Delhi District Court
Anugrah Yadav vs Sukhjeet Singh And Ors on 2 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH, DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01,
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.535/2021
CNR No.DLWT010093082021
1. Anugrah (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Akshay Baliyan
Aged about 42 years
2. Vachi Baliyan (daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Akshay Baliyan
Aged about 18 months
3. Munesh Devi (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Devender Singh
Aged about 55 years
4. Davinder Singh (Father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Brahm Pal Singh
Aged about 57 years
All R/o H. No. D-32, Gali No. 7, D-Blok,
West Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara Dayalpur,
North East Delhi, Delhi-110094
(Petitioner No.2 is minor through
her mother/pettioner no.1 being her Guardian)
..............Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
1. Sukhjeet Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Karam Singh
R/o WZ-III/B-55, Vishnu Garden
New Delhi-110018
Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.1 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.05.03
15:16:36 +0530
2. Eric Charles (Owner)
S/o Sh. Reginald Charles
R/o 3 F/22, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
FAI Building, 1st Floor, 10,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Qutab
Institutional Area, Delhi-110016.
Date of Institution : 03.12.2021
Date of reserving order/judgment : 02.05.2024
Date of pronouncement : 02.05.2024
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 11.09.2021
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 18.12.2021
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II 18.12.2021
to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 18.12.2021
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 18.12.2021
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 18.12.2021
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 18.12.2021
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 18.12.2021
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Investigating Officer? If
Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.2 of 33
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.05.03
15:17:21 +0530
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the 10.03.2022
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed by
claimant(s) to the offer of the insurance company
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 02.05.2024
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 18.12.2021
claimant(s) was/were directed
to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar 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) 09.04.2024
produced the passbook of
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.3 of 33
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.05.03
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential H. No. D-32, Gali No. 7, D-
Address of the claimant(s). Blok, West Jyoti Nagar,
Shahdara Dayalpur, North
East Delhi, Delhi-110094
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide
claim/DAR for compensation on account of death of Sh. Akshay
Baliyan in a road vehicular accident which took place on
11.09.2021 at about 12:35 AM at Satguru Ram Singh Marg,
Opposite Crystal Place Banquet Hall, Mayapuri, Delhi.
CASE OF PETITIONER SIDE
2. Succinctly, the case put forth by petition/DAR is
that on 11.09.2021, deceased was going on his motorcycle
bearing registration no. DL5SBR5185. At about 12:35 AM, when
deceased reached Satguru Ram Singh Marg, Opposite Crystal
Place Banquet Hallm Mayapuri, Delhi, the car bearing
registration no. HR51AH2597 which was driven by respondent
no.1 in rash manner, in negligent manner and in fast speed hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to same, deceased fell on road and sustained fatal injuries over his head and all other parts of his body. Deceased was shifted to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.4 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:17:30 +0530
where he was declared brought dead. Post mortem of deceased was conducted at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi. Incident happened due to rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1. FIR No. 374/2021 was registered at PS Mayapuri against the respondent no.1. The incident happened solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. All the petitioners were dependent upon deceased. Deceased was working as Medicine Supplier and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. The petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs.95,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Lakhs Only) as compensation from the respondents.
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. Notice of the application/petition was issued to the respondents, they appeared and filed their WS/reply to the present petition/application.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.01 4.1 In gist, the response of the respondents no.01 as discernible from his separate reply/written statement is that petitioner side has no cause of action against respondent no.1. This petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. No incident ever took place on the given date or time with averred offending vehicle. He has been falsely implicated in the present case in collusion with police and other witnesses to extort money. Other contents of petition were denied by respondent no.1 and has prayed for dismissal of the same. RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.02 4.2 In gist, the response of the respondents no.02 as discernible from his separate reply/written statement is that on Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.5 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.05.03
15:17:35 +0530
the day of incident on 10.09.2021 at about 19:07 hours, he has handed over his vehicle in question to valet attendant Sh. Sukhjeet Singh (respondent no.1) to park his vehicle against token No. 17-11654. There is no negligence on his part. The deceased was driving his vehicle in high speed, in rash manner and negligent manner at the time of incident. Deceased while trying to prevent collision with unknown black colour car dashed into his stationary averred offending vehicle parked by valet attendant/driver. Police had not made any efforts to trace unknown black colour car and has implicated their stationary vehicle parked by valet attendant/driver. Averred offending vehicle was duly insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company at the time of incident. With these averments, respondent no.2 has prayed for dismissal of the same. RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.03 4.3 In gist, the response of the respondent no.03 as discernible from its reply/written statement is that vehicle in question was in stationary condition/parked in the parking lane(inside the white lane). Deceased was driving his bike rashly and negligently. He in order to avoid collision with another black car (which was taking turn), slipped and got hit against the vehicle in question. Incident in question took place due to sole negligence of deceased himself who was driving his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner. There was no negligence on the part of driver of the averred offending vehicle. With these main averments, respondent no.3 has prayed for dismissal of the same. ISSUES 5.1 After completion of pleadings, on 08.06.2022, Ld. Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.6 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:17:40 +0530
Schooler Predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues: -
1. Whether the deceased Akshay Baliyan suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 11.09.2021 at about 12:35 AM due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration number HR51AH2597 by respondent no.01 Sh. Sukhjeet singh, being owned by respondent no.02 Sh. Eric Charles and being insured with respondent no.03? OPP
2. Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
5.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE 6.1 The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) examined petitioner No.4 as PW-1 to establish their claim. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of their application/petition. He relied upon copy of Aadhar cards of petitioner No.1, 3 & 4 Ex.PW1/1, photocopy of ITRs of deceased for the assessment years 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 Mark PW1/2, photocopy of birth certificate of petitioner no.2 Mark B and DAR Ex.PW1/3 in his evidence.
PW1 was cross-examined at length by respondent no.1, respondent no.3/Insurance Company, was not cross-examined by respondent no.2 which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged.
6.2 Petitioner side has also examined Sh. Prakash Singh, Notice Server from the Office of Income Tax Department as PW- 2 who has brought on record his authority letter dated 07.11.2022 issued by Income Tax Officer as Ex. PW2/1 and Income Tax Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.7 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.05.03
15:17:44 +0530
Returns of deceased Akshay Baliyan for the assessment years 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 as Ex.PW2/2 in his evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
6.3 The petitioner has also examined petitioner No.1 as PW-3 to establish their claim. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A reiterating and supporting the contents of their application/petition. She relied upon photocopies of educational qualification certificate of deceased Ex.PW3/1 in her evidence. PW3 was cross-examined at length by respondent no.1, respondent no.3/Insurance Company, was not cross-examined by respondent no.2 which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged.
RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE
7. Despite grant of number of opportunities, no evidence was led by any of the respondent.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS 8.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01. The deceased was working as Medicine Supplier and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month at the time of incident. All the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased. Award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of applicant(s)/claimant(s)/LR(s).
8.2 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.01 are that the petitioner side has failed to prove that incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.8 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.05.03
15:17:47 +0530
respondent no.1. Petitioner side has failed to prove the job/business/work and income of the deceased. With these main submissions/contentions, the respondent no.01 has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8.3 No arguments were addressed by respondent no.2 despite grant of number of opportunities.
8.4 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.03 are that the petitioner side has failed to prove that incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Mother was not dependent upon deceased as his husband was working and earning. Wife was also not dependent upon deceased as she is working and earning Rs.70,000- per month. Petitioner side has failed to prove the job/business/work and income of the deceased. Incident happened due to sole negligence of deceased himself who was driving his vehicle in rash manner, in negligent manner and was over speeding. There is no negligence on the part of respondent no.1 in parking of the vehicle in question. With these main submissions/contentions, the respondent no.03 has prayed for dismissal of the petition. ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES 9.1 (1)Whether the deceased Akshay Baliyan suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 11.09.2021 at about 12:35 AM due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration number HR51AH2597 by respondent no.01 Sh. Sukhjeet singh, being owned by respondent no.02 Sh. Eric Charles and being insured with respondent no.03? OPP 9.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.9 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:17:52 +0530
apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil court. In civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy as it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under the M. V. Act, this burden is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgments in the case of "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 9.3 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties. The petitioner side has certainly not examined any eye witness to the incident in present matter, therefore, in given circumstances, it needs to decided whether the evidence brought on record is sufficient in itself to establish rashness and negligence in driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent driver upto the standard of proof required in such matters as is discussed above.
Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.10 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.05.03
15:17:57 +0530
9.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its full bench
decision in matter "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta & Ors." (2011) 10 SCC 509 has made following observations about inquiry contemplated under MV Act:-
"5. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the dependant family members) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Tribunals and determination of compensation by Tribunals:
(i) A proceedings for award of compensation in regard to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated either on an application for compensation made by the persons aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or section 163A of the Act or suo moto by the Tribunal, by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the tribunal under section 158(6) of the Act as an application for compensation under section 166 (4) of the Act.(iii) In a proceedings initiated suo moto by the tribunal, the owner and driver are the respondents. The insurer is not a respondent, but a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act. Where a claim petition is filed by the injured or by the legal representatives of a person dying in a motor accident, the driver and owner have to be impleaded as respondents. The claimants need not inplead the insurer as a party. But they have the choice of impleading the insurer also as a party respondent.
When it is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal is required to issue a notice under section 149(2) of the Act. If the insurer is impleaded as a party, it is issued as a regular notice of the proceedings.
(v) Though the tribunal adiudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. On receipt of an application (either from the applicant or suo motu registration), the Tribunal gives notice to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act, gives an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the claim petition as also the insurer, holds an inquiry into the claim and makes an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. (Vide Section 168 of the Act).
(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.11 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.05.03
15:18:00 +0530
procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide section 169 of the Act).
We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute."
9.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Dulcina Fernandes & ors. Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr." (2013) 10 SCC 646 while relying upon the above full bench decision has held/observed as under:- .
"8. However, there are certain other features of the case which are more fundamental and, therefore, have to be specifically noticed. CW-2, who was at the relevant time working as the Head Constable of Main Eurtorim, Police Station, had deposed that a criminal case was registered against the first respondent in connection with the accident and that after investigation he was chargesheeted and sent up for trial. Though it is submitted at the Bar that the first respondent was acquitted in the said case what cannot be overlooked is the fact that upon investigation of the case registered against the first respondent, prime facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial.. "
9.6 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in matter "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & ors." 2009 ACJ 287 has held/observed as under:-
"11. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR NO. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.12 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:18:04 +0530
criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver.
9.7 In view of the abovecited case law, it is clear that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals only hold inquiry for determination of compensation on occurrence of an accident and they do not sit in a suit or adversarial lis in traditional sense. The factum of the driver of offending vehicle being chargesheeted by police after investigation of the criminal matter is also prima facie sufficient to infer that he was negligent and responsible for the incident in question. A Tribunal can certainly rely upon the records of the case of criminal matter to reach such a conclusion.
9.8 In this matter to prove the rashness and negligence, the petitioner side has examined PW-1 who has specifically deposed that his son met with an accident with car bearing registration No. HR51AH2597 which was parked illegally on road without parking lights and without any indication qua same. He has also specifically deposed that the incident happened due to wrong parking of the offending vehicle. PW-1 has also exhibited the DAR Ex.PW1/3 in his evidence. IO filed DAR which consists of site plan of place of incident, the mechanical inspection report of vehicle, copy of final report filed under Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.13 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.05.03
15:18:08 +0530
Section 173 Cr. PC after conclusion of investigation, the recovery memos etc. etc. IO has also filed on record CCTV footage of the place of incident which has covered the incident along with DAR. The factum that driver of vehicle in question was challaned under Sections 279/336/304A IPC after conclusion of investigation supports and affirms the case of the petitioner side that incident happened due to his rash and negligent act of offending vehicle by respondent no.1 driver. As far as contentions of respondent no.1 that he has been falsely implicated in this case is concerned, his contention cannot be accepted in view of the response of respondent no.2 that he had provided the vehicle in question on the date of incident for parking to him only.
9.9 The respondent no.01/driver was the best witness who could have rebutted the case of rashness and negligence of driving of the offending vehicle put forth by petitioner/claimant side. But respondent no.01/driver has chosen not to come in witness box to disprove the case of the petitioner side on said aspect. In the given circumstances, adverse inference also needs to be drawn against respondents. Reliance can be placed upon the decision "Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh" 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310 upon said issue/aspect.
9.10 Respondent no.3 has also raised contentions that it is visible in the CCTV footage that vehicle of the deceased was at high speed. The vehicle of deceased was first hit by one unknown black colour car and then the vehicle of the deceased dashed against their vehicle which was parked by the side of the road. It Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.14 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:18:14 +0530
is contended by respondent no.3 that there is no negligence on the part of driver of their vehicle as their vehicle was parked beyond white line meant for parking. Perusal of CCTV footage leaves no doubt that one unknown black colour car has also contributed to the incident. The speed of the vehicle of the deceased does not appear to be unreasonably high, so as to attribute any negligence on the part of deceased. As far as, the averred offending vehicle is concerned, it was certainly parked on the extreme left side of the road, but no evidence has been brought on record by any of the respondents that there is valid parking authorized by any government agency there. Though, it is correct that white line on the extreme left side of the road demarcates the motor-able road, but it does not mean that road beyond same is meant for parking unless it is so especially marked/provided/authorized.
9.11 Rule 22 of The Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 published by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide publication no.G.S.R.634(E) dated 23.06.2017 under powers conferred vide Section 118 of M. V. Act, 1988 provides as under : -
"22. Stopping and parking.- (1) A vehicle shall not be stopped : -
i. at a place where the road is narrow or the view is obstructed;
ii. near or on a sharp bend;
iii. in an acceleration or a deceleration lane; iv. on, or five meters before, a pedestrian crossing; v. on a level crossing;
vi. five meters or less before a traffic light signal or "Give Way" sign or "STOP" sign or if a stationary vehicle is likely to obstruct these signs from the view of other road users;
vii. at designated bus stands if the vehicle is other than a bus;
viii. on a yellow box marked on road; and Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.15 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:18:19 +0530
ix. where prohibited by a mandatory "No Stopping"
sign.
(2) A vehicle shall not be parked : -
(a) at a place where stopping a vehicle is prohibited under sub-regulation (1);
(b) on a main road or at a stretch of a road where the notified maximum speed limit is fifty kilometres per hour or more;
(c) on a footpath, cycle track and pedestrian crossing;
(d) before or after an intersection or a junction up to a distance of fifty meters from the edge of the intersection or junction;
(e) where it would block access to designated parking spaces;
(f) near a bus stop, at the entrance to an educational institution or a hospital or if it is likely to block a traffic sign or a fire hydrant;
(g) in a tunnel;
(h) in a bus lane;
(i) in front of the entrance or exit of a property;
(j) where there is a continuous yellow line installed or painted on the carriageway on the kerb side;
(k) away from the edge of the footpath;
(l) opposite another parked vehicle;
(m) if it is likely obstruct any other vehicle or cause inconvenience to any person;
(n) alongside another parked vehicle;
(o) beyond the specified duration at a place where parking is permitted for a specified duration only;
(p) in a place where parking is permitted for a specified category or categories of vehicles and the vehicle does not belong to the specified category;
(q) by a driver who is not differently abled in a parking space reserved for vehicles driven by differently abled drivers;
(r) in a manner other than that specified in the parking bays in a designated parking lot or in such a manner as to occupy excessive space; and
(s) where parking is prohibited by a "No Parking"
sign."
9.12 It is not in dispute that incident happened at Satguru Ram Singh Marg, Mayapuri, Delhi which is main road of the area. The offending vehicle bearing registration no. HRAH2597 was parked by the side of the road. It is also clear from site plan Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.16 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.05.03
15:18:22 +0530
of the place of incident available on record as part of DAR and from CCTV footage that there was intersection in the road just prior to the place where the offending vehicle in question was parked. Many other vehicles were also parked near the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle and other parked vehicles must have been obstructing other vehicles passing thereby considering the traffic on the road in question. The motorcycle of the deceased was struck by the unknown black colour car at the intersection and thereafter it dashed against the offending vehicle in question. The offending vehicle in question could not have been parked there as per above bold part of rule cited. Hence, the driver of the offending vehicle in question has certainly been negligent in parking the vehicle in question at the spot of incident. Had the vehicle in question not being parked there at the spot of incident, the deceased would not have struck against offending vehicle resulting into fatal injuries. In given circumstances, the driver of the offending vehicle has certainly contributory negligence in the present incident. Since, the driver, owner and insurer of unknown black colour car are not party before this Tribunal, therefore, this Tribunal cannot affix the percentage of contributory negligence on the part of driver of the said unknown black colour car and the respondent no.1. It was also not imperative upon petitioner(s)/claimant(s) to implead all joint tort feasers and their petition is certainly maintainable even against one of the joint tort feasers. Reliance can be placed upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matters of "Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company & Others" (2015) 9 SCC 273 and "Kamlesh & Ors. v. Attar Singh & Ors." (2015) Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.17 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:18:26 +0530
15 SCC 364 upon said issue. So, in the totality of circumstances, this Tribunal sees no substance in the contentions of the respondents that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, the deceased has contributed to the incident and there is no negligence of the part of driver of their vehicle. 9.13 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant side has been able to bring on record such facts which establishes at the scales required that the incident in question took place at least due to contributory negligence on the part of driver/respondent no.1 of the offending vehicle bearing registration number HR51AH2597 on the date and time of the incident. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s) and against the respondents.
Issue No.(ii) : - Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP. 10.1 The petitioner(s) is/are certainly entitled for compensation in view of decision of above issue. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding lamp post judgments qua methodology and considerations for assessing/ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular death cases. 10.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121 has held : -
QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES "9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the
(c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.18 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.05.03
15:18:30 +0530
to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions.
There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps : -
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added."
QUA ADDITIONS
"11. ..................... In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.19 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.05.03
15:18:35 +0530
exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
QUA DEDUCTIONS "14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."
QUA MULTIPLIER "21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
10.3 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its constitution bench decision in matter of "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : -
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.20 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:18:39 +0530
think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
10.4 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Tribunal needs to ascertain the age of deceased/victim, the appropriate multiplier, income of the Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.21 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:18:42 +0530
deceased at the time of incident, the educational qualification of deceased, the number of dependents, whether deceased was married or unmarried, whether deceased was having permanent employment or private job etc. etc. to workout just compensation in this case. Award also needs to be passed qua non-pecuniary heads as envisaged and in terms of above judgments. Hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above prepositions.
DETERMINATION OF AGE & MULTIPLIER 10.5 The date of incident is 11.09.2021. As per copy of educational qualification certificates of deceased Ex.PW3/1, the date of birth of the deceased is 11.12.1994. Hence, deceased was 27 years of age at the time of incident and his age is considered accordingly. He fell in age bracket of 41 to 45. Hence, the multiplier applicable to this case would be 17. DETERMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION 10.6 Copy of educational qualification certificates of deceased are available on record as Ex.PW3/1. Same were not controverted by respondent side during evidence. So, the educational qualification of the deceased is taken to be as Graduate.
DETERMINATION OF MONTHLY INCOME 10.7 It is claimed that deceased was working as Medicine Supplier and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. In order to prove the income of the deceased, petitioner side has examined Sh. Prakash Singh, Notice Server from Income Tax Department as PW-2 who has brought on record the ITRs of the deceased for Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.22 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:18:46 +0530
the assessment years 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 as Ex.PW2/2. As per ITRs for the assessment year 2020-2021, gross income of deceased was Rs.4,64,130/- per annum. So, the monthly income of the deceased shall be considered as Rs.38,678/- per month (after rounding of Rs.38677.5) (Rs.4,64,130/12) DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE 10.8 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors." decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on the basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects has to be given in accordance with guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as applicable to self employed or privately employed persons.
10.9 The deceased was aged less than 40 years at the time of incident and had non-permanent job, so the future prospects/benefits applicable to the present case would be 40%. ASSESSMENT/DETERMINATION OF ENHANCED MONTHLY INCOME 10.10 As has already been held, income of deceased as Rs.38,678/- per month would be applicable in this case and an addition of 40% needs to be made qua future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs.54,150/- (after rounding off Rs.54,149.2/-) (Rs.38,678/- + Rs.15471.2/- which is 40% of Rs.38,678/-). DETERMINATION OF DEDUCTIONS Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.23 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.05.03
15:18:50 +0530
10.11(i) There is no dispute that the deceased is survived by
his wife (petitioner no.1), daughter (petitioner no.2), mother (petitioner no.3) and father (petitioner no.4). Ld. counsel for petitioner side has argued that wife of the deceased and mother were also dependent upon the deceased at the time of incident. In support of their contention, Ld. counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment titled as "The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Parsharam Garud & Ors." First Appeal No. 1271 of 2014 decided on 03.11.2015 by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Per contra, contentions of respondent side are that only child was dependent upon the deceased at the time of incident. Contentions of both side considered. 10.11(ii) It has come on record in the cross-examination of PW-1 that petitioner No.4 is a government servant and is earning handsomely. Petitioner no.3, therefore, cannot be taken as dependent upon deceased in view of her husband/the petitioner no.4 being alive and earning handsomely. It has also come on record in the evidence of PW-3/petitioner No.1 that she is also working and is earning around Rs.70,000/- per month. The income of the petitioner no.1 is also certainly way beyond the proved income of the deceased. The petitioner no.1 therefore, could also not be taken as dependent upon the deceased in the present matter. Petitioner No.4 being father of the deceased and earning can also not be taken as dependent upon deceased. Hence, only child i.e. petitioner no.2 needs to be taken as dependent upon deceased. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased needs to be taken 1/2nd in this matter. Hence, 1/2nd would be deducted towards personal and living Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.24 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:18:53 +0530 expenses of the deceased. DETERMINATION OF MULTIPLICAND 10.12 The monthly income of the deceased after
enhancement needs to be taken as Rs.54,150/-. A deduction of 1/2nd needs to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.27,075/-(after deducting 1/2nd of Rs.54,150/-). This product needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs.3,24,900/- (Rs.27,075/- x 12).
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY 10.13 The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.55,23,300/- (Rs.3,24,900/- x 17), hence, so awarded. COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF ESTATE 10.14 The loss of estate is awarded as Rs.18,000/- (15,000/- + 20% enhancement).
COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 10.15 Since, there are four claimants who are wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased entitled to award under this head, hence, an amount of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000 + 20% enhancement) is awarded under this head.
COMPENSATION QUA FUNERAL EXPENSES 10.16 An amount of Rs.18,000/- (15,000/- + 20% enhancement) is awarded towards funeral expenses. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT OF ALL HEADS 10.17 In view of above discussions and awards passed Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.25 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:18:58 +0530
under different heads, this Tribunal hereby pass an award of sum of Rs.56,07,300/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Seven Thoussand and Three Hundred Only) (Rs.55,23,300/- + Rs.18,000/- + Rs.48,000/- + Rs.18,000/-) in favour of petitioner(s) and against the respondents.
R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.03
11. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of Rs.56,07,300/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Seven Thoussand and Three Hundred Only) as compensation along-with interest @ 7% per annum (including interim award, if any) from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 03.12.2021 till the date of the payment of award amount, in favour of the petitioner(s) and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
12. As the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the respondent no.03/Insurance company, respondent no.03/insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s). In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.26 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.05.03
15:19:03 +0530
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANT(S) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
13.1 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003 titled as "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors." has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018. The same has been made effective from 01.01.2019. Said order provides 21 banks including State Bank of India as one of the banks which have to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 13.2 The Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is also directed to release/disburse share of the award amount of petitioners in the MACT account no.110174134117 maintained with Canara Bank, Thana Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi, IFSC Code; CNRB0019108 of petitioner No.1 Anugrah, MACT account no.110174140291 maintained with Canara Bank, Thana Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi, IFSC Code; CNRB0019108 of petitioner No.2 Vachi Baliyan, MACT account no.42863534427 maintained with State Bank of India, Seemapuri, C Block, New Seemapuri, Delhi, IFSC Code:
SBIN0004839 of petitioner No.3 Munesh Devi and MACT account no.42863436113 maintained with State Bank of India, Seemapuri, C Block, New Seemapuri, Delhi, IFSC Code:
SBIN0004839 of petitioner No.4 Davinder Singh as mentioned/directed hereinafter in tabulated form.
Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.27 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.05.03
15:19:07 +0530
13.3 The compensation to the petitioners shall be
distributed/disbursed as follows : -
Sr. Name of Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount kept Period of FDRs
No. petitioner DOB with Amount award to be in FDRs with cumulative
/ injured/ released interest
claimant deceased
1. Anugrah 12.01.19 Wife 15,41,300/- 5,41,300/- Rs.10,00,000 Rs.10,00,000/-
79 /- + 1/2nd + 1/2nd interest
interest accrued shall be
accrued kept in the form
of equal
monthly FDRs
of Rs.20,000/-
for the period of
50 months +
months which
comes out of
division of
interest
accumulated by
Rs.20,000/-.
The remainder,
if any to be
added in the last
FDR. The
amount of
FDRs along-
with interest
after maturity
shall be released
to the
petitioner
/claimant on
monthly basis
as per above
previous orders.
2. Vachi 11.01.20 Daughte 40,00,000/- NIl Rs.40,00,000 Rs.40,00,000/-
Baliyan 21 r /- + 1/2nd along with
interest 1/2nd interest
accrued accrued shall
be kept in the
form of one
FDRs. Half of
the amount
including
accrued interest
shall be released
Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.28 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.05.03
15:19:12 +0530
to the claimant
at the time of
attaining the age
of majority and
remaining
amount then
shall be
converted into
another one
FDR which
shall be released
with interest at
the time of her
marriage.
3. Munesh 01.02.19 Mother 33,000/- 33,000/- Nil NIl
Devi 66
4. Davinder 01.01.19 Father 33,000/- 33,000/- Nil NIl
Singh 64
TOTAL Rs.56,07,300/-
13.4 The following conditions shall be adhered to by
SBI, Tis Hazari Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s).
However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.29 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:19:16 +0530
the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
13.5 In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in "Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors.", Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022- 22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e- mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
14. The respondent no.03/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount with the account of this Tribunal within 45 days. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.30 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:19:20 +0530
amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on 06.07.2024
15. A copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost.
16. 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).
17. File be consigned to Record Room after due Digitally signed compliance. by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH Announced in the open Court SINGH Date:
2024.05.03 today i.e. on 2nd of May, 2024 15:19:24 +0530 (HARVINDER SINGH) District Judge-cum-PO: MACT-01(West) THC/Delhi/02.05.2024 Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.31 of 33
FORM -XV SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 03.12.2021
2. Name of the deceased : Akshay Baliyan
3. Age of the deceased : 27 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Not proved
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.38,678/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased : -
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
(i) Anugrah 12.01.1979 Wife
(ii) Vachi Baliyan 11.01.2021 Daughter
(iii) Munesh Devi 01.02.1966 Mother
(iv) Davinder Singh 01.01.1964 Father
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.38,678/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/2nd deduction has
deceased(C) been done
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.27075/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.3,24,900/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 17
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.55,23,300/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.32 of 33 Digitally signed
HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.03 15:19:31 +0530
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.48,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL and affection(I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.18,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,000/-
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.56,07,300/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7% per annum AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the Rs.9,48,568/-
date of award (M) (w.e.f. 03.12.2021 to 02.05.2024 i.e. 2 years 4 months and 30 days)
22. Total amount including Rs.65,55,868/-
interest (L + M) (Rs.56,07,300- +
9,48,568/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.6,07,300/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.50,00,000/- along
with 1/2nd interest
accrued.
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant (s).
26. Next date for compliance of 06.07.2024 the award.
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.05.03
15:19:36 +0530
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO: MACT-01(West) THC/Delhi/02.05.2024 Anugrah Yadav (LR) vs. Sukhjeet Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.535/2021] Page No.33 of 33