Delhi District Court
Sh. Purshotam vs Sh. Jagannath on 13 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR - III
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02
(CENTRAL):DELHI
MACT No. 56644-16
1. Sh. Purshotam
S/o Late Sh. Ala Ram
2. Smt. Dai
W/o Sh. Purshotam
Both R/o H.No.H-2/795, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi-110033.
........Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Jagannath
S/o Sh. Ram Jatan
R/o H.No. 38-A, 365, 38A/T, Huts
CD Park, Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033.(Driver cum Registered Owner)
2. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Regd. H.O. 1st Floor, Ferns Icon,
Survey No. 28, Doddanakundi,
Bangalore-560037 (India)
Division Office
2nd Floor, Big Jose Tower,
A-8, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi.(Insurer)
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 15/12/2015
Date of concluding arguments : 13/11/2019
Date of pronouncement of judgment/award : 13/11/2019
MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 1/12
JUDGMENT CUM AWARD
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 27/09/2015
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the NA
Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the NA
Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. NA
before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information NA
Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Company. NA
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). NA
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed NA
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents filed NA
with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the NA
part of the Investigating Officer ? If so, whether any
action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by Not Mentioned
the Insurance Company
13. Name, address and contact number of the Not Mentioned
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance No
Company submitted his report within 30 days of the
DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the No
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the Yes
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of NA
MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 2/12
the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 13/11/2019
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of No
the parties?
20. Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open Yes
savings bank account (s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant (s) were directed to 23/04/2019
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.
22. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 27/05/2019
passbook of their savings bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s). H.No. 795, H-2,Block,
Jahangirpuri, Delhi-
110033
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the Petitioner No. 1
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC 00900100016855 &
Code. Petitioner No. 2
00900100016856 both
maintained with Bank
of Baroda Branch
Model Town, Delhi.
IFCS Code
BARBOMODELT
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account (s) Yes
in near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant (s) were examined at the time Yes
of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition?
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, name SBI, Tis Hazari Courts,
and branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in Delhi.
which the award amount is to be
deposited/transfered.
MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 3/12
1. This judgment cum award shall decide the petition under Section 163A
of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as Act) filed
by petitioners for grant of compensation for the death of Sh. Laxman in the road
vehicular accident.
2. The case of the petitioners are that on 27.09.2015, deceased Laxman
was travelling in Tata 709 bearing registration No.-DL-1LM1897 alongwith 30 to 35
passengers. They all started their journey from Azadpur Subzi Mandi and were
going to submerge the idol of Lord Ganesh in river Yamuna. The deceased was
carrying Indian tri color flag fitted in Bamboo Stick and when they reached near
Gopalpur Red Light, the stick got touched to high tension wire and therefore electric
spark occurred and rear part of Tata 709 was elevated and 7-8 persons were
electrocuted including the deceased. The deceased Laxman was removed to BJRM
Hospital Jahangirpuru and from there he was referred to Trauma Centre LNJP
where he expired on 02.10.2015.The petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.
Fifteen Lakhs on account of fatal injuries sustained by the deceased in the
vehicular accident.
3. The written statement was filed by Respondent No. 1 wherein he
categorically denied the rash and negligent aspect and also described the contents
of the petition to be false one.
4. The written statement was filed by Respondent No.2 insurance
company wherein it is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it as on
the date and time of accident.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, Issues were framed on 27/02/2017
but during the course of final arguments today, it has come to the notice of this
Court that Issue No. 1 has not been properly framed and accordingly same is
reframed today which is as under:-
1.Whether on 27/09/2015 at about 03.03 P.M near
Gopalpur Red Light, Delhi, Sh. Laxman received fatal
injuries due to road accident arising out of use of
TATA 709 bearing registration No. DL-1M-1897? OPP
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 4/12
6. In order to establish their claim, the Petitioner No. 1 examined herself
as PW-1 (father of the deceased) who exhibited the documents I.e copies of
election I-Card, Aadhar Card and ration card, copies of election I Card, Aadhar
Card, School leaving certificate of the deceased as Ex PW1/1.
The petitioners also examined Sh. Raju, JR. Assistant, Forensic,
Medicine Department, Maulana Azad College, Delhi & HC Shyam Lal as PW-2 &
PW-3 respectively.
7. The Respondent No. 1 examined himself as R1W1 in his defence, The
insurance company also examined its official as R2W1 in its defence.
8. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
perused the record. I have also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments
addressed by learned counsel for the parties.
My issue-wise findings are as follows:
Issue No.1
1.Whether on 27/09/2015 at about 03.03 P.M
near Gopalpur Red Light, Delhi, Sh. Laxman
received fatal injuries due to road accident
arising out of use of TATA 709 bearing
registration No. DL-1M-1897? OPP
9. In claim petition filed by LRs of deceased for compensation u/s 163A
of M.V. Act, the petitioners are not required to plead or establish that the death in
respect of which claim has been made, was due to any wrongful act or
negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle or for any other reason. They need
to prove only the involvement/use of the vehicle in the accident to claim
compensation against the owner and insurer, according to the second schedule
of the Motor Vehicles Act.
10. Sh. Purushottam/PW1 in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A)
narrated the entire sequence of events which led to the accident and consequent
MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 5/12
death of Laxman.
RW1 namely Jagannath driver cum registered owner of the offending
vehicle has examined himself in his defence and admitted that deceased namely
Laxman was sitting in his tempo at the time of accident.
11. Although, it was admitted by learned Counsel for respondent No.2 that
the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1M-1897 (Tata 709) was insured with
Bharati AXA General Insurance Co., it was claimed that there was no involvement
of the said Tata 709 and the accident was not caused by the said Tata 709. It is
alleged that deceased was holding a Bamboo Stick which got touched to a high
tension wire resulting the electric spark and the electrocution of the deceased
and the deceased himself was negligent while traveling in the insured vehicle
which was not meant for carrying persons.
12. The expression "caused by" and "arising out of" was considered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHIVAJI DAYANU PATIL & ANR. VS.
VATSCHALA UTTAM MORE reported as (1991) 3 SC CASES 530. The following
conclusion is relevant for deciding the present case as in the aforecited case
supra, the expression "caused by" and the expression "arising out of" were vividly
explained and it was held that arising out of has a wider connotation. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said case referred to Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 and observed as under:-
"Section 92-A was in the nature of a beneficial legislation enacted
with a view to confer the benefit of expeditious payment of a
limited amount by way of compensation to the victims of an
accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on the basis of no
fault liability. In the matter of interpretation of a beneficial legislation
the approach of the courts is to adopt a construction which
advances the beneficent purpose underlying the enactment in
preference to a construction which tends to defeat that purpose."
................
.............
(2) The word "use" has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immobile on account of a breakdown or mechanical defect or accident. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petrol tanker was not in the use at the time when it was lying on its MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 6/12 side after the collision with the truck."
It was further held, "The words "arising out of" have been used in various statutes in different contexts and have been construed by courts widely as well as narrowly, keeping in view the context in which they have been used in a particular legislation. In the context of motor accidents the expressions "caused by" and "arising out of" are often used in statutes. Although both these expressions imply a causal relationship between the accident resulting in injury and the use of the motor vehicle but they differ in the degree of proximity of such relationship. As compared to the expression "caused by", the expression "arising out of" has a wider connotation. The expression "caused by" was used in Sections 95(1)(b)(i) and (ii) and 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. In Section 92-A, the causal relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death or permanent disablement is not required to be direct and proximate and it can be less immediate. This construction of the expression "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" in Section 92- A enlarges the filed of protection made available to the victims of an accident and is in consonance with the beneficial object underlying the enactment."
13. In UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. AMIR BASHA reported as 2004 (2) SCC 23 (DB), the Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court considered various decisions and held as follows:-
"3. It is clear from the above decisions and in view of the object of the enactments, both under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and 1988 the expression "caused by" and arising out of have a wider connotation. Though the accident should be connected with the use of motor vehicle, but the said connection need not be direct and immediate. The expression "arising out of use of motor vehicle" as mentioned in Section 92-A of the 1939 Act and Section 165 of 1988 Act enlarges the filed of protection made available to the victims of an accident and is in consonance with the beneficial object underlying the enactment. From the expression employed namely "accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" in the place of "accident caused by the use of motor vehicle", it is clear that the Legislature wanted to enlarge the scope of the word "use"
and not to restrict it for denying compensation in deserving cases; accordingly we are of the view that the test should be whether the accident was reasonably proximate to the use of a motor vehicle, whether or not the motor vehicle was in motion then. We should not forget that these provisions are made in order to help the victims. We are of the view that restrictive interpretation should not be given for the word "use". We are also of the view that the expression "arising out of the use of motor vehicle" has to be given MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 7/12 a wider meaning. We are also of the view that "use of motor vehicle" need not necessarily be so intimate and closely direct as to make it "a motor accident" in the sense in which that expression is used in common parlance. Accordingly, we hold that the death of Absar arose out of the use of motor vehicle, and the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 herein are entitled to compensation for the death of their son Absar."
14. In RITA DEVI VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., 2000 ACJ 801 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the expression "arising out of the use of the motor vehicle" in the context of death or permanent disablement suffered due to the accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle and gave it even a wider interpretation even to include the situation where a murder can be treated as accident in a given case.
15. The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in RITA DEVI (SUPRA) and SHIVAJI DAYANU PATIL (SUPRA) was discussed and followed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in a case titled as NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. MUNESH DEVI reported as 2012 (2) TN MAC 125 (DELHI). This was a case where the deceased parked a tanker and climbed over the same to check the inside condition of the tanker, when he came in contact with an overhead electric wire and died on the spot. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court after discussing a catena of judgments including the ones cited above held that the accident in question arose out of the use of the motor vehicle and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to compensation u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
16. In view of the law discussed in the aforesaid judgments, there is not an iota of doubt that the accident in question arose out of the use of Tata 709 bearing registration No.DL-1M-1897 which caused death of Laxman.
17. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 8/12Findings on Issue No.2/Compensation Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
18. As per the latest amendment to the Second Scheduled of Section 163A amended vide Notification No.1829 dated 22th May 2018, the minimum compensation shall not be less than 5 Lacs in the petition u/s 163A of the MV Act. As such, petitioners are entitled for such compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. ISSUE NO.3:R E L I EF 19 I award Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the petition I.e. 15.12.2015 till the date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several. The Petitioners No. 1 & 2 shall have equal share in the award amount.
20. Statements of Petitioners no. 1 & 2 were recorded on 27/05/2019 regarding their financial status in terms of Clause 27 of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO No. 842/2003 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017, wherein they testified that they need about Rs. 15,000/- per month for their household expenses.
Acting on the guidelines issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors Vs Jaibir & Ors dated 07/12/2018, a sum of Rs. 62,500/- each be released to petitioners No. 1 & 2 from their share and balance amount of Rs. 1,87,500/- in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 07, 2018 shall be put in 25 monthly fixed deposits in their names in a nationalized bank of equal amount of Rs. 7500/- each for a period of one month to 25 months.
It is further directed that the interest accumulated on the principal amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization be also kept in the monthly FDRs of equal amount in the same ratio mentioned above, which shall be in continuation of the FDRs of the principal amount. [For Example, if a sum of Rs. 7500/- is put in 25 FDRs of equal amount of Rs. 7500/-, the interest from MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 9/12 the date of filing the petition till realization be put in FDRs as 26, 27, ...... monthly FDRs].
Besides the above-mentioned amount, amount of FDRs on maturity shall automatically be transferred in the saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of his / her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM Card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to them only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM Card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this tribunal.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
21. I have taken the note of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for insurer for recovery rights for the breach of the terms and condition of the policy.
22. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company vehemently argued that the offending vehicle was being used by the respondent no. 1 as a passenger vehicle whereas same was a commercial vehicle and the driver cum registered owner and father of the claimant have admitted during evidence that 30-35 passengers were sitting in the rear portion of the Tata 709 bearing registration no. DL- 1M-1897 and that the driver of the Tara 709 was negligent as he permitted 30-35 passengers to sit in the offending vehicle and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. It was further submitted by Insurance Company that because of the reason that the owner of the offending vehicle has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy as the driver of the offending vehicle was plying the commercial vehicle as a passenger vehicle by permitting 30-35 passengers in the vehicle which was not meant for a passenger vehicle. Accordingly, the insurance company be absolved of the liability.
23. In order to substantiate its claim, the insurance company examined its official Sh. Prakhar Singh as R2W1. He has proved the copy of insurance policy vide Ex R2W1/1, the notice dated 01.08.2018 vide Ex R2W1/2 and the original postal MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 10/12 receipt vide Ex R2W1/3 respectively.
24. Now the question arises is as to whether the insurance company should be absolved from its liability to pay the compensation amount or it should be granted recovery rights. Counsel for claimants has relied upon the following two judgments.
"National Insurance Co Ltd Vs.Baljeet Kaur & Ors, 2004 ACJ, 428 (SC)" and "Singh Ram Vs, Nirmala & Ors, Civil Appeal No 2013 of 2018 decided on 06.03.2018 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India". These judgments have been delivered by three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court.In the case of Baljeet Kaur deceased was found to be travelling as passenger in goods vehicle and it was held in para 21 of the judgment that insurance company should satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Similar view has been taken by two Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases "Manuara Khatun & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors., 2017 ACJ 1031(SC) & Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 82788279 of 2018 decided on 05.09.2018 and also by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in recent decision in the case of "Bhom Singh & Anr. Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd. & Anr.", MAC APP No. 81/18 decided on 27.07.18.
25 While applying the dictum of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above referred decisions to the facts of the present case, it is held that the insurance company is liable to satisfy the third party risk by paying the compensation amount at the first instance and thereafter, to recover the said amount from the insured/Respondent No.1.
26. The Respondent No: 2 being the insurer, is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of 30 days. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
27. The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon`ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi & ors vs. Jaivir Singh & ors decided on December 07, 2018:-
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit account of the MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 11/12 claimant i.e. saving bank account of the claimant shall be individual saving bank account and shall not a joint account.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
(iv) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
(v) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(vi) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant. 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 claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimant from any other branch of the bank.
28. A copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost.
29. 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).
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 13/12/2019.
Announced in the open court ( RAKESH KUMAR-III) On this 13th November, 2019 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/13/11/2019 MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 12/12 FORMAT-1 Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal MACT No. 56644-16
1. Sh. Purshotam S/o Late Sh. Ala Ram 2 Smt. Dai W/o Sh. Purushottam Both R/o H.No. 2/795, Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033.
........Petitioners Versus
1. Sh. Jagannath S/o Sh. Ram Jatan R/o H.No. 38-A, 365, 38A/T, Huts CD Park, Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033.(Driver cum Registered Owner)
2. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Regd. H.O. 1st Floor, Ferns Icon, Survey No. 28, Doddanakundi, Bangalore-560037 (India) Division Office 2nd Floor, Big Jose Tower, A-8, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi.(Insurer) .......Respondents MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 13/12 TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 27/09/2015
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Laxman
3. Age of the deceased. : About 22 years
4. Occupation of the deceased. Self employed
5. Income of the deceased : NA
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. Name Age Relation
No.
(i) Sh. Purushottam 45 Years Father of the deceased
(ii) Smt. DAi 40 Years Mother of the deceased
MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 14/12
7. Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Claim of Response of Amount
Petitioners(s) Respondent(s) Awarded
1. Income of the deceased(A) NA
2. Add-Future Prospects (B) NA
3. Less-Personal expenses of NA
the deceased(C)
4. Monthly loss of NA
dependency[(A+B)-C=D]
5. Annual loss of dependency NA
(Dx12)
6. Multiplier(E) NA
7. Total loss of dependency Rs. 5,00,000/- as
(Dx12xE= F) per notification
8. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
9.
Compensation for care and NIL
guidance of the minor child
10. Compensation for loss of NA
consortium(I)
11. Compensation for loss of NA
estate(J)
12. Compensation towards NA
funeral expenses(K)
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.5,.00,000-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 15/12
CONLCUSION
1. An award of Rs. 5,00,000 /-(Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the claim petition I.e 15/12/2015 till the date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 shall have equal share in the award amount
2. The petitioners No. 1 & 2 were examined by this Court for the financial status in accordance with the procedure laid down in MCTAP by the Hon'ble High Court.
3. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir and put the same on 13/12/2019.
MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 16/12MACT NO. 56644-16 13/11/2019 Present : Ld. Counsels for the parties.
During the course of final arguments, it has come to the notice of this Court that the Issue No.1 has not been properly framed. Issue No. 1 has been re framed today accordingly `which is as under:-
1. Whether on 27/09/2015 at about 03.03 P.M near Gopalpur Red Light, Delhi, Sh. Laxman received fatal injuries due to road accident arising out of use of TATA 709 bearing registration No. DL-1M-1897?
OPP Final arguments heard.
Put up for judgment at 4:00 PM.
( Rakesh Kumar - III )
P.O. MACT (Central - 02)
Delhi /13.11.2019
At 4:00 PM
Present: None.
Vide separate detailed judgment of even date today, I award Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing petition i.e. 15.12.2015 till realization in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several 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).
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 13.12.2019.
( Rakesh Kumar-III ) P.O. MACT-02 (Central) Delhi / 13.11.2019 MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 17/12
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Laxman suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 27.09.2015 at about 03.03 P.M involving TATA 709 bearing registration No. DL-1M-1897 driven and owned by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and insured with Respondent No.2.?OPP MACT No. 56644/16 Purshotam Vs Jagannath & Ors Page No. 18/12