Delhi District Court
Deena Nath Upadhyay vs . Dharmender Kumar & Ors on 7 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI, PO : MACT-01
(SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. :578/19
Deena Nath Upadhyay vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors
CNR No.-DLSW010085382019
1. Deenanath Upadhyay (Father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Shiv Shankar Upadhyay
Mobile no. : 9129721987
PAN : ABRPU3545Q
2. Rambha Upadhyay (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Deenanath Upadhyay
Mobile no. :9129721987
PAN : AKPPU5074P
3. Ms. Anjali Upadhyay (sister)
D/o Sh. Deenanath Upadhyay
4. Dhananjay Upadhyay (brother)
S/o Sh. Deenanath Upadhyay
All R/o :
GE-84, Trivenipuram Chak,
Jhunsi, Allahabad, Jhunsi,
Uttar Pradesh-211019. ... Petitioners
vs.
1. Dharmender Kumar (driver)
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash
R/o Village Pakra Jalpapur,
PO Anandpur, PS Pachdevra,
Distt Hardoi, U. P.
Mobile no. : 9599013124
2. Deepak Solanki (Owner),
S/o Prahlad Singh,
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 1 of 23
R/o WS-934, Badiyal Mohalla,
Palam Village, New Delhi
Mobile no. : 9711142111
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.(Inusrer),
Gurgaon, Haryana.
Nodal Officer: Mr. Sahil Gupta
Mobile no. 9811480408
Email ID: [email protected]
.... Respondents
Date of institution of the case - 19.07.2019
Date on which, judgment have been reserved -07.04.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment -07.04.2022
FORM -V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1 Date of the accident 25.04.2019
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal
( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the 19.07.2019
Investigating Officer to the Insurance
Company (Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Not clear from record
Cr. PC before the Metropolitan Magistrate
(Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 19.07.2019
Information Report (DAR) by the
Investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 19.07.2019
Company. (Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 19.07.2019
(Clause 11)
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 2 of 23
(Clause 16)
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR N.A.
removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency No
on the part of the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action / direction
warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated 14.08.2019
Officer by the Insurance company ( Clause
20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the Mr. Sahil Gupta, Legal
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Claims Manager.
Company ( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Yes
Insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted Legal offer was filed for
the liability? If so, whether the Designated ₹13,07,700/-.
Officer of the Insurance Company fairly
computed the compensation in accordance
with law ( Clause 23 )
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency No
on the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action / directions warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the Not clear from the
offer of the Insurance Company. ( Clause record.
24)
18 Date of Award 07.04.2022
19 Whether the award was passed with the No.
consent of the parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to Yes
open savings bank accounts (s) near their
place of residence ? ( Clause 18)
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 3 of 23
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were 19.07.2019
directed to open savings bank accounts(s)
near his place of residence and produce PAN
Card and Adhaar Card and the direction tot
he bank not issue any cheque book/debit card
to the claimants (s) and make an endorsement
to this effect on the passbook(s) (Clause 18 )
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 13.01.2022
passbook of their savings bank account near
the place of their residence alongwith the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
(Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the GE-84, Trivenipuram
Claimant(s) (Clause 27 ) Chak, Jhunsi,
Allahabad, Jhunsi,
Uttar Pradesh-211019.
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the 1. Petitioner no. 1 Sh.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Deenanath Upadhyay
IFSC Code( Clause 27) having SB A/c no.
35750100011871 at
Bank of Baroda, Awash
Vikas Colony, Jhusi,
Allahabad, U. P. (IFSC
Code BARBOJHUNSI).
2. Petitioner no. 2 Smt.
Rambha Upadhyay,
having SB A/c no.
50513710289 at Indian
Bank, Jhusi Allahabad,
(IFSC Code :
IDIB000J612)
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of residence ?
(Clause 27)
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at Yes
the time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Account No.
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 37665510911 at SBI,
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount District Court Complex,
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 4 of 23
is to be deposited/transferred. Sector-10, Dwarka New
Delhi, (IFSC Code
SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code
110002483)
JUDGMENT
1. The present DAR has been filed on behalf of petitioners Sh. Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. against respondents - Dharmender Kumar & Ors. for grant of compensation in respect of death of his son Piyush Dhar Upadhyay caused in a road traffic accident on 25.04.2019.
2. CLAIM a. Brief facts are made out from the material on record are that on 25.04.2019 at about 01.45 pm, Piyush Dhar Upadhyay (since deceased) was going by driving his motorcycle.
b. When deceased reached near Khari Kuan Transformer, in the meantime, a tempo 909 bearing no. DL-1M-9307, which was going towards Dwarka turned his offending tempo 909 on the left side all of a sudden. Due to which the deceased struck against the tempo and fell down and came underneath the rear tyre of the offending vehicle and due to which he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The said accident has been caused by the driver of the offending tempo 909 bearing no. DL-1M- 9307.
c. The deceased was taken to Bhagat Chandra Hospital, Mahavir Enclave, Delhi where he was declared brought dead and after completion of autopsy, the body was handed over to the father of the deceased. d. In this regard a FIR No. 183/2019 was lodged in police station Palam Village, U/s 279/304A IPC against respondent no. 1. e. It is alleged that accident was caused solely due to rash and MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 5 of 23 negligent driving of respondent no. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle with the permission of respondent no. 2(owner) and the said vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 Insurance Company. f. It is averred that the deceased was graduate at the time of accident and was working with Zomato Food Co. and was earning ₹20,000/- per month.
g. It is claimed that deceased was their son and the petitioners would be dependent upon the income of deceased in near future and due to the sudden death of deceased, petitioners have been deprived of his income, guidance and love and affection.
h. The petitioners claimed ₹35,50,278/- as compensation in their written submissions.
3. DEFENCES a. Reply was filed on behalf of R1 and R2, wherein it was averred that the alleged accident had taken place due to the sole carelessness and negligence of the driver of the vehicle bearing no. DL-9S-BR-3868 Model Passion X Pro. It is further stated that due to the negligent and high speed, driver of Vehicle no. DL-9S-BR-3868, lost his control and fell on the road. Further, the involvement of the vehicle bearing no. DL-1M-9307 is specifically denied.
b. It was averred that there is no involvement of the driver R1 and the owner of the vehicle R2. Hence, the liability, if any, shall be of the respondent/ insurance company.
c. Legal Offer was filed on behalf of R3/insurance company wherein the insurance company was offering a sum of ₹13,07,700/- (after deducting 25% for contributory negligence) as compensation whereas the same was unacceptable to the petitioners. Further, the vehicle i.e. DL-1M- 9307 was insured in the name of Deepak Solanki with respondent / insurance company vide policy no. 130421823340002949 effective for the period from MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 6 of 23 16.08.2018 to 15.08.2019 subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
d. It is further averred that nothing came on record which could show that deceased was wearing helmet. Therefore, the company alleged contributory negligence on the part of deceased to the extent of 25% and thereby, the insurance company decreased the offered compensation amount by 25%.
4. ISSUES On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 03.10.2019 by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
1. Whether Piyush Dhar Upadhyay sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 25.04.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-1M- 9307 (in the original issues, the number of the offending vehicle was mentioned incorrectly, as the number of the motorcycle of deceased was mentioned instead of number of offending tempo (truck), and stands rectified here) by R1 Dharmender Kumar, owned by R2 Deepak Solanki and insured with R3 Reliance General Insurance Company? ...OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
5. PETITIONER EVIDENCE In support of their case, petitioner Deena Nath Upadhyaya has examined himself as PW1. Further, petitioners have examined one Sh. Ravi, eye witness of the accident as PW2. Thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of petitioners.
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 7 of 23
6. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE In their evidence, respondents have not examined any witness despite opportunity. Thereafter, RE was closed on behalf of all the respondents vide order dated 09.12.2021 by this Court.
7. Arguments have been heard. Material on record perused. Submissions considered.
8. The issue-wise findings are as under :
9. ISSUE No. 1Whether Piyush Dhar Upadhyaya sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 25.04.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-1M- 9307 by R1 Dharmender Kumar, owned by R2 Deepak Solanki and insured with R3 Reliance General Insurance Company? ...OPP a. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus, petitioner no.1 / father of deceased has examined himself as PW-1 who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon documents i.e. copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/1, Copy of Aadhar card of his wife, his daughter Anjali and his son Dhananjay Upadhyay as Ex. PW1/2, Ex. PW1/3 & Ex. PW1/4. Copy of DL of deceased as Ex. PW1/5(colly), Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased as Ex. PW1/6, PAN card of deceased as Ex. PW1/7, Educational documents of deceased as Ex. PW1/8, Copy of bank statement of deceased as Ex. PW1/9, DAR as Ex. PW1/10.
b. Petitioner further has placed on record testimony of PW2 Sh. Ravi, who claimed to be an eye witness / summoned witness in the present case and filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW2/A. He has also filed copy of Aadhar Card as Ex. PW2/1.
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 8 of 23 c. PW2 Sh. Ravi has deposed that on 25.04.2019 when he was going for work at Dwarka and passing through Palam Village and reached near a transformer / a kuan, then a tempo bearing no. DL-1M-9307 was going ahead of him and at about 01.45 pm, the deceased came from the street from Palam Village side by driving his motorcycle. In the meantime, the tempo driver turned his tempo on the left side all of a sudden and due to which the deceased got hit by the tempo and fell down and came underneath the rear tyre of the offending vehicle, due to which he succumbed to injuries. He deposed that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of tempo bearing no. DL-1LM-9307.
d. Statement of eye witness Ravi recorded u/s 161 CrPC was relied upon by the insurance company during cross examination as Ex. PW2/R3-1 in which he has stated that "M/cycle DL 9SBR 3868 aai jo mere aghe chal rahe tempo ne kuch bayee taraf truck of moda to M/cycke gir gayee, And maine police of bataya usi driver Dharmender Kumar ne apne truck se accident kiya tha".
e. On the other hand, respondents have not led any evidence to the contrary, despite opportunity.
f. Now, the defence of the insurance company is that the deceased came on his motorcycle from inside the gali and collided with the offending tempo. Reliance has been placed upon the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 CrPC to this effect. However, a part of the statement of the witness cannot be read in isolation without relying upon the remainder of the statement. In the said remainder, it was categorically mentioned that the tempo came to its left suddenly. It has also been categorically mentioned that the tempo driver caused the accident. Even otherwise, the duty to take care on part of the tempo (big commercial vehicle) driver was much higher as compared to the deceased who was driving a motorcycle. Even if the deceased was coming from a gali, then it was all the more reason for the tempo driver to drive more carefully in the proximity of a gali opening up MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 9 of 23 near the spot. Rather than that, he came to his left suddenly. This conduct of the tempo driver is indicative of negligence.
g. ALLEGED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE It is alleged on behalf of the insurance company that no helmet was seized from the spot and therefore, it can be deciphered that the deceased was not wearing any helmet at the time of accident. So far as the helmet is concerned, there is no suggestion to the the eye witness to the effect that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of the accident. The insurance company has not led any evidence to the contrary. The insurance company has not even examined the IO to conclusively establish that the deceased was not wearing any helmet at the time of the accident. In this regard, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sharda Devi & Ors1 that:
''4. The breach of rules in driving a two -wheeler without helmet and driving it with three pillion riders, by itself cannot be treated as composite or contribution to negli- gence on his part.'' It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in India Lease Development Ltd. vs Savita and others2 that:
''8. Simply because the deceased was not wearing a helmet and violated the terms of the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be said that he contributed to the accident.'' Now firstly, in the present case, merely because no helmet was seized by the police from the spot, it cannot be said that the deceased was not wearing any helmet at the time of the accident. No suggestion has been given to eye witness to this effect. Secondly, even if it is assumed for a moment that such helmet was not there, no contributory negligence can be readily inferred 1 2013 ACJ 652.2
2013 A C J 2038.
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 10 of 23 in the absence of any specific allegation or suggestion to this effect. It is noteworthy that contributory negligence is not something which can be implied but has to be proved expressly by the one who alleges so. The insurance company is unable to show from the circumstances in the present case any negligence on part of the deceased. Even the eye witness has not been cross examined on behalf of R1 and R2 and it is the driver of the offending vehicle who could have shed more light on the circumstances which contributed to the accident. Thus, no deduction is liable to be made on the ground of alleged contributory negligence from the compensation that may be awarded on this ground alone.
h. In the light of the afore-said, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents.10. ISSUE No. 2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP a. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioners have examined PW-1 Sh. Deena Nath Upadhyay (petitioner no. 1 / father of deceased), who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as (Ex. PW-1/A), wherein it has been stated that his son was unmarried at the time of accident and has left behind himself and his wife Smt. Rambha Upadhyay alongwith one unmarried brother and one unmarried sister as the only legal heirs.
b. It is further averred by PW1 that his son was graduate and had also got ITI certificate and has placed on record documents regarding the same. He also deposed that his deceased son was working with Zomato Food Company and was earning ₹20,000/- per month. However, he could not bring on record any evidence regarding the occupation of the deceased. c. In view of the above and in view of the material and evidence MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 11 of 23 on record, petitioners, being the LRs of the deceased have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of said deceased in the above-said accident. d. Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners/LRs of deceased Piyush Dhar Upadhyay is ascertained under the following heads:
11. AGE & MULTIPLIER As per the Aadhar Card, the deceased was about 22 years of age at the time of accident. Thus, multiplier of 18 would be applicable in the present case.
12. NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS a. In the present case, in view of the material / evidence on record, it is evident that at the time of accident, the deceased- Piyush Dhar Upadhyay was unmarried and has left behind four LRs i.e. petitioner no. 1 Sh.
Deenanath Upadhyay (father), petitioner no. 2 Smt. Rambha Upadhyay(mother), petitioner no. 3 Ms. Anjali Upadhyay(sister) and petitioner no. 4 Sh. Dhananjay Upadhyay (brother). b. So far as dependency is concerned, statements of petitioners regarding financial status, needs and liabilities were recorded on 13.01.2022, whereby petitioner petitioner no. 1 Sh. Deena Nath Upadhyay is not having any source of income whereas petitioner no. 2 is housewife. However, it is equally noteworthy that the deceased was unmarried at the time of the accident.
c. In these circumstances, in view of the law/guidelines laid down in the case titled as Sarla Verma & Ors. vs DTC & Anr3, one half (1/2) of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted from his total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
3(2009) 6SCC 121 MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 12 of 23
13. INCOME AND PROFESSION a. In the instant case, Sh. Deena Nath Upadhyay (father/LR of deceased) deposed that his son was graduate at the time of accident and working with Zomato Food Company and was earning ₹20,000/- per month. Petitioners have also placed on record copies of his educational certificates as Ex. PW1/8 (colly). Now, this is not a case where no parameter is available to gauge the income of the deceased so as to resort to minimum wages as has been contended on behalf of the insurance company. b. However, no documentary evidence regarding the fact that the deceased was working with Zomato Food Company has been placed on record and in the absence thereof, the minimum wages for during the relevant period (25.04.2019) i.e. ₹19,060/- p.m. is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the petitioner/ injured in this case (for graduate, as per graduate Marksheet in Bachelor of Commerce from Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur Ex. PW1/8 (colly) which has been brought on record). Minimum wages of Delhi are taken as address of the deceased in the RC of his motorcycle and also its insurance policy is located in Delhi.
c. Further, in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi4, the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident and hence, 40% future prospects be can be given at such age as the deceased can be said to have fixed income.
14. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY a. In view of the above and in view of the material on record, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family multiplied by a multiplier as per above guidelines shall give the loss of dependency to the entire family. b. Hence, the same is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of 4 2017 (13) SCALE 12.
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 13 of 23 dependency in this case as such, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceased - Piyush Dhar Upadhyay can be calculated as under:-
a) Income of the deceased : ₹19,060/- per month
b) 40% addition towards future : ₹26,684/-
prospects [₹19,060/- + ₹7,624/- (19060/- X 40%)]
c) 1/2 deduction towards personal : ₹13,342/- and living expenses of deceased.
(₹26,684/- X 1/2)
d) Annual loss of dependency to the : ₹1,60,104/- family due to death of deceased (₹26,684/- - ₹13,342/-) X 12
e) Total loss of dependency to the : ₹28,81,872/- family due to death of deceased (₹1,60,104/- X 18) c. Hence, in view of the above, the total loss of dependency to the family on account of death of the deceased Piyush Dhar Upadhyay comes to ₹28,81,872/-and as such, the petitioners shall be entitled to the said amount i.e. ₹28,81,872/- as compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
15. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi5, a sum of ₹15,000/- is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
5Ibid MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 14 of 23
16. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi6, a sum of ₹15,000/- is awarded to the petitioners towards 'funeral expenses'.
17. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In the instant case, due to the death of deceased Piyush Dhar Upadhyay, his LRs are his parents i.e. petitioner no. 1 Sh. Deenanath Upadhyay, petitioner no. 2 Smt. Rambha Upadhyay, petitioner no. 3 Ms. Anjali Upadhyay and petitioner no. 4 Sh. Dhananjay Upadhyay have suffered loss of love and affection / consortium. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case and in view of law /guidelines laid down in the case - Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram7 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur8, a sum of ₹1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4) is awarded as compensation under the head 'loss of consortium'.
18. The break-up of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners have been tabulated as below :-
S. HEAD AMOUNT
No.
1. Loss of dependency ₹28,81,872/-
2. Loss of Consortium (40,000 x 4) ₹1,60,000/-
3. For funeral expenses ₹15,000/-
4. Loss of estate ₹15,000/-
TOTAL ₹30,71,872/-Rounded
off to ₹30,72,000/-
6
Ibid
7
2018 SCC Online SC 1546
8
2020 SCC OnLine SC 410.
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 15 of 23
19. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. In view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.9 Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation / award amount i.e. ₹30,72,000/- from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 19.07.2019 till realization.
20. LIABILITY The offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1M-9307 was being driven by R-1 Dharmender Kumar, owned by R-2 Deepak Solanki, and insured with R-3/Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident and as such, respondent no. 3 / Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. shall be liable to pay the awarded amount.
Hence, in view of the above, Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
21. RELIEF Thus, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹30,72,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Seventy Two Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 19.07.2019 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
The above-said compensation amount shall be payable by the respondent no.3 / Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd to the 9 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601.
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 16 of 23 petitioners.
22. APPORTIONMENT The abovesaid award amount i.e. ₹30,72,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Seventy Two Thousand only) shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceased - Piyush Dhar Upadhyay in the following manner with pro- portionate interest.
S. Name of the petitioner/relation with deceased Amount No.
1. Petitioner no. 1 Sh. Deenanath Upadhyay (father) ₹3,92,000/-
2. Petitioner no. 2 Smt. Rambha Upadhyay(mother) ₹26,00,000/-
3. Petitioner no. 3 Ms. Anjali Upahdyay ₹40,000/-
4. Petitioner no. 4 Dhananjay Upadhyay ₹40,000/-
Total ₹30,72,000/- 23. FORM-IVA SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THEAWARD
i) Date of accident : 25.04.2019
ii). Name of the deceased : Piyush Dhar Upadhyay
iii). Age of the deceased : 22 years (at the time of accident as per Aadhar Card)
iv). Occupation of the : Working with Zomato `
v). Income of the deceased : ₹19,060/- (as per minimum wages for graduate)
vi). Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased S.No. Name Age Relation with deceased MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 17 of 23 (at the time of accident)
(i) Sh. Deenanath 54 years Father Upadhyay
(ii) Smt. Rambha 48 years Mother Upadhyay
(iii) Anjali Upadhyay 20 years Sister (iV) Dhananjay 18 years Brother Upadhyay Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
1. Income of the deceased (A) ₹19,060/-
2. Add-Future Prospects (B) (40%)(A+B) ₹26,684/-
3. Less-Personal expenses of the deceased ₹13,342/-
(C) (one half)
4. Annual loss of dependency ₹1,60,104/-
[ (A+B)-C=D] X 12 5. Multiplier (E) 18
6. Total loss of dependency (D x E=F) ₹28,81,872/-
7. Medical Expenses (G) -
8. Compensation for loss of consortium ₹1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4) (I)
9. Compensation for loss of estate (J) ₹15,000/-
10. Compensation towards funeral ₹15,000/-
expenses (K)
11. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹30,71,872/-Rounded off (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) to ₹30,72,000/-
12. Deduction of Interim Award Nil RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
13. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from the (M) date of filing of DAR i.e. 19.07.2019 till realiza-
tion.
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 18 of 23
14. Total amount including interest ( L+M) ₹30,72,000/- + @9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 19.07.2019 till realization.
15. Award amount released As per table given below
16. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
17. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) Account of the petitioners
18. Next Date for compliance of the award. 07.07.2022 (Clause 31)
24. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited/ trans- ferred by respondent no. 3/ Reliance General Insuarnce Company Ltd. in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (South-West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/pe- titioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
Further, the statement of petitioner no.1 and 2 regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/LRs of the deceased & having regard to fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows:-
S Name Sta- Age Amount of Release Amount of FDR . tus (at Award Amount N pre-
o sent
1 Sh. Dee- Fa- 54 ₹3,92,000/- ₹1,52,000/- ₹2,40,000/- be kept in 24
. nanath ther yrs FDRs of ₹10,000/- each
Upadhyay for the period from 1
month to 24 months in
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 19 of 23
the name of petitioner
no.1 with cumulative in-
terest.
2 Smt. Mot 48 ₹26,00,000/- ₹2,00,000/- ₹24,00,000/- be kept in
. Rambha her yrs 120 FDRs of ₹20,000/-
Upadhyay each for the period from
1 month to 120 months in
the name of petitioner
no.2 with cumulative in-
terest.
3 Anjali Sis- 23 ₹40,000/- ₹40,000/- Nil
. Upadhyay ter yrs
4 Dhananjay Brot 19 ₹40,000/- ₹40,000/- Nil
. Upadhyay her yrs
Total ₹30,72,000/-
The above-said award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
25. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No.35750100011871 in the name of petitioner no.1- Sh. Deenanath Upadhyay has been opened at Bank of Baroda, Awash Vikas Colony, Jhusi Allahabad, UP (IFSC Code: BARB0JHUNSI), PAN : ABRPU3545Q, wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is is- sued in this account".
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector-10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the above-said cash MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 20 of 23 amount to the above-said saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above-mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the above-said cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be cred- ited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit prema- ture encashment or loan qua the above-said FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The above-said Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an en- dorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The above-said Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the above-said saving bank ac- count by means of a withdrawal form.
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 21 of 23
26. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 50513710289 in the name of petitioner no.2 - Smt. Rambha Upadh- yay has been opened at Indian Bank, Jhunsi Allahabad, U. P. (IFSC Code:
IDIB000J612), PAN: AKPPU5074P, wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector-10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the above-said cash amount to the above-said saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above-mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the above-said cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be cred- ited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit prema- ture encashment or loan qua the above-said FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The above-said Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 22 of 23 been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an en- dorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The above-said Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the above-said saving bank ac- count by means of a withdrawal form.
27. The insurance company shall inform the petitioners / LRs as well as their counsel through registered post that the award amount is being transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioners to know about the de- posit in the account.
Certified copy of this award be sent to the concerned Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi, for infor- mation / compliance. Copy of the award be also sent through e-mail.
Certified copy of this award be also given ''Dasti' to the petition- ers/ their counsel and Ld. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company.
Certified copy of this award be also sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate misc. file and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 07.07.2022.
File be consigned to the record room. SUMEDH Digitally signed by
SUMEDH KUMAR
KUMAR SETHI
(Announced in the open Court on SETHI
Date: 2022.04.07
17:35:30 +05'30'
this 7th day of April, 2022)
(Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
PO, MACT-01 (South-West District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
07.04.2022
MACP No. 578/19 Deenanath Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. 23 of 23