Delhi District Court
Smt. Kaushalya Devi (Mact vs Sh. Ajay Paswan S/O Sh. Shankar Paswan on 7 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
(WEST-01):DELHI
New MACT Case No. 477593/16 and 194/17
1. Smt. Kaushalya Devi (MACT Petitioner No. 477593/16)
W/o Sh. Vishnu Paswan
(Mother of the deceased aged about 38 years
2. Sh. Vishnu Paswan S/o Sh. Bhageru Paswan
aged about 42 years
Both R/o Dilawar Gobardhan Dilawarpur
Goverdhan, Bindupur, Vaishali
Bihar-844503
3. Seema Kumar D/o Sh. Vishnu Paswan
(Sister of the deceased)
4. Raja Babu S/o Sh. Vishnu Paswan
5. Patul Kumari D/o Sh. Vishnu Paswan
(Sister of the deceased)
&
1. Sh. Sataya Dev Singh (MACT Petition No. 477593/16)
S/o Late Sh. Nibharya Singh
R/o B-183, 2nd Floor,
Mansarover Garden, Delhi
........ Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Ajay Paswan S/o Sh. Shankar Paswan
R/o E-531, Block E, Palam Extn,
Part-I, New Delhi.
Also At:
Village Panapur, Dilarpur,
Post Madhurpur, P.S. Viddupur Distt.
Vashali Bihar,
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17
pages 1/41
2. Smt. Poonam W/o Sh. Sandeep Singh
R/o H. No. C-8, Vijay Vihar, Phase-2,
Har Govind Vihar, Sector-4,
Rohini Delhi-110085
3. The United India Insurance company Ltd.,
Branch At: 18/109, East Moti Bagh,
Sarai Rohilla, Opp. DDA Shopping Complex,
Delhi-7
Vide policy No. 141783/31/14/01/00002004
Issued for vehicle No. DL-1G-B-6329
w.e.f. 31.03.2015 to 30.03.2016
........ Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.06.2016 & 27.03.2017
Date of reserving order/judgment : 18.09.2017
Date of pronouncement : 07.10.2017
A W A R D:
INFORMATION IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP)
1 Date of Accident 27.11.2015
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the 02.12.2015
Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal
(Clasuse2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the 04.01.2016
Investigation Officer to the Insurance
Company (Clause2)
4 Date of filing of the Report under section 173 27.11.2015
Cr. PC before the Metropolitan
Magistrate(Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 08.06.2016
Report(DAR) by the Investigation Officer
before Claims Tribunal (Clause)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 04.01.2016
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17
pages 2/41
Company (clause11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s) Not mentioned
(Clause11)
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? ( Yes
Clause11)
9 If not state deficiencies in the DAR ---
10 Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR? (clause4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No.
the part of the Investigation Officer? If so,
whether any action/ direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 12.01.2017
by the Insurance Company
13 Name, address and contact number of the Sh. R. Ranjan, Authorized
Designated Officer of the Insurance Signatory of the Insurance
Company(Clause 19) Company i.e. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. at
Regional Office No. 1,
Kanchanjunga Building, 18,
Barakhamba Road,
Connaught Place, New
Delhi
14 Whether the Designated officer of the Not mentioned.
insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?(Clause 21)
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted No
the liability? If so, whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company fairly
computed the compensation in accordance
with law. (Clause22)
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No
the part of the Designated officer of the
Insurance Company? If so whether any
action/ direction warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the Not mentioned.
offer of the Insurance Company? (Clause 23)
18 Date of Award 07.10.2017
19 Whether the award was passed with the Yes
consent of the parties? (Clause 22)
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17
pages 3/41
20 Whether the claimants(s) examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/
their financial condition? (Clause 26)
21 Whether the photographs, specimen Yes
signatures, proof of residence and particulars
of bank account of the injured/ legal heirs of
the deceased taken at the time of passing of
the award? (Clause26)
22 Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Mentioned in the award
the claimant(s) (Clause 28)
23 Next Date of compliance of the 20.11.2017
award(Clause30)
PART-A
BRIEF FACTS OF ACCIDENT
1. Vide this common Judgment-cum-Award, I shall decide both the petitions bearing MACT No. 477593/16 titled as Kaushalya Devi vs. Ajay Paswan and MACT No. 194/17 titled as Satya Dev Singh vs. Ajay Paswan under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') filed by the petitioners for grant of compensation for the death of the deceased Sh. Sanjit Paswan in the road vehicular accident and by the petitioner Sh. Satya Dev Singh for grant of compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the road vehicular accident.
2. The abovesaid claim petitions have arisen out of the same FIR bearing No. 682/15; PS Kirti Nagar; u/s 279/337/304A IPC and the factual matrix involved in both the claim petitions is the same. MACT petition No. 477593/16 has been treated as leading case by the orders dated 27.03.2017 passed by this court.
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 4/41 Facts of the petition no. Kaushalya Devi & Anr. vs. Ajay Paswan & Ors.
3. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that on 27.11.2015 at about 1:00 A.M. (in night), the deceased was travelling as a helper in offending vehicle No. DL-1GB-6329 (Tanker). It has been further stated that the said tanker was being driven by the respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. It has been further stated that the said tanker crossed the road divider and broke the railing and hit the coming car bearing NO. DL-10CDE-8526. It has been further stated that after that, the offending tanker turned turtle. It has been further stated that the deceased was sitting near Driver's seat & he sustained fatal injuries on account of heavy impact. It has been further stated that the deceased/injured cried for help and many people gathered there. It has been further stated that someone called the police. It has been further stated that the car driver helped to remove the body of the deceased from the spot. It has been further stated that later on the deceased was taken to Dr. Acharya Bhikashu Hospital Moti Nagar, Delhi by the police. It has been further stated that thereafter, the deceased was referred to DDU Hospital where he was declared as dead vide Post Mortem NO. 1701/15.
4. It has been further stated that the other vehicle i.e. Car bearing NO. DL-10CDE-8526 was damaged very badly and its Driver Sh. Sataya Dev also sustained multiple injuries.
5. It has been further stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was 22 years of age possessing good physique and was not addicted to any voice. It has been further stated that the deceased New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 5/41 was working as Helper with the respondent No.2 as an employee and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month.
6. It has been further stated that the deceased is survived by his parents i.e. the petitioner No.1 (Mother of the deceased) Smt. Kaushalya Devi, the petitioner No.2(Father of the deceased) Sh. Vishnu Paswan, the petitioner No.3 (Sister of the deceased) Seema Kumari, the petitioner No.4(brother of the deceased) Raja Babu and the petitioner No.5 (Sister of the deceased) Patul Kumari.
7. The petitioners have claimed compensation under various heads and in total the petitioners have claimed the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Only) along with the interest upto date.
8. As a result of the abovesaid accident, as per the case of the petitioner, FIR No. 682/2015; P.S. Kirti Nagar, Delhi u/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered against the respondent No.1.
9. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle, the respondent no.2 being the driver and the respondent no.3 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
PART-B DEFENCE OF DRIVER AND OWNER RESPONDENT No. 1 & 2
10. Written statement has been jointly filed by the respondents No.1 & 2 wherein it has been stated that the present claim petition has been filed by the petitioners with sole motive to New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 6/41 harass and to extort the unlawful money from the respondents. It has been further stated that the present claim petition is without any cause of action. It has been further stated that the petitioners have not come before this Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from this Court.
11. It has been further stated that the complainant i.e. Sh. Satya Dev Singh is trying to take the benefit out of his wrongs as the complainant Sh. Satya Dev Singh himself was under the influence of alcohol and was driving the vehicle himself. It has been further stated that he had taken sharp turn just ahead of alleged offending vehicle. It has been further stated that thus in order to save the complainant, the driver of the offending vehicle turned his vehicle to the divider and turned turtle. It has been further stated that the complainant has cooked up the story that his vehicle was driven by his driver but there is no history of any injury on the person of driver and neither any MLC was conducted on the person of driver. It has been further stated that the complainant had gone to one Kalra Hospital and not to any other Government Hospital which clearly shows that the complainant had gone to the hospital in which the doctors were known to him and therefore no blood test in respect of consumption of alcohol was conducted. It has been further stated that the complainant was driving at a very high speed and he himself came ahead of the alleged offending vehicle from the left side of the respondent No.1. It has been further stated that thus the accident took place without any iota of negligence from the side of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle.
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 7/41
12. It has been further stated that the deceased succumbed to the injuries on account of sole negligence of the complainant/petitioner No.2 himself. It has been prayed that the present claim petition be dismissed.
PART-C DEFENCE OF INSURANCE COMPANY RESPONDENT No. 3
13. Written statement has been filed on record by the Insurance Company i.e. by the respondent no.3 wherein it has been admitted that the offending vehicle bearing No. DL-1G-B-6329(Water Tanker) was insured with the respondent No.3 in the name of respondent No.2 vide policy No. 0426813114 P 113472930 valid from 31.03.2015 to 30.03.2016. It has been further stated that it is clearly reflected from the petition that there is a collusion in between the deceased, driver and the owner who had colluded with each other to give the details of the vehicle so that liability could be fastened upon the respondent No.3. It has been further stated that the investigation as conducted by the IO is totally silent on the point as to is which capacity the deceased was travelling in the truck. It has been further stated that the driver was not having any valid DL at the time of accident. It has been prayed by the respondent No.3 that the present claim petition be dismissed.
Facts of MACT No. 194/2017 titled as Satya Dev Singh vs. Ajay Paswan & Ors.
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 8/41
14. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that on 27.11.2015, the petitioner was sitting in his Car No. DL-10-CD-8526 to see off his driver Gulam Mohd. Near his home. It has been further stated that when he reached in front of house No. 87, Rama Road, Kirti Nagar, Delhi, suddenly a tanker truck No. DL-1GB-6329 hit the car of the petitioner. It has been further stated that the tanker was being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a zig zag manner rashly and negligently. It has been further stated that the tanker broke the divider, turned turtle and hit the car. It has been further stated that due to heavy impact, the car of the injured was badly damaged. It has been further stated that the applicant and other persons sustained grievous multiple injuries. It has been further stated that in this accident, a person who was helper on the offending vehicle also died. It has been further stated that the petitioner was taken to Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
15. In the present claim petition, it has been stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was 43 years old. It has been further stated that the petitioner was doing the private service and earing Rs.25,000/- per month. It has been further stated that he could not work upto 2 months.
The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Only) in the present claim petition.
The defence of the respondents is also the same as in the defence in the abovesaid claim petition bearing No. 477593/16.
PART-D ISSUES New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 9/41
16. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 16.01.2017 in MACT No. 477593/16:-
1. Whether the deceased/victim Sanjeet Paswan expired due to fatal injuries suffered in an accident that took place at in front of H. No. 87, Rama Road, Kirti Nagar, Delhi on 27.11.2015 at about 1.00 am, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Sh. Ajay Paswan of the vehicle No. DL-1GB-6329(Tanker), owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are the sole LRs of the deceased/victim of the present accident? If yes, are they entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PART-E PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
17. In order to establish their claim, the petitioner No.2 Sh. Vishnu Paswan in MACT petition No. 477593/16 has examined as PW-1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the petitioners in the present claim petition. He has filed on record his affidavit as Ex. PW1/1, the dependency certificate issued by the Village Prakhand Bindupur, Vaishali, Bihar issued by Smt. Poonam Devi, Mukhiya of the village as Ex. PW1/2; copy of Aadhar Car of his wife as Ex. PW1/3(OSR); the New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 10/41 copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/4(OSR); the copy of ration card as Mark A; the copy of Aadhar Card of Sh. Raja Babu, brother of the deceased as Ex. PW1/5; copy of Aadhar Card of Ms. Putul Kumari, sister of the deceased as Ex. PW1/6; the DAR as Ex. PW1/7.
18. In the cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company, PW1 has stated that he is not an eye witness to the accident. PW-1 has further stated that he even does not recollect the vehicle number involved in the accident. PW-1 has further stated that the vehicle number as described in the affidavit has not been told by him to his counsel. By way of volunteer, PW-1 states that the same has been intimated by one of the resident of his village. PW-1 has further stated that he does not recollect the name of the employer of the deceased, although, as per his information, deceased was doing a job of helper at the time of accident. PW-1 has further stated that the said factum has also been told to him by one of the resident of his village. PW-1 has further stated that he is not aware in which sequence the vehicles move on road in Delhi, however, it has been stated in his affidavit that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. PW-1 has further stated that he was informed that one car was also hit in the said accident.
19. PW-1 has stated that he is not aware with respect to the particulars of the employer of the deceased. PW-1 has further stated that he does not have any document in his hand to prove that the deceased was working with the respondent No.1. PW-1 has further stated that he is an agriculturalist by profession and possess 14-15 Gattas.
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 11/41
20. PW-1 has admitted it to be correct that the patwari maintains the record of the average production of the land but he has not obtained any copy of such record. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that prior to the accident, the income from the agricultural land was sufficient in itself to maintain the entire family. PW-1 has further stated that mostly, the amount of Rs10,000/- per month was being used to be sent to them by the deceased by way of postal money orders. PW-1 has further stated that only rarely the same was being paid by hand. PW-1 has further stated that he does not have any proof at this stage to show that the money was being received by way of postal money orders. PW-1 has stated that he does not recollect the name of the other injured. By way of volunteer, PW-1 states that the offending vehicle had hit some other car as well on the day of the accident.
21. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner Satya Dev Singh in MACT petition No. 194/17 has examined as PW-2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by him in the present claim petition. He has filed on record his affidavit as Ex. PW2/A; the copy of his Income Tax return for the assessment year 2015-16 as Ex. PW2/1; the copy of bill dated 27.11.2015 as Mark A; the copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW2/2(OSR).
22. In the cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2, PW-2 has stated that he is working as System Architect Engineer in a Software company for the last two years, although, he has an experience of more than 17 years. PW-2 has further stated that he has appointed a driver for his vehicle and at the New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 12/41 time of incident, he was on duty. PW-2 has further stated that at the time of incident, his driver was driving the vehicle. PW-2 has further stated that when he had gone to Kalra Hospital, his driver was with him. PW-2 has again stated that his brother was with him. PW-2 has further stated that at the time of accident, he and his driver both were inside the vehicle but no injury has occurred to his driver and therefore, only his MLC was conducted and no MLC of the driver was conducted. PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that he has stated in his complaint that he was going to drop his driver near Metro Station as he was staying near Shadipur Metro Station.
23. PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that he had gone to a private hospital and had not gone to Government Hospital as he is capable enough to meet the expenses. PW-2 has also admitted it to be correct that he had gone to Kalra hospital with his brother and PCR staff.
24. In the cross examination done by ld. Counsel for the insurance Company, PW-2 has stated that his MLC which was prepared by Kalra Hospital has been exhibited as Ex. PW2/R1. PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that as per the MLC, the nature of injuries sustained by him is simple. PW-2 has further stated that he had enclosed the treatment sheets in his petition through his counsel. PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that as per the MLC issued by the Kalra Hospital Ex. PW2/R1 on record, he was not admitted in that hopsital. PW-2 has also admitted it to be correct that as per the said MLC, all the injuries and the investigations which were conducted on him have been mentioned and even the nature of the injuries have been mentioned. PW-2 has also admitted it to be correct that as per New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 13/41 the said MLC, he was not referred further to any doctor. By way of volunteer, PW2 states that but as per the said MLC, he was advised to seek the consultation qua Vertex of the head and later on, he had got his plastic surgery done.
25. PW-2 has further stated that at the time of accident as well, he was having medi-claim policy and even as on date, he is having medi-claim policy. PW-2 has further stated that the amount of the receipts which have been placed on record collectively in the form of Mark A has not been received by him from his medi-claim policy. PW-2 has further stated that the originals of the said receipt were submitted to his office at the time of rejoining his office after the accident. PW-2 has further stated that he has not claimed any amount on account of the abovesaid disease. PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has not mentioned about his treatment concerning the receipts mark A. PW-2 has further stated that he was not issued any discharge summary by Kalra Hospital. By way of volunteer, PW-2 states that he was not admitted in Kalra Hospital. PW-2 has further stated that he does not remember as to whether any prescription slip was issued to him by Dr. Charanjeev Sobti or not. PW-2 has further stated that no discharge summary was issued to him by Dr. Charanjeev Sobti. PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that after completing the procedure, Kalra Hospital discharged him.
26. The petitioner sh. Satya Dev Singh has further examined Sh. Ghanshyam Lal, Executive, Medical Records from Kalra Hospital SRCNC Pvt. Ltd. as PW-3 and this witness has brought on record his authority letter as Ex. PW3/1. PW-3 has also brought on record the New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 14/41 MLC bearing No. 1642/15 of Sh. Satya Dev Singh and two bills amounting to Rs. 3160/- and Rs. 50/- as Ex. PW3/2(colly running into 4 pages).
27. In the cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company, PW-3 has stated that as per hospital procedure when the patient was brought to the hospital in OPD and while preparing the MLC, time is specifically mentioned. PW-3 has further stated that in case, the patient is discharged from the OPD itself, no discharge summary is prepared and the time of discharge is also mentioned in the discharge summary. PW-3 has further stated that he is not aware how much time the patient remained in the OPD department but he was never admitted in the hospital. PW-3 has further stated that the patient was taken to minor OT wherein some dressings were carried out for which a sum of Rs.3160/- was charged and a sum of Rs.50/- was charged for injection charges. PW-3 has further stated that he cannot define the nature of injury sustained by the injured. PW-3 has admitted it to be correct that he has no personal knowledge regarding the treatment taken by the injured in the hospital nor the payment was made in his presence.
PART-F RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
28. The respondents have not led any evidence in any of both the claim petitions.
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 15/41 PART-G FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
29. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of the ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses; entire material available on record. The petitioner No.2 Sh. Vishnu Paswan in the MACT No. 477593/16 and the petitioner Sh. Satyadev Singh in the MACT No. 194/17 have been examined under the MCTAP and I have considered the statement of the petitioners under MCTAP as well.
My Issue-wise findings are as under :-
30. Issue No. (I) in both the abovesaid claim petitions i.e. 477593/16 and 194/17
(i) Whether the deceased/victim Sanjeet Paswan expired due to fatal injuries suffered in an accident that took place at in front of H. No. 87, Rama Road, Kirti Nagar, Delhi on 27.11.2015 at about 1.00 am, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Sh. Ajay Paswan of the vehicle No. DL-1GB-6329(Tanker), owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3? OPP.
In Bimla Devi and Ors. V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, it was held that in a Petition U/S 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Claim Tribunal has to decide the negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sakshi Bhutani & ors, MAC APP. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 16/41 G.P. Mittal (Delhi High Court), it was observed that it has to be borne in mind that the Motor Vehicles Act does not envisage holding a trial for a Petition preferred under Section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal is enjoined to hold an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Further in State of Mysore Vs. S.S. Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and are not bound by strict rules of evidence. The relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder:
".......that tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and that therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can unlike courts, obtain all information for the points under the enquiry from all sources, and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts."
Reference may also be made to observations in Ranu Bala New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 17/41 Paul & Others vs. Bani Chakraborty 1999 ACJ 634 Gauhati wherein the claim was allowed after consideration of FIR before the Tribunal.
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary enquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society. In N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Marumai Ammal, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC), the Supreme Court pointed out that the Accidents Claims Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and persons liable do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes.
The court is bound to take broad view of the whole matter."
It has to be further seen that in the authority cited as 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 18/41 Rana, the Hon'ble High Court has held that in case, the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge-sheet u/s 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition, the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then the said documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the Driver was negligent.
The petitioners have examined the petitioner No.2 Sh. Vishnu Paswan in MACT Petition No. 477593/16 and petitioner Sh. Satya Dev Singh in MACT Petition No. 194/17 as PW-1 & PW-2. PW- 1 & PW-2, in their evidence by way of affidavit has categorically stated that the accident in question was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no.1. The testimony of PW-1 & PW-2 as well is not shaken in their entire cross examination. Nothing has come out so as to discredit the testimony during their entire cross examination.
Furthermore, it has to be seen that the respondents have failed to appear in the witness box. Accordingly, to my mind, no evidence has been led at all by the respondents to prove their stands as contained in their written statements. This Tribunal can not loose sight of the fact that PW-2 Satya Dev Singh is an eye witness to the accident in question and his testimony has remained streamlined throughout.
As such, I have no hesitation to hold that it has been proved by way of cogent evidence by the petitioners on record that vehicle No. DL-1G-B-6329 was the offending vehicle which caused New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 19/41 the accident.
The police has already filed on record the final report u/s 173 Cr. PC; copy of the FIR & Rukka; certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act; DD entry; site plan; Crime team report; MLCs; Post Mortem report; seizure memo of dead body; seizure memo of vehicle; seizure memo of DL and verification; seizure memo of RC; insurance; fitness; mechanical inspection; photographs and other documents.
Considering the fact that negligence has to be assessed on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken, it has been established that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. DL- 1G-B-6329. Issues No. 1 is decided accordingly.
31. Issue No. (ii) in MACT Petition no. 477593/16
(ii) Whether the petitioners are the sole LRs of the deceased/victim of the present accident? If yes, are they entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
32. In the petition, the petitioners have claimed that the deceased was working as Helper with the respondent No.2 as an employee and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. But nothing has been placed on record to show that the deceased was working as a helper with the respondent No.2 and earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
33. Thus, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioners to show the income of the deceased. As such to my mind, the income of the deceased has to be assessed on the basis of the New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 20/41 Minimum Wages of an Unskilled person on the date of the accident which is 27.11.2015. The Minimum wages of an Unskilled person thus comes to Rs. 9178/- per month on 13.10.2015.
Hence, for the purposes of assessment of compensation, the income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.9178/- per month.
(a) If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made Petitioners have claimed that addition towards future prospects to the extent of 50% be made considering the fact that deceased was aged about 22 years but the same has been vehemently opposed by counsel for Insurance Company.
It may be observed that in Shashikala & Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma & Anr. 2015 (2) T.A.C. 867 (SC), separate judgments were passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Banumathi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda on the point of assessment of addition to the income of the deceased towards the future prospects in case of salaried persons vis-a-vis where the deceased was self employed or on fixed wages. The case was directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders towards constitution of a suitable larger Bench since the issue already stood referred to a larger Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa S.L.P. (C) No. 16735/2014. Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid case adverted to the judgments passed in Reshma Kumar & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., VII (2013) S.L.T. 489 (rendered on 2nd April, 2013) and Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 21/41 S.C.C. 54 (rendered on 12th April, 2013 in which the judgement passed in Reshma Kumari's case was not noticed). Reference was also made to the judgements passed in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 162 (2009) D.L.T. 278, Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2012 6 S.C.C. 421, Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 S.C.C. 210, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa, S.L.P. (C) No. 16735/2014 (whereby the matter in relation to future prospects was referred to larger Bench). It may further be noticed that Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashikala's case did not provide addition towards future prospects pendente lite the aforesaid issue, wherein the deceased was an income tax payee carrying business of newspapers and had relied upon Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
In the aforesaid context, reliance may be further placed upon MAC 79 of 2014 Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Poonam & Ors. decided on 27.05.2015 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal (Delhi High Court) wherein the judgements passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4497 of 2015 decided on 15.05.2015 {II (2015) ACC 806 (SC)} was also duly referred but the addition towards future prospects was denied in the absence of any evidence of bright future prospects. Reliance was therein placed upon Reshma Kumari & Others vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 and HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Lalta Devi & Others MAC APP No.189/2014 decided on 12.01.2015.
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 22/41 In the case in hand as well, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioners to show that the deceased was having bright future prospects.
In view of the legal position as discussed by the Hon'ble High Court and in absence of any evidence with regard to good future prospects of deceased, addition of income towards future prospects cannot be made for the purposes of compensation.
(b) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the deceased is survived by his mother, father and three minor brother and sister and as such deduction of 1/4 be made towards personal and living expenses.
As per Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased who was a bachelor should be one-fourth (1/4).
(c) Selection of multiplier:
ld. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the multiplier has to be selected as per the age of the deceased. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Civil Appeal No. 4497 of 2015 titled as Munna Lal Jain & Anr. vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors, wherein in paras no. 12 & 14 thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:-
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 23/41 "12. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the defendants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-judge Bench decision in Rehsma Kumari (supra). It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependents is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken.
14. The multiplier, in the case of the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 years is 17. There is no dispute or grievance on fixation of monthly income as Rs.12,000.00 by the High Court."
Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the authority cited as 2017 ACJ 1722 titled as Kempaiah & ors vs. S.S. Murthy & Anr., wherein, in para no. 9 thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:-
"9.Insofar as the issue of income of the deceased is concerned, we have perused the materials laid before us, including the salary certificate (Annexure P2) and the oral evidence of K. R. Ramesh, PW 3, proprietor of Mangla Agency (Annexure P3). We are of the view that the finding of the High New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 24/41 Court with regard to income of the deceased does not disclosed any error which would require correction.
However, we have noticed that the deceased who was 20 years at the time of his death had left behind a sister who was at that point of time 17 years of age. Taking into account the said fact, we are of the view that adoption of multiplier of 18, keeping in view the age of the deceased, instead of the multiplier of 15, would be more appropriate. Accordingly, we adopt the said multiplier and taking into account 50 per cent as loss of dependency, the compensation awardable to the claimants works out of Rs.5,36,000(Rs.4,500 -50 per cent x 12 x18(inclusive of the lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000).
Accordingly, we enhance the
compensation amount from
Rs.4,55,000/- to Rs.5,36,000. The
enhanced amount, i.e. Rs.81,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment."
Whereas, on the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the authority cited as 2007 ACJ 2188 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shanti Pathak & ors. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para no. 6 thereof has held as under:-
"6. Considering the income that was taken, the foundation for working out the New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 25/41 compensation cannot be faulted.
Monthly contribution was fixed at Rs.3,500/-. In the normal course we would have remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on the materials placed before it. But considering the fact that the matter is pending since long, it would be appropriate to take the multiplier of 5 considering the fact that the mother of the deceased is about 65 years at the time of the accident and age of the father is more than 65 years. Taking into account the monthly contribution at Rs.3,500/- as held by the Tribunal and the High Court, the entitlement of the claim would be Rs.2,10,000. The same shall bear interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent pere annum from the date of the application for compensation. Payment already made shall be adjusted from the amount due."
ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company has further relied upon an authority cited as 2011 ACJ 1990 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shyam Singh & ors., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para no. 10 thereof has held as under:-
"10. In our view, the dictum laid down in Vijay Shankar Shinde, (2008) 2 SCC 670 (sic Ramesh Singh v. Satbir Singh, 2008 ACJ 814 (SC) ), is applicable to the present case on all fours.
Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal had righfully applied the multiplier of 8 (six 9) by taking the average of the age of the parents of the deceased who were 55 and 56 years."
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 26/41 ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company has further relied upon an authority cited as 2015 ACJ 2526 titled as HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lalta Devi & Ors. wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in paras no. 25 & 26 thereof has held as under:-
"25. There is no manner of doubt that the appropriate multiplier, while awarding compensation for death of an unmarried boy, will be selected on the basis of age of the mother of the deceased.
26. In the instant case, the Claims Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 14 as the claimant Lalta Devi (mother of the deceased Aditya) was aged 41 years which is accepted and affirmed."
Following the judgment of three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the authority titled as New India Assurance India Co. Ltd. vs. Shanti Pathak & Others, the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Laxmi Vs Binod Kumar-I (2012) ACC455, coupled with the judgment of Dinesh Adhlak Vs Pritam Singh cited as (2010 ILR) 5, Delhi by virtue of Para No. 20 (iii) and the Para No. 15 of Sarla Verma's case, in case of bachelor, only the mother alone will be considered as a dependent and the multiplier would be taken as per the age of the mother.
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 27/41 In the present case, as per the copy of the Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.1 (mother of the deceased), the date of birth of the petitioner No.1 is 01.01.1980. The date of accident is 27.11.2015. As such, on the date of accident, the age of the petitioner No.1 comes out to 35 years approximately.
In the light of the ratio of the abovestated authorities, the multiplier has to be selected as per the age of the mother of the deceased. Accordingly, the multiplier is to be taken as 16 for the purposes of assessment of compensation (for the age group of 31 to 35 years as per Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC).
(d) Loss of financial dependency In the light of aforesaid facts, loss of financial dependency of the Petitioners comes to Rs. 13,21,728/- [i.e. Rs. 6884/- After rounding off Rs.6883.5/- [Rs.9178/-x 1/4 dependency] X 12 (months) X 16(multiplier) ].
(e) Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:
It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 that the compensation is to be awarded for a sum of Rs.1 lakh each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate.
However, in 2015 ACJ 1286 Asha Verman and others v. Maharaj Singh and others Hon'ble Apex Court has awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh to each child relying upon judgment passed in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan, 2013 ACJ 2141 (SC) and New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 28/41 Rs.50,000/- to each parent for loss of love and affection relying upon judgment passed in M. Mansoor v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 2849 (SC) Further, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC).
Though a wide discretion in determination of compensation is given but the amplitude of such powers has to be exercised in consonance with settled principles and it needs to be borne in mind that compensation is neither expected to be windfall or bonanza or source of profit but at the same time, it should not be pittance.
Considering the facts and circumstances Petitioner no.1 is entitled to Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection and the petitioner No.2 is also held entitled to Rs. 1 lakhs towards loss of love and affection. The Petitioners are also held entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses of deceased.
34. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs.13,21,728/- Loss of love and affection to the mother Rs.2,00,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/-
____________
Total Rs. 15,56,728/-
____________
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17
pages 29/41
(Rupees Fifteen Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Eight only) The claimant/petitioner No.2 shall be entitled to Rs. 1 lakh only on account of loss of love and affection together with the proportionate interest and the rest of the award amount together the proportionate interest has to be paid to the petitioner No.2 i.e. the mother of the deceased.
The claimants/Petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of petition/DAR w.e.f. 08.06.2016 till realization.
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.
35. The court has examined the petitioner No.2 before passing of the award on 18.09.2017 itself in accordance with the provisions laid down in MCTAP. The petitioners have stated that the petitioner No.1 is his wife and the petitioner No.3 Seema is married and settled. The petitioner No.2 has further stated that the petitioner No.4 & 5 are minors. The petitioner No.2 has further stated that the petitioner No.1 is not working anythwere and she is a house wife. The petitioner No.2 that he is working as a labour in fields. The petitioner No.2 has further stated that he is earning Rs.300/- per day. The petitioner petitioner No.2 has further stated the deceased was working as a helper and earning Rs.10,000/- per month out of which, he used New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 30/41 to send Rs.6000/- per month to him. The petitioner No.2 has further stated that the deceased was unmarried and was aged about 22 years as mentioned in the ration card. The petitioner No.2 has further stated that he has to spend an amount of Rs.12,000/- to Rs.13,000/- per month in maintaining himself and his family.
36. In view of the aforesaid statement of the petitioner No.2 dated 18.09.2017 regarding the financial status of the petitioners and in accordance with the orders dated 13.02.2017 passed in FAO no.
842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors. by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.15,56,728/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Eight only) together with the interest as stated herein above with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Out of the amount of Rs. 15,56,728/-, an amount of Rs. 1,56,728/- shall be released to the petitioners No.1 and the amount of Rs. 1 lakh shall be released to the petitioner No.2 together with the cumulative interest keeping in view the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and that of the petitioners as well and in the entirety of the facts. The rest of the amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Only) shall be kept in 130 equal monthly FDR's in the name of the petitioner No.1 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each with cumulative interest.
The following conditions shall be adhered to by SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the FDR's:-
(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity of FDR and maturity amount New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 31/41 of the FDRs be given to the claimant.
(ii) The maturity amount of the FDR be credited in the saving account of the claimant near the place of her residence.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to the claimant in the savings bank account without permission of the Court.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(v) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victims APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
37. Since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the award amount together with the interest as stated herein above within a period of one month from the date of passing of this award with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi failing which the respondent No.3 shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum from the period of the delay.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 20.11.2017.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP) New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 32/41 ISSUE NO. 2 in the MACT petition No. 194/17 COMPENSATION ISSUE NO. 2
38. LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY For the purposes of assessing the loss of earning capacity, the income of the Petitioner/injured needs to be assessed along with the functional disability suffered by him due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
(a) Criteria for determining the income of the Petitioner The Petitioner, in the present petition has claimed that he was doing private service and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. In order to prove his income, the petitioner Sh. Satya Dev Singh has proved on record his Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2015-16 as Ex. PW2/1 which suggest the total income of the injured/petitioner as Rs.2,91,813/- per annum. The date of accident is on 27.11.2015. Hence, I treat the monthly income of the injured as Rs.24,318/- per month (after rounding off Rs.24317.75).
(b) Loss of Income on account of accident In the petitioner, the petitioner has stated that he could not work for 2 months. The petitioner has also examined Sh. Ghanshyam Lal, Executive Medical Records from Karla Hospital New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 33/41 as PW-3 and filed on record the MLC Bearing NO. 1642/15 of injured/petitioner and two bills amounting to Rs.3160/- and Rs.50/- as Ex. PW3/2 (colly running into 4 pages). Perusal of the Ex. PW3/2 reveals that the injured was admitted in the said hospital on 27.11.2015 and discharged on the same day.
As such, to my mind, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner was not able to do his work for a period of one month. As such, on this count, the petitioner is entitled for the sum of Rs. 24,318/- (Rs. 24318/- X 1)
(c) Pain, Suffering & Mental Agony Keeping in view the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards pain and suffering and mental agony.
(d) Medicines and Medical Treatment The petitioner has also examined Sh. Ghanshyam Lal, Executive Medical Records from Karla Hospital as PW-3 and filed on record the MLC Bearing NO. 1642/15 of injured/petitioner and two bills amounting to Rs.3160/- and Rs.50/- as Ex. PW3/2 (colly running into 4 pages). Accordingly, to my mind, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 3,210/- under this head.
(e) Conveyance, Attendant Charges & Special Diet Keeping in view the nature of the injuries which has been mentioned as simple by Kalra Hospital, a sum of New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 34/41 Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner on account of conveyance, attendant charges and special diet collectively.
39. As discussed above, the overall compensation is tabulated as under:
Loss of Income on Account of accident Rs.24,318/-
Pain and Suffering Rs.10,000/-
Medicines & Medical Treatment Rs.3,210/-
Conveyance, Attendant Charges Rs.10,000/-
and Special Diet ----------------
Total Rs.47,528/-
(Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Eight Only)
40. On the said amount, interest @ 9% per annum is also awarded from the date of filing of petition/DAR i.e. from 27.03.2017. 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.
41. It is further held that Respondent No.1 (Owner), Respondent No.2 (Driver) and Respondent No.3 (Insurer) of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the Petitioners/claimants.
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 35/41 R E L I E F:
42. I hereby pass an award of Rs. 47,528/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Eight Only ) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 27.03.2017 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
43. The petitioner has also been examined under MCTAP on 18.09.2017 and in his statement, he has stated that prior to the accident, he was working with Commdel Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. as a Sr. Architect and getting the salary of Rs.1.90 lacs per month. He has further stated that due to the said accident, he was not able to work for one month. He has further stated that at present, he is working as Sr. Architect in Netision services Pvt. Ltd and getting the salary of Rs. 2 lacs per month. He has further stated that his wife is also working and she is earning Rs.50,000/- per month. He has further stated that he has one son, who is studying in 8th class. He has further stated that he has to spend an amount of Rs. 1 lac per month approximately in maintaining himself and his family.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:-
44. Since the offending vehicle, was admittedly insured with the respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 36/41 passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under the intimation to this court and under intimation to the petitioner as well. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 20.11.2017.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
Announced in the open court
On 07th of October, 2017 ( RAJ KUMAR )
P.O.MACT (WEST-01)
Delhi (07.10.2017)
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17
pages 37/41
FORMAT-1
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal New MACT Case No. 477593/16
1. Smt. Kaushalya Devi W/o Sh. Vishnu Paswan (Mother of the deceased aged about 38 years
2. Sh. Vishnu Paswan S/o Sh. Bhageru Paswan aged about 42 years Both R/o Dilawar Gobardhan Dilawarpur Goverdhan, Bindupur, Vaishali Bihar-844503
3. Seema Kumar D/o Sh. Vishnu Paswan (Sister of the deceased)
4. Raja Babu S/o Sh. Vishnu Paswan
5. Patul Kumari D/o Sh. Vishnu Paswan (Sister of the deceased) ........ Petitioners Versus
1. Sh. Ajay Paswan S/o Sh. Shankar Paswan R/o E-531, Block E, Palam Extn, Part-I, New Delhi.
Also At:
Village Panapur, Dilarpur, Post Madhurpur, P.S. Viddupur Distt. Vashali Bihar,
2. Smt. Poonam W/o Sh. Sandeep Singh R/o H. No. C-8, Vijay Vihar, Phase-2, Har Govind Vihar, Sector-4, Rohini Delhi-110085
3. The United India Insurance company Ltd., Branch At: 18/109, East Moti Bagh, Sarai Rohilla, Opp. DDA Shopping Complex, New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 38/41 Delhi-7 Vide policy No. 141783/31/14/01/00002004 Issued for vehicle No. DL-1G-B-6329 w.e.f. 31.03.2015 to 30.03.2016 ........ Respondents TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 27.11.2015
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Sanjit Paswan
3. Age of the deceased. : About 22 years
4. Occupation of the deceased. Deceased was as a Helper
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act as Rs.
9178/- on the relevant period
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. Name Age Relation
No.
(i) Smt. Kaushalya 38 years Mother of the deceased
Devi
(ii) Sh. Vishnu Paswan 42 years Father of the deceased
(iii) Seema Kumari Not mentioned Sister of the deceased
(iv) Raja Babu Not mentioned Brother of the deceased
(v) Patul Kumari Not mentioned Sister of the deceased
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17
pages 39/41
7. Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Claim of Response of Amount
Petitioners(s) Respondent(s) Awarded
1. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.9178/- p.m
2. Add-Future Prospects (B) No future prospects is granted in this case.
3. Less-Personal expenses of 1/4 deduction the deceased(C) has been done
4. Monthly loss of Rs. 6884/- p.m dependency[(A+B)-C=D]
5. Annual loss of dependency Rs. 82,608/-
(Dx12) ( Rs. 6884/- x
12)
6. Multiplier(E) 16
7. Total loss of dependency Rs.13,21,728/-
(Dx12xE= F) ( Rs. 6884x 12x
16)
8. Medical Expenses(G) Nil
9. Compensation for loss of
love and affection to the Rs. 2,00,000/-
parents (H)
10. Compensation for loss of Nil as it is a case
consortium(I) of Bachelor
11. Compensation for loss of Rs. 10,000/-
estate(J)
12. Compensation towards Rs. 25,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 15,56,728/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17
pages 40/41
CONLCUSION
1. An award of Rs.15,56,728/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Eight only) has been passed as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the petition i.e. 08.06.2016 in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
2. The petitioners No. 2 was examined by this Court for the financial status in accordance with the procedure laid down in MCTAP by the Hon'ble High Court.
3. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir and put the same on 20.11.2017.
( RAJ KUMAR ) Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (07.10.2017) New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 41/41 New MACT Case No. 477593/16 and 194/17 07.10.2017 Present None Award is passed separately.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 20.11.2017.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
( RAJ KUMAR ) P.O. MACT (WEST-01) Delhi 07.10.2017 New MACT Case Nos. 477593/16 & 194/17 pages 42/41