Delhi District Court
Anita Kaushal (F) (Fir 376/17 Timarpur) ... vs Gurpreet Singh (Nic) on 13 October, 2023
DLCT010192682017
Presented on : 23-12-2017
Registered on : 23-12-2017
Decided on : 13-10-2023
Duration : 05 Years 09
Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI, PRESIDED
OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT No. 5/18
1. SMT. ANITA KAUSHAL
W/o Late Sh. Brahm Dass
2. SH. PANKAJ KAUSHAL
S/o Late Sh. Brahm Dass
3. SMT. KANCHAN KAUSHAL
W/o Sh.Umesh Koushal
D/o Late Sh. Brahm Dass
All R/o H.No. B-22,
Himkunj Apartment,
Sector-14, Plot No. 8, Rohini,
New Delhi-110085. ...Petitioners.
VERSUS
1. SH. GURPREET SINGH
S/o Sh. Jahangir Singh
R/o Mod Rioad
Near Narender Rice Mill,
Muktsar, Punjab. (Driver).
MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 1/29
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13
12:47:41 +0530
2. SH. RAJINDER KUMAR
S/o Sh. Kuldeep Kumar
R/o H.No. 540-K,
Baad No.15, Mandi,
Dabwali, Sirsa, Hunumangarh,
Haryana. (Owner).
3. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Through its General Manager/AR
107, New Anaj Mandi,
Mandi Dabwali, Mandi Sirsa,
Haryana-125104. (Insurer).
....Respondents.
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 23.08.2017
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident N.A. Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident 23.12.2017 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N.A. by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A. MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 2/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:47:53 +0530 Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 13.102023
15. Whether the claimant (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 20.09.2023 directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the N.A. passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H.No. B-22, Claimant(s). Himkunj Apartment, Sector-14, Plot No. 8, Rohini, Delhi.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) N.A. is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at N.A. the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 3/29 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:48:01 +0530 AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. A DAR was filed on 23.12.2017 by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the parties of this case. The said DAR was related to a motor vehicular accident dated 23.08.2017 in which one Sh. Brahm Dass S/o Sh. Pocha Ram (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") lost his life. Subsequent to the filing of DAR, the present petition was filed on 29.05.2018 U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,00,000/ under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of the untimely death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 23.08.2017 at a spot between Gopal Pur Red Light and Wazirabad falling within the jurisdiction of PS Timar Pur, Delhi. As per this petition, at the relevant time the deceased was driving the Scooty bearing registration no. DL8SBK7034 and when he reached at the spot of accident he was hit by a Truck bearing registration no. RJ08GA0332 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle"), which was on very high speed coming, which was driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner at very high speed and without proper care of traffic rules and regulations hit the said Scooty and due to sudden forceful impact, the injured fell down on the road and sustained injuries. It is further stated that after hitting the Scooty, the R1 ran away from the spot without seeking the injured person on high speed in zigzag manner. It is further stated that due to the forceful impact the Scooty was also damages. Thereafter, the deceased was taken MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 4/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 12:48:13 +0530 to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi and then to BLK Supeer Specialist Hospital, Pusa Road, New Delhi was admitted on 23.08.2017 where deceased was treated and next date i.e. 24.08.2017 deceased was expired on 24.08.2017. It is further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle hit the Scotty while driving the Truck in rash and negligent manner at excessive speed without obeying the traffic rules, due to which the deceased was expired. An FIR no. 376/17 PS Timar Pur U/s 279/304A IPC was registered by the police. Petitioners claim that the deceased was aged around 58 years and running a business in the name and style of M/s Himachal Transport Co. and was earning a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/ per annum at the time of his death. Petitioners further claim that they were completely dependent on the income of the deceased. R1 is stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle. R2 is stated to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle and R3 is stated to be the insurer of the offending vehicle. Parties were directed to file their written statements.
2. A written statement was filed by R1 in which it is averred that he has falsely been implicated in the present matter. Rest of the contents of the petition have been declined in toto.
3. No written statement was filed by R-2 and the right of R-2 to file was struck off vide order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 5/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:48:20 +0530
4. R-3/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it seeks to avoid liability on the ground that the offending vehicle driven by its driver did not have a valid and effective driving license. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself.
ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 13/03/2019, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :-
1.Whether the deceased Sh. Brahm Das suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 23.08.2017 at about 6.15 hrs involving TRUCK bearing registration No. RJ-08-GA-0332 driven by the Respondent No. 1
rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE
6. In support of their contentions, the petitioners examined Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Anita Kaushal, wife of the deceased, as PW1. PW1,vide her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, deposed that the deceased was her husband who lost his life on 24.08.2017 due to an accident involving the offending vehicle. She further deposed that the accident took place due to the MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 6/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 12:49:05 +0530 rashness and negligence of R1. She further deposed that the deceased was 58 years and was a business man and was earning a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/ per annum at the time of his death. that the petitioners, being the wife of the deceased and children of the deceased were completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. She relied upon following documents : "Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) (Colly) are the copies of Aadhar Cards of petitioners;
Ex.PW1/2 is copy of FIR which is already exhibited in Ex.PW3/1;
Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) is the copy of DL of deceased; Ex.PW1/4 (OSR);
Ex.PW1/5 which is copy of death details of deceased has been de-exhibited as Mark B; Ex.PW1/6 are the original medical bills; Ex.PW1/7 is copy of MLC which is already exhibited in Ex.PW2/1;
Ex.PW1/8 is the affidavit of PW1 however same is de-exhibited as Mark C;
Ex.PW1/9 is ITRs pertaining to the year 2015-16 and 2017-18 however same is d-exhibited as Mark D;
Ex.PW1/10 is copy of insurance policy however same is de-exhibited as Mark E.'' 6.1 PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1 as well as by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In her cross-examination she deposed that she has no personal MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 7/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 12:49:12 +0530 knowledge regarding the income tax returns filed by her husband. She further deposed that she is not an eye witness of the accident. She denied the suggestion that her husband had died because of his own negligence. She further denied the suggestion that she has not suffered any financial loss because of death of her husband.
6.2 Petitioners further examined one Sh.Narender Singh, Junior Assistant, Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Delhi as PW-2. PW-2 proved the record i.e. the register containing the MLC No. 1266/17 and copy of same is exhibited as Ex.PW2/1.
He was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-3/ Insurance Company.
6.3 Petitioners further examined one HC Shyam Lal as PW-3. PW-3 proved the record i.e. register containing the FIR bearing No. 376/17 U/s 279/337 IPC and attested copy of same is exhibited as Ex.PW3/1. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-3/ Insurance Company.
6.4 Petitioners further examined one Sh. Amit Kumar, Peon, Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Delhi as PW-4. PW- 4 proved the record i.e. Postmortem report of deceased Sh. Brahm Das and copy of same is exhibited as Ex.PW4/A. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-3/ Insurance Company.
MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 8/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2023.10.13 12:49:18 +0530 6.5 Petitioners further examined one Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Record Clerk, LNJP Hospital, Delhi as PW-5. PW-5 proved the copy of MLC No. 11584 daed 23.08.2017 of the patient namely Brahm Dass. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-3/ Insurance Company.
6.6 Petitioners further examined one Sh. Satish S/o Sh.
Mahavir Singh (Income Tax Inspector) as PW-6 as well as PW- 6A. PW-6 & PW-6A proved the ITRs of Brahm Dass, Proprietor of M/s Himachal Transport Co. for the A.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 vide attested copy Ex.PW6/1 (Colly) and Ex.PW6/1/A (Colly).He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that he has no personal knowledge regarding the documents filed by him.
6.7 Petitioners' evidence was then closed by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners on 28.02.2023.
7. Respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence.
FINDINGS
8. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
9. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under:-
MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 9/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:49:29 +0530 ISSUE NO. 1 "Whether the deceased Sh. Brahm Das suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 23.08.2017 at about 6.15 hrs involving TRUCK bearing registration No. RJ-08-GA-0332 driven by the Respondent No. 1
rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3? OPP.".
10. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10.1 The primary plea contended on behalf R-3/ Insurance Company for seeking exoneration is that there was no MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 10/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 12:49:35 +0530 eye witness of the accident in question. As such, the claim of the petitioners may be rejected. However, having regard to the fact in question it is forthcoming that after petitioner received injuries after following accident he was taken to hospital by public persons. Merely, none of the public persons came forward to become a witness is not sufficient to disbelieve the fact of the accident where the same has been duly corroborated by the surrounding facts and circumstances. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has laid emphasis on this proposition. In this regard, the following judgments can be taken into account for addressing the plea raised by the R-3/ Insurance Company regarding eye witness:-
(i) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287; and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Deepak Goel and Ors. 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del.), wherein it was held that "........where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the report of the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
(ii) Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhhi High Court in a case titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & Ors., 2021 Lawsuit (Del) 2021wherein it was held that MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 11/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 12:49:43 +0530 ".......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
(iii) Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 wherein it been observed that ".....filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquainted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal."
(iv) Reliance has been placed upon the recent judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Jamanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Maheshwar Rai & Ors., MAC Appeal No. 831/2015, decided on 19.11.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken the similar view as taken in the aforesaid judgments that the charge-sheet is sufficient to prove the negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, especially when no evidence has been led on behalf of respondents.
10.2 Upon the strength of these judgments, the plea raised on behalf of R-3/ Insurance Company regarding examination of eye witness necessarily stands discounted.
MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 12/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:49:48 +0530 10.3 With regard to the plea raised by R-3/ Insurance Company that offending vehicle has wrongly been involved for claim purpose, the said plea is apparently baseless as same is not supported by any cogent evidence. The mere non mention of registration number of offending vehicle in FIR is insufficient to disregard the veracity of the claim petition. The MLC of the deceased shows that he suffered head injuries. However, there is no justification/ corroborating of the plea of R-3/ Insurance Company that deceased fell down on his own and was not wearing a helmet. In fact, the head injuries are suggestive of the fact of severe impact by some big vehicle. The mere fact that no fresh damage is depicted on the body of a Truck is also no ground to assume that the offending Truck was not involved in the accident. As a matter of fact the deceased was riding a Scooty at the relevant time and any Truck hit the Scooty it is not necessary that the body of Truck would get damage sign. However, the damage on the Scooty is a reasonable probability which is present in this case. The plea on behalf of R-3/ Insurance Company that the deceased died due to diabeties, hypertension and chronic kidney disease is also fallacious and against the material on record.
11. It is not denied that R-1 was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC in the above FIR, which in itself is a strong circumstance to prove the case of petitioners on this issue. The copies of FIR, charge-sheet, site plan, Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending vehicle and Postmortem Report of deceased also corroborate the testimony of MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 13/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:49:54 +0530 PW-1.
12. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the deposition being made by PW1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time the deceased had died due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by R-1.
14. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. In the absence of any evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 14/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:50:00 +0530
15. In view of the postmortem report pertaining to the deceased placed on record by the petitioners, no dispute is left regarding the death of the deceased on account of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?"
17. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 15/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:50:06 +0530 COMPENSATION
18. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
19. The petitioners have placed on record a medical bills Ex.PW1/6 to the tune of Rs.1,59,544.53/ which they have incurred upon the treatment of deceased prior to his death. Accordingly, the petitioners are held entitled to an amount of Rs.1,59,545/(rounded off) under this head.
(ii) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
20. In this regard, the petitioners have examined petitioner no. 1 as PW1 who was wife of the deceased. PW-1 deposed that at the relevant time, the deceased was 58 years old and was a business man and was earning a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/ per month. PW-6 and PW-6A has proved the ITRs of the deceased for the A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively vide Ex.PW6/A (Colly) and Ex.PW6/1/A (Colly) As per ITRs of the A.Y. 2017-18,the annual income of deceased was Rs.4,50,000/-. However, the plea raised by R-3/ Insurance Company that ITRs filed after the death of the deceased is irrelevant, baseless as the income shown in the said ITR almost similar to the previous ITRs and reflect steady raise in increase. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation is taken to be Rs. 4,50,000/-.
MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 16/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:50:13 +0530 Hence, per month income of the deceased is Rs.37,500/-.
21. Petitioners have claimed that the deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of his death. They have also placed on record a copy of DL Ex. PW1/3 of the deceased, as per which the date of birth of the deceased is 10.01.1959. The date of accident is 23.10.2017. Going by the driving licence of the deceased, the age of deceased would be around 58 years as on the date of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '9' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased.
22. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it may be observed that the deceased is survived by his wife and two children. However, on behalf of R-3/ Insurance Company it is pleaded that the Transport Company of the deceased remains in existence after his death and his wife is getting income from the said business, the said plea stands discounted for want of any cogent evidence. However, it is observed that Petitioner No. 1 is a housewife and it is difficult to imagine that income would have continued after the death of the deceased who was running a small transport business and which requires day to day supervision and attendance. Since MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 17/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:50:19 +0530 Petitioners No. 2 & 3 are major at the relevant time, therefore, Petitioner No.1 only is considered dependant on the deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation.
23. Irrespective of this, one half of the earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses in view of the law already discussed above. Further, since this Tribunal has assumed that the age of deceased was 58 years at the time of accident., in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to an addition of 15% of the above amount of his earnings towards future prospects.
24. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs.23,28,750/- (Rs.37,500/- X 115/100 X 1/2 X 12X 9). This amount is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(iii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
25. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8179/2022 decided on 09/12/2022, the petitioners are also held entitled to amounts of Rs. 20,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 18/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:50:30 +0530 MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium": -
Spousal Consortium : Rs. 44,000/- Parental Consortium : Rs. 88,000/- (Rs. 44,000/- X 2)
26. Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,72,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + 20,000/- + 1,32,000/-) under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
27. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs.26,60,295/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Five Only) (Rs. 1,59,545/- + Rs. 23,28,750/- + Rs. 1,72,000/-), along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 23.12.2017. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
28. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording their statements regarding financial needs and requirements.
28.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner No. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs. 32,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 19/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 12:50:36 +0530 Fifty Thousand Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 130 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 130 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of her residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.5,05,351/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty One Only) is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner no. 1.
28.2 The Petitioners No. 2 & 3 are awarded a sum of Rs. 64,240/ each (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand Two Hundre Forty Only) and the said amount is directed to be released in their savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when they furnish the details of their bank accounts which is near the place of their residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioners No. 2 & 3.
29. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 20/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:50:50 +0530 added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
30. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioners and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 21/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 12:51:03 +0530 Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
31. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
32. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
33. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 22/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 12:51:08 +0530 directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records. File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report Digitally signed and put up the same on 16.11.2023. by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 12:51:16 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) On this 13.10.2023 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/13/10/2023 MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 23/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:51:22 +0530 FORM - XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 23.10.2017
2. Name of the deceased : Brahm Dass
3. Age of the deceased : 58 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Businessman
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of ITRs
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 24/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 12:51:31 +0530 S. No. Name Age Relation (1) Anita Kaushal 56 Years Mother of the deceased (2) Pankaj Kaushal 34 Years Son of the deceased (3) Kanchan Kaushal 36 Years Daughter of the deceased Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Monthly Income of the Rs. 37,500/-
deceased(A)
8. Add-Future Prospects 15% (B)
9. Less-Personal expenses One half deduction has been done of the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs.21,562.50/-
dependency[(A+B)-
C=D] MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 25/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 12:51:37 +0530
11. Annual loss of Rs.2,58,750/-
dependency (Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) '9'
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.23,28,750/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) Rs.1,59,545/-
15. Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,32,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of NIL love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs. 20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards Rs. 20,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL Rs.26,60,295/-
COMPENSATION
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 26/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:51:45 +0530
20. RATE OF INTEREST 8% AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the Rs.12,23,736- (rounded off) date of award(M)
22. Total amount including Rs.38,83,831/- interest(L + M)
23. Award amount released P-1 : Rs.5,05,351/-
P-2 : Rs.64,240/-
P-3 : Rs.64,240/-
24.
Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
25.
Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioner (s) MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 27/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:51:50 +0530
26.
Next date for compliance 16/11/2023
of the award
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2023.10.13
12:51:56
+0530
(DR.PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/13.10.2023
MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 28/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:52:02 +0530 CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 13.10.2023.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 16.11.2023.
Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:52:07 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/13.10.2023 MACT No.5/18 Anita Kaushal & Ors. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Ors. Pages No. 29/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 12:52:13 +0530