and 7807. He don't know whether at the place of accident CCTV was installed or not. He denied that the deceased was driving motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and trying to take fly over from the wrong side and denied that he was not an eyewitness. Further he denied that he was not present at the point of accident. Further he denied that he was not the part of police investigation. Further again he denied that he was not having any knowledge and competency to state that the driver of offending vehicle was in drunken position. Further he denied that the respondent no. 1 (driver) of offending vehicle was not driving in rash and negligently manner and that he was helping petitioner for getting accident compensation and that he was deposing falsely.
8. He was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel Sh. Paritosh Digitally signed MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 27 ANAND Date: 2024.11.23 15:37:07 +0530 Yadav, Counsel for R-1,2 and that he was not an eyewitness. Further he denied that he was not present at the point of accident. Further, he denied that he was not the part of police investigation. He don't know whether at the place of accident CCTV was installed or not. Further again denied that he was not having any knowledge and competency to state that the driver of the offending vehicle was in drunken position. Further again, he denied that the deceased was driving motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and trying to enter the fly over from the wrong side. Further he denied that the respondent no. 1 (driver) of offending vehicle was not driving in rash and negligently manner.
9. PW-3 Sh. Anil Kumar, Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Ajay Singh Parihar, Ld. MM, Rohini Court, Delhi, has been examined and brought the judicial file of case bearing FIR no 3/17, P.S. Mangol Puri, U/S 279/304A IPC. According to judicial file the cognizance has been taken against the accused vie Order Dated 15.12.2017 by Hon'ble court of Sh. Rakesh Kumar the than LD MM. The same is Ex. PW3/1.(OSR). He relied upon the following documents:
10. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW3/2.(OSR)
11. Copy of site Plan is Ex. PW3/3.(OSR).
12. Copy of DL of Respondent no 1 i.e. VIPIN is Mark.
13. Copy of seizure Memo of Motor Cycle Reg. no DL8SBW7807 is Ex. PW3/4.(OSR).
14. Certified copy of Order sheet Ex. PW3/1. (Colly- 14 Pages).
15. Certified copy of FIR bearing no 03/17 is Ex. PW3/2(Colly SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
ANAND Date: 2024.11.23 15:37:14 +0530 Page no. 6 of 27
-3 Pages)
16. Certified copy of Asal Teharir is Ex. as PW3/3. (Colly -2 Pages)
17. Certified copy of DD no. 79B dated 06.01.2017 is Ex. as PW3/4.
18. Certified copy of Site Plan is Ex. as PW3/5 dated 02.01.2017.
19. Certified copy of Mechanical Inspection Report of Vehicle bearing no DL4SCB3170 AND bearing no DL8SBW7807 is Ex. as PW3/6. ( Colly- 6 Page)
20. Certified copy of Notice U/S 133 MV Act. is Ex. as PW3/7.
21. Certified copy of seizure memo of Bike bearing no. DL4SCB3170 AND bearing no DL8SW7807 is Ex. as PW3/8. (Colly- 2 Pages)
22. Certified copy of DL of Malik Kumar Birla is Ex. as PW3/9.
23. Certified Copy of RC bearing no DL8SBW7807 is Ex. as PW3/10.
24. Certified Copy of DL of Vipin is Ex. as PW3/11.
25. Certified copy of Insurance Policy of Vehicle bearing no DL8SBW7807 is Ex. as PW3/12. (Colly- 3 Pages).
26. Certified copy of RC and DL of Particular of Vehicle DL4SCB3170 is Ex. as PW3/13. (Colly-4 Pages)
27. Certified Copy of Post Mortem Report no 16/17 dated 07.01.2017 is Ex. as PW3/14.(Colly- 10 Pages)
28. Certified Copy of Death Summery of Puneet Sagar Ex. as PW3/15.
29. Certified Copy of Death Certificate of Puneet Sagar is Ex. as Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) ANAND Date: 2024.11.23 15:37:21 +0530 Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 27 PW3/16.
30. Certified copy of Identification statement of Sh. Madan Lal and Sohan Baweja is Ex. as PW3/17. (Cooly -2 pages)
31. Certified copy of Dead Body handover receipt is Ex. as PW3/18.
32. Certified Copy of Seizure memo of Blood sample of Vipin is Ex. as PW3/19.
33. Certified copy of Conviction slip of Vipin U/S 185 of MV Act dated 23.09.2017 is Ex. as PW3/20.
34. Certified Copy of Seizure memo of Blood sample of Puneet Sagar is Ex. as PW3/21.
35. Certified Copy of Road certificate is Ex. as PW3/22.
36. Certified Copy of FSL Report is Ex. as PW3/23. (Colly- 9 Pages)
37. Certified copy of Application and Superdarinama and Documents is EX. as PW3/24. (Colly-7 Pages)
38. Certified Copy of application for providing treatment paper is Ex. as PW3/25. (colly- 2 Page)
39. Certified copy of Kalandara U/s 185 of MV Act. is Ex. as PW3/26. (Colly - 5 page).
10. Respondent has examined R3W-1 of Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Ram Swaroop wherein he deposed that he was a summoned witness. He was pillion rider on the offending vehicle which was motor cycle but he do remember the registration number. He was going Income Tax colony Pitam Pura to Mangol Puri along with R1.
SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.11.23 15:37:27 +0530 MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 27 He was a father in law of R2. The accident occurred on 31 December, 2016 at about 12:30 a.m., visibility was very poor due the cold and fog. The motor cycle was running at about 40 km/ph. There was no traffic on the road at the time of accident. They were at the exit of flyover of Deepali Chowk to Mangol Puri when suddenly motor cycle bearing unknown came from opposite direction on wrong side by crossing concrete structure place by the traffic police to prevent traffic entering on flyover from wrong side. He had seen side plan and has confirm the direction of travel of offending vehicle and has pointed out the approximate location of the accident. The accident caused due to the sole negligence and rashness of the deceased.
11. Respondent also examined R3W-2 Sh. Amit Nara, I.O and presently posted at. Inspector Special Cell(NDR), and deposed that he was posted in P. S. Mangol Puri. On that night he was performing emergency duty during which he received DD No. 3A for necessary action. Upon receiving the same he along with Ct Pinku went to the spot i.e near Mangol Puri flyover. They reached at the spot where some public persons were found gathered. Upon enquiry it was found that there was accident of 2 motorcycles DL 8S BW 7807 & DL 4S CB 3170 and the injured persons have been taken to the hospital by PCR. No eyewitness was found at the spot. Motorcycle no DL 4S CB 3170 was found parked road side near the spot which was taken into police possession and sent to police station. Thereafter he along with Ct. Pinku went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where injured Puneet sagar (correct identity revealed later) was Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) ANAND Date: 2024.11.23 15:37:33 +0530 Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 27 found admitted vide MLC no 6/17 injured was found unfit for statement and it was also informed that the relatives of 2 nd injured has been taken to BSA hospital by his relatives for proper treatment. Relatives of the injured Puneet were informed accordingly. No eyewitness was found at the hospital. Thereafter he went to BSA hospital where 2nd injured namely Vipin kumar was found admitted vide MLC no 110/17, who was also unfit for statement. Dr BSA hospital handed over the MLC and sealed blood sample for alcohol and the same were taken into police possession as evidence. Meanwhile he was informed that the injured Puneet sagar has been taken to Maharaja Agarsen hospital by his relatives for proper treatment. Thereafter he went to Maharaja Agarsen hospital where the injured Puneet Sagar was found admitted for further treatment. Blood sample of the injured Puneet was also taken into police possession through seizure memo. No eyewitness was also found at the spot. Meanwhile he was informed that the inured Vipin has been shifted to Santom Hospital. after that he went to Santom Hospital where injured vipin was found admitted for further treatment but he was declared unfit for statement. Thereafter he came back to PS and prepared Rukka on the DD entry and got the FIR registered. On 2/1/17 he went to the crime scene and made enquiry but no eyewitness was found however a CCTV camera installed at CNG pump was found.CCTV footage was checked and it was found that the injured Puneet Sagar was taking wrong side trying to ride upon the flyover (wrong side se flyover chadne ki kosis kar raha tha) and the injured Vipin was coming down the elevated corridor in high Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND 15:37:39 Date: 2024.11.23 +0530 MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 27 speed and both motorcycle colluded head on. Accordingly site plan was prepared. On 6/1/17 it was informed to me that the injured Puneet has expired hence undersigned went to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital and conducted the necessary formalities. Post mortem of the deceased was got conducted in SGM mortuary and the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his relatives. During investigation scaled site plan was got prepared and PCR form was also obtained. Relevant medical records from concerned hospitals were also collected. Both motorcycle were seized during investigation and their mechanical inspection was also got conducted, Blood sample of deceased Puneet sagar and injured Vipin were sent to FSL for Alcohol estimation and result of the same was filed along with chargesheet in which injured Vipin was found under influence of alcohol beyond permissible limit while no alcohol was detected in the blood of deceased. Accordingly Kalandra U/s 185 MV Act was prepared and filed before the Honble court in which injured Vipin pleaded guilty and fined Rs 2000 by the Hon'ble court. Relevant documents of injured Vipin were got verified from the concerned departments. Statement U/s 161 CrPC of relevant witnesses were recorded however no independent eyewitness to the accident was found hence final report as closure was filed before the Hon'ble court. He was cross examined by Sh. Paritosh Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the R1/R2 wherein they deposed that there was no speed camera instralled at the spot of accident. Vol. it was my personal experience after watching the CCTV footage of the incident. Q. What was the quality of the CCTV video, Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) ANAND Date: 2024.11.23 15:37:45 +0530 Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 27 was it clear or blurred. Ans. Due to night time video was not that clear however concerned vehicle can easily be spotted because of the head lights.Q. Can you comment on the numerical speed of both the vehicle. Ans. No I can only comment on the relative speed of the vehicles as per the CCTV footage. It is wrong to suggest that the vehicle was coming on high speed. It is wrong to suggest that the driver of the offending vehicle was intoxicated. He was again cross examined in the form of questions at length.
ISSUES:
12. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed by this Tribunal on 31.08.2018:
1. Whether deceased Puneet Sagar S/o Sh. Madan Lal expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 01.01.2017 in front of CNG Pump, Near Mangolpuri Flyover, Outer Ring Road, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. DL-8S-BW-7807 which was being driven by driver Vipin S/o Sh. Raj Kumar and hit the vehicle of deceased bearing no. DL4SCB-3170 on the said date, time and place ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
ARGUMENTS & FINDINGS:
13. I have heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and respondents and have gone through the testimony o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under :-
Digitally signed by SHIVAJISHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.11.23 15:37:51 +0530 MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 27 ISSUE NO.1 "1. Whether deceased Puneet Sagar S/o Sh. Madan Lal expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 01.01.2017 in front of CNG Pump, Near Mangolpuri Flyover, Outer Ring Road, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. DL-8S-BW-7807 which was being driven by driver Vipin S/o Sh. Raj Kumar and hit the vehicle of deceased bearing no. DL4SCB-3170 on the said date, time and place ? OPP.
14. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its full bench decision in matter "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta & Ors." (2011) 10 SCC 509 has made following SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
ANAND Date: 2024.11.23 15:37:58 +0530 Page no. 13 of 27 observations about inquiry contemplated under MV Act:-
"5. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the dependant family members) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Tribunals and determination of compensation by Tribunals:
(i) A proceedings for award of compensation in regard to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated either on an application for compensation made by the persons aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or section 163A of the Act or suo moto by the Tribunal, by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the tribunal under section 158(6) of the Act as an application for compensation under section 166 (4) of the Act.(iii) In a proceedings initiated suo moto by the tribunal, the owner and driver are the respondents. The insurer is not a respondent, but a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act. Where a claim petition is filed by the injured or by the legal representatives of a person dying in a motor accident, the driver and owner have to be impleaded as respondents. The claimants need not inplead the insurer as a party. But they have the choice of impleading the insurer also as a party respondent. When it is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal is required to issue a notice under section 149(2) of the Act. If the insurer is impleaded as a party, it is issued as a regular MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 27 notice of the proceedings.
(v) Though the tribunal adiudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. On receipt of an application (either from the applicant or suo motu registration), the Tribunal gives notice to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act, gives an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the claim petition as also the insurer, holds an inquiry into the claim and makes an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. (Vide Section 168 of the Act).
(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide section 169 of the Act).
We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Dulcina Fernandes & ors. Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr." (2013) 10 SCC 646 while relying upon the above full bench decision has held/observed as under:-
"8. However, there are certain other features of the case which are more fundamental and, therefore, have to be specifically noticed. CW-2, who was at the relevant time working as the Head Constable of Main Eurtorim, Police MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 27 Station, had deposed that a criminal case was registered against the first respondent in connection with the accident and that after investigation he was chargesheeted and sent up for trial. Though it is submitted at the Bar that the first respondent was acquitted in the said case what cannot be overlooked is the fact that upon investigation of the case registered against the first respondent, prime facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial.. "
17. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in matter "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & ors." 2009 ACJ 287 has held/observed as under:-
"11. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR NO. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 27 Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
18. In view of the above cited case law, it is clear that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal only holds inquiries for determination of compensation on occurrence of an accident and it does not they do not sit in a suit or adversarial lis in traditional sense. The factum that the driver of offending vehicle has been charge sheeted by police after investigation of the criminal matter is sufficient to infer that he was negligent and responsible for the accident in question. A Tribunal can certainly rely upon the records of the case of criminal matter to reach such a conclusion.
19. The defence taken by Insurance Company in its WS was that the deceased was driving the motorcycle on the wrong side of the road and driver Vipin Kumar was not arrested and not chargesheeted and there was no eye witness of the accident and deceased was trying to reach Mangolpuri Flyover from wrong side and was driving from the wrong side of the road and hit the another motorcycle. Infact, IO investigates the matter but not found any evidence to establish the case and to file chargesheet and due to this, IO filed CLOSER REPORT against FIR No. 03/17, PS Mangolpuri, Delhi u/s 279/304A IPC and in view of non supply of valid and effective driving and its verification report by the IO/owner/driver.
MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 27 However, vehicle was insured in the name of Malik Kumar vide insurance policy no. 0424003116P103634015 valid from 17.06.2016 to 16.06.2017.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
21. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION:
22. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and the
(c) the number of dependents.
23. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 27 the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased.
24. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
25. As already stated above, the claimant/petitioner no. 1 is the wife of deceased who deposed that all the family members were dependant on deceased. She had deposed that deceased was 31 years of age and was self employed and earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. She has not placed on record any document to show deceased was self employed and earning Rs. 50,000/- per month, however, no document has been placed.
26. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and all the petitioners/claimants were dependent upon him for their livelihood. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law. Ld. MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 19 of 27 Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon two judgments of Supreme Court titled as Kavita Nagar & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Sajeena Ikhbar & Ors. Vs. Mini Babu George & Ors. to prove his case wherein the evidence available in the present case tested on the principles of preponderence of probability can record only one finding that the car was involved in the accident.
27. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that no FIR was filed in the present case, only DD Entry was lodged as the accident was caused due to negligence of deceased itself. Also, Closure report was filed by IO. It is also argued that Ld. MM did not called the accused and the criminal case is pending before Ld. MM. It is also argued that Insurance Company brought one eye witness, though the details regarding the same were not mentioned in DAR. This witness is not reliable as nothing has come regarding his presence on the spot in the DAR. Also, the CCTV Footage has not been played in the Court to prove the negligence of deceased. Hence, negligence on the part of deceased could not be proved.
28. According to the Aadhar Card of deceased and DAR, the age of deceased is taken as 31 years as on the date of accident. No document regarding the employment of deceased was produced. Hence, minimum wages of matriculate would be taken which is Rs. 11,830/- per month. Hence, the multiplier of "16" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 20 of 27
29. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and all the petitioners/claimants were dependent upon him for their livelihood. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
30. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 31 years of age at the time of accident and was of young age having a good caliber to work, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, in MAC APP No. 798/2011.
31. The deceased was married and there are five claimants/ dependants upon him. Thus, there has to be deduction of "one forth (1/4)", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
S. Head Amount Remarks
No (Rs.)
.
1 Monthly Income of deceased 11,830/-
(A)
2 Less: Personal expenses of 2957.5/- (A)/ 4= (B)
deceased @ one forth (1/4)
MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17)
Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 21 of 27
(B)
3 Monthly loss of dependency 8,872.5/- [(A)-(B)]=(C)
(C)
4 Annual Loss of dependency 1,06,470/- (C) x 12 = (D)
(D)
5 Multiplier @ 16 17,03,520/- (D) x
(E) 16(multiplier)
= (E)
6 Add: Future Prospects @ 40% 6,81,408/- (E) X 40%
(E)
Total 23,84,928/-
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
32. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no compensation is to be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
33. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors.", Civil Appeal No.3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020, I am of the MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 22 of 27 considered opinion that the wife, and child of deceased and parents of deceased and one brother are entitled for payment of Rs. 44,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- (Rs. 44,000/- x 5) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
34. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." and also in case Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram(2018 ACJ 2782) mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 16,500/- is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 16,500/- is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of funeral expenses.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 23,84,928/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 44,000 x 2,20,000/-
6)
3 Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses 16,500/-
(@ 16,500/-)
TOTAL 26,21,428/-
Rounded off 26,21,430/-
35. Hence, the petitioners are awarded total compensation of Rs. 26,21,430/-(Rupees Twenty Six Twenty One Thousnad Fourt Hundred Thirty Only).
MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 23 of 27
36. In this case also, It has been held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. There is no evidence on record that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The insurance company did not lead any evident to prove its case.
LIABILITY:
37. Respondent No. 1 Driver 2 being the owner of the offending car are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, since the offending car was insured with respondent no. 2 at the time of accident, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire amount to the petitioner. As such, Respondent no. 2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
38. ISSUE No.3/ RELIEF:
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this tribunal awards compensation of Rs. 26,21,430/-(Rupees Twenty Six Twenty One Thousnad Fourt Hundred Thirty Only). alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 03.08.2018 till the date of actual payment.
RELEASE
39.The statement of the Petitioner Karuna only in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP was recorded on 03.09.2024. However, statement of all other petitioners have not been recorded. Hence, the apportionment is withheld.
40. The entire compensation amount alongwith interest be MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 24 of 27 kept in FDR(s) for the period till one of the minor children attains the age of majority.
41. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed 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 claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank 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 amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be 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 passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 25 of 27 above.
42. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
43. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Rohini Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
44. A digital copy of this award be provided to the parties. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 26 of 27 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
45. Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini Courts for information.
46. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
47. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
48. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 01.06.2024.
49. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SHIVAJI Digitally by SHIVAJI signed rd ON 23 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 ANAND Date:
ANAND 2024.11.23 15:38:22 +0530 (SHIVAJI ANAND) ADJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI MACT Case No. 515/18(FIR no. 3/17) Karuna & Ors. Vs. Vipin & Ors.
Page no. 27 of 27