Delhi District Court
Indu Dubey vs Munna on 1 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH, PRESIDING
OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01,
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No. 239/2021
CNR No.-DLWT01- 004818-2021
1. Indu Dubey (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Sudhakar Dwivedi
Aged 25 years
2. Jayas Dwivedi (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Sudhakar Dwivedi
Aged 04 years
3. Tejas Dwivedi (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Sudhakar Dwivedi
Aged 05 years
4. Satya Bhama (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Ambikesh Dwivedi
Aged 46 years
5. Ambikesh Kumar (father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Kapildev
Aged 48 years
All R/o H. No. C-486, Kh. No. 3/13,
Village Nathupura, Burari, North Delhi-110084
(Petitioner no.2 & 3 being are minors
represented through their Mother/Natural
Guardian Smt. Indu Dubey/Petitioner no.1)
..............Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
1. Munna (Driver)
S/o Sh. Kameshwar
R/o W-153/116, Rama Road,
Kirti Nagar, West Delhi-110015
2. Sinku Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Satendra Singh
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.1 of 30
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:11:40 +0530
R/o H. no. 317, Block-A, Sangam Colony,
Naraina Vihar, Phase-2, Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
3. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
1001, LGF, Naiwala, Arya Samaj Road,
Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Policy No. 101026/31/21/011921
Valid from 17.01.2021 to 16.01.2022
Date of Institution : 15.07.2021
Date of reserving order/judgment : 01.11.2023
Date of pronouncement : 01.11.2023
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 08.04.2021
2. Date of filing of Form-I - Form-1 (FAR) was not filed
First Accident Report (FAR) in the present matter
3. Date of delivery of Form-II Form-II was not filed in the
to the victim(s) present matter
4. Date of receipt of Form-III Form-III was not filed in the
from the Driver present matter
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV Form-IV was not filed in the
from the Owner present matter
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Form-V (IAR) was not filed
Interim Accident Report in the present matter
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA Form VIA & VIB were not
and Form-VIB from the filed in the present matter
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 04.01.2022
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Incident took place on
or deficiency on the part of 08.04.2021 and the DAR
the Investigating Officer? If was filed on 04.01.2022
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.2 of 30
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:11:55 +0530
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the 19.02.2022
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 the insurance company in
Insurance Company the present case
14. Date of the award 01.11.2023
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 04.01.2022
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) 26.09.2023
produced the passbook of
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.3 of 30
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:12:03 +0530
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential H. No. C-486, Kh. No. 3/13,
Address of the claimant(s). Village Nathupura, Burari,
North Delhi-110084
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 petition/application/DAR for compensation on account of
death of Sh.Sudhakar Dwivedi in a road vehicular accident which
took place on 08.04.2021 at about 10:24 PM Near Hindustan Veg
Picket within the jurisdiction of PS Kirti Nagar, District West,
Delhi.
CASE OF PETITIONER SIDE
2. Succinctly, the case put forward by petition/DAR is
that on 08.04.2021, Sudharkar Dwivedi (since deceased) was
returning to his house from his duty via Rama Road on his
motorcycle bearing registration No. DL4SCT2703. He was
driving it in normal speed and on correct side of the road. When
he reached near Hindustan Veg Picket within the jurisdiction of
PS Kirti Nagar, District West Delhi at about 10;24 PM, in the
meantime, the offending vehicle bearing registration no.
DL1LAD6211(Canter) came at very high speed, in rash manner,
negligent manner without taking necessary precautions and
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.4 of 30
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:12:15 +0530
without blowing any horn. It took sudden left turn without any
indication. It hit the motorcycle of the deceased with its left side
with great force. Due to same, deceased fell on the road and rear
left centre wheel of the offending vehicle passed over his head.
He was immediately shifted to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, Moti
Nagar, Delhi by PCR Van. Deceased expired during treatment.
His postmortem was conducted at Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi vide PMR No. 593/2021 dated
09.04.2021. FIR No. 128/2021 was registered at PS Kirti Nagar
against the respondent no.1. The incident happened solely due to
rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Deceased was working as Regional Sales Manager with Moondust Paper Pvt. Ltd. and was getting a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month in addition to incentives. All the petitioners were dependent upon deceased. The petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores) 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 & 024. In gist, the response of the respondents no.01 & 02 as discernible from their reply/written statement is that there was no fault on the part of the respondent no.1/driver. Respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated in the present case. Alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 at the time of incident in question. The respondents no.1 & 2 denied all Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.5 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:12:27 +0530
other averments of the petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.03
5. In gist, the response of the respondent no.03 as discernible from its reply/written statement is that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid driving license at the time of incident. It however admitted that vehicle bearing No. DL1LAD6211 was insured with it vide policy no. 101026/31/21/011921 for period 17.01.2021 to 16.01.2022 covering the date of incident. It denied all other averments of petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. ISSUES 6.1 After completion of pleadings, the scholarly predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues on 08.06.2022: -
1. Whether the deceased Sudhakar Dwivedi suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 08.04.2021 at about 10:24 pm due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration number DL1LAD6211 (Canter) by respondent no.01 Sh. Munna, being owned by respondent no.02 Sh. Sinku Singh 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.
6.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE 7.1 The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) examined petitioner No.1 as PW-1 to establish their claim. She tendered her evidence Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.6 of 30 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:12:36 +0530
by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of their application/petition. She relied upon copies of educational qualification certificates of the deceased Ex.PW1/1, copy of PAN card of deceased Ex.PW1/2, copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Ex.PW1/3, copy of her PAN card Ex.PW1/4, copy of her Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/5, copy of PAN Card of petitioner No.3 Ex.PW1/6, copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.3 Ex.PW1/7, copy of PAN card of petitioner no.2 Ex.PW1/8., copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.2 Ex.PW1/9, DAR filed by the IO Ex.PW1/10, copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner No.4 Mark P1, copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner No.5 Mark P2, copy of Income Tax Returns of deceased for the assessment year 2020-21 Mark P3 and salary slips of the deceased from October 2020 to March 2021 along with letter dated 21.06.2021 Mark P4 in her evidence.
PW1 was cross-examined at length by respondent side which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged. 7.2 The petitioner side also examined Sh. Naresh Kumar, Notice Server from the office of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax as PW-2 who has brought on record the letter dated 19.09.2022 along with income tax records of Sh. Sudhakar Dwidevi as Ex.PW2/1. PW-2 was cross-examined by respondent Insurance Company, was not cross-examined by respondent no.1 &2 despite opportunity given and was discharged. 7.3 The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) also examined Sh. Mahesh Sharma eye witness as PW-3 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A. He relied upon photocopy of his Aadhar Card Ex.PW3/1 and attested copy of his complaint/statement Ex.PW3/2 in his evidence. PW-3 was cross-
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.7 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:12:44 +0530
examined by respondent side and was discharged. 7.4 Petitioner side further examined Sh. Naresh Gupta from Moondust Paper Pvt. Ltd. as PW-4 who has brought his authority letter dated 25.01.2023 Ex.PW4/1, attendance sheets for the month of January, February and March, 2021 Ex. PW4/2, salary vouchers for the month of January, February and March, 2021 Ex. PW4/3, letter of appointment dated 24.07.2016 of deceased Sudhakar Dwivedi Ex.PW4/4, employee list of Moondust Paper Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW4/5, promotion letter dated 04.08.2020 of deceased Sudhakar Dwivedi Ex.PW4/6, salary slips for the month of January, February and March, 2021 Ex. PW4/7 and letter dated 21.06.2021 Ex. PW4/8 pertaining to deceased in his evidence. PW-4 has deposed that Sh. Sudhakar Dwivedi (since deceased) was working as Regional Sale Manager with Moondust Paper Pvt. Ltd. and was getting salary around Rs.40,000/- per month. He was appointed as a Sales Associate in August, 2016. He was promoted as Sales Executive in November, 2017. He was promoted as Supervisor in August, 2018. He was promoted as Sales Manager in November 2019 and he was lastly promoted as Regional Sales Manager in September 2020. He was getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month in 2020 and his salary used to be transferred in his bank account from the company's bank account. Had he not died in the accident, he would have been promoted as a Deputy General Manager and his salary would have increased. PW-4 was cross- examined by respondent Insurance Company, not cross-examined by respondent no.1 & 2 despite opportunity granted and was discharged.
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.8 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.11.03 13:12:52 +0530 7.5 Petitioner side further examined Ms. Nidhi
Kannaujia, Chief Manager, State Bank of India as PW-5 who has brought statements of account of Sudhakar Dwivedi having saving account bearing no. 38405476739 maintained with their branch for period 01.04.2020 to 08.04.2021 as Ex. PW5/A on record. She has deposed that the said account has been closed by their branch on 23.06.2021. The amounts at point A, B & C of Ex.PW5/A have been received in said account from Moondust Paper Pvt. Ltd. PW-5 was examined and discharged. RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE
8. The respondent no.03 examined Sh. Vipin Kumar, its Senior Legal Executive as R3W1 who has deposed that respondent no.1/driver was not having endorsement on his driving licnse that he is authorized to drive a transport vehicle. R3W1 has deposed that the offending vehicle in question is a transport vehicle. R3W1 was examined, cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner side, not cross-examined by respondent respondent no.1 &2 and was discharged.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS 9.1 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 24 years of age, was working as Regional Sales Manager with Moondust Paper Pvt. Ltd. and was getting a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month in addition to incentives. Award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of applicant(s)/claimant(s)/LR(s). 9.2 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.01 & Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.9 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:13:00 +0530
02 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. Respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated in the present case. With these contentions, respondent no.01 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition. 9.3 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. Petitioner side has failed to prove the job and income of the deceased. The respondent no.1 was not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question at the time of incident and in case this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that incident happened due to negligence of respondent no.1 and respondent no.3 is asked to pay the same, then recovery rights be granted to respondent no.3 against the respondent no.1 & 2. With these contentions, respondent no.03 has prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES 10.1 (1) Whether the deceased Sudhakar Dwivedi suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 08.04.2021 at about 10:24 pm due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration number DL1LAD6211 (Canter) by respondent no.01 Sh. Munna, being owned by respondent no.02 Sh. Sinku Singh and being insured with respondent no.03? OPP 10.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be 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 Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.10 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.11.03 13:13:10 +0530
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. 10.3 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.
10.4 In this matter to prove the rashness and negligence of driving of offending vehicle by respondent no.1, the petitioner side has examined eye witness Sh. Mahesh Sharma as PW-3 who in gist has deposed that on 08.04.2021, he was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No. UP13N7814 to Moment Mall Kirti Nagar from his office situated at 104, 2A 2 nd Floor, Kirti Nagar. At about 10:24 PM, he reached near Hindustan Veg Picket and took a halt for cigarette there. In the meantime, he saw a Canter bearing registration No. DL1LAD6211 being driven by Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.11 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.11.03 13:13:18 +0530
its driver at a very high speed, in rash manner, in negligent manner and in a zig zag manner. It took sudden left turn without any indication. It hit the motorcycle of Sudhakar Dwivedi from its left side. Due to same, deceased fell down and rear left wheel of the Canter ran over his head. Incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Canter bearing registration No. DL1LAD6211 by its driver. He promptly denied suggestion in his cross-examination that he was not present at the spot and he is deposing falsely being colleague of the deceased. He further denied the suggestion that he is a planted witness. The deposition of eye witness as to manner of incident and the driving of the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent no.01 remained unshaken during cross-examination of said witness and in fact was strengthened during same. Nothing supporting the case of the respondents as to manner of incident or negligence came on record in lengthy and skillful cross-examination done of said witness by respondents. 10.5 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant side has been able to bring on record such facts which proves almost at the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL1LAD6211 by its driver/respondent no.01 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.
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.12 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:13:26 +0530
11.1 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. 11.2 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 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/-
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.13 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.11.03 13:13:34 +0530
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 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 Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.14 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:13:42 +0530
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."
11.3 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 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 Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.15 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:13:51 +0530
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.
11.4 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 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 11.5 Age of the deceased is claimed 24 years at the time of incident/death. The date of incident is 08.04.2021. As per Aadhar Card of deceased available on record Ex.PW1/2, the date of birth of the deceased is 07.06.1996. Hence, deceased was 25 years of age at the time of incident and his age is considered accordingly. He fell in age bracket of 15 to 25. Hence, the Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.16 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:14:02 +0530
multiplier applicable to this case would be 18. DETERMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION 11.6 Photocopies of educational documents of deceased are available on record and same was never controverted by respondent side. So, the educational qualification of the deceased is taken to be as Graduate.
DETERMINATION OF MONTHLY INCOME 11.7(i) It is claimed that deceased was working as Regional Sales Manager and was getting a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month in addition to incentives at the time of incident. In order to prove income of the deceased, petitioner side has examined Sh. Naresh Gupta as PW-4 who has brought on record attendance sheets for the month of January, February and March, 2021 as Ex. PW4/2, salary vouchers for the month of January, February and March, 2021 as Ex. PW4/3, letter of appointment dated 24.07.2016 of deceased Sudhakar Dwivedi as Ex.PW4/4, employee list of Moondust Paper Pvt. Ltd. as Ex.PW4/5, promotion letter dated 04.08.2020 of deceased Sudhakar Dwivedi as Ex.PW4/6, salary slips for the month of January, February and March, 2021 as Ex. PW4/7 and letter dated 21.06.2021 as Ex. PW4/8. 11.7(ii) Petitioner side has also examined Ms. Nidhi Kannaujia, Chief Manager, State Bank of India as PW-5 who has filed statement of account of deceased Sudhakar Dwivedi for period 01.04.2020 to 08.04.2021 as Ex.PW5/A on record. 11.7(iii) It is clear from said documents that deceased was working as Regional Sales Manager with Moondust Paper Pvt. Ltd. and was getting a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month at the time of incident. Hence, the total annual income of the deceased Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.17 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.11.03 13:14:09 +0530
comes out to be Rs.4,80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x12). After deducting 5% income tax (as per Income Tax Slab for the assessment year 2021-22) from the annual income of deceased, the monthly income of the deceased comes to be Rs.39,041/- per month (Rs.4,68,500/12) [Rs.4,80,000/- -Rs.11,500/- (5% income tax deduction)(Rs.2,30,000 x 5/100) (Rs.4,80,000/- - Rs.2,50,000/-] 11.7(iv) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be considered as Rs.39,041/- per month on the date of accident.
DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE 11.8 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.
11.9 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 11.10 As has already been held, income of deceased as Rs.39,041/- 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 Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.18 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:14:16 +0530
taken as Rs.54,658/- (after rounding off Rs.54,657.4/-) (Rs.39,041/- + Rs.15,616.4/- which is 40% of Rs.39,041/-). DETERMINATION OF DEDUCTIONS 11.11 There is no dispute that the deceased was married, is survived by wife (petitioner no.01), two minor sons (petitioner no.02 & 03) and his parents (petitioner No.04 & 05). Petitioner no.05 (Father of deceased) cannot be taken as dependent upon deceased since no special case/circumstance pleaded. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased needs to be taken 1/4th in this matter. Hence, 1/4th would be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. DETERMINATION OF MULTIPLICAND 11.12 The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement needs to be taken as Rs.54,658/-. A deduction of 1/4th 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.40,994/- (after rounding of Rs.40,993.5) (after deducting 1/4th of Rs.54,658/-). This product needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs.4,91,928/- (Rs.40,994/- x 12).
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY 11.13 The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.88,54,704/- (Rs.4,91,928x 18), hence, so awarded. COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF ESTATE 11.14 The loss of estate is awarded as Rs.16,500/- (15,000/- + 10% enhancement).
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.19 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:14:24 +0530
COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
11.15 Since, there are five claimants who are wife, two
minor sons, mother and father of the deceased entitled to award under this head, hence, an amount of Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000 + 10% enhancement) is awarded under this head. COMPENSATION QUA FUNERAL EXPENSES 11.16 An amount of Rs.16,500/- (15,000/- + 10% enhancement) is awarded towards funeral expenses. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT OF ALL HEADS 11.17 In view of above discussions and awards passed under different heads, this Tribunal hereby pass an award of sum of Rs.89,31,704/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Four Only) (Rs.88,54,704/- + Rs.16,500/- + Rs.44,000/- + Rs.16,500/-) in favour of petitioner(s) and against the respondents. R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.03
12. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of Rs.89,31,704/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Four 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. 15.07.2021 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 13.1 Respondent no.3 has raised contention during final arguments that respondent no.1 was only holding driving license to drive LMV NT, therefore, it was not valid to drive offending Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.20 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.11.03 13:14:33 +0530
vehicle in question which is a commercial vehicle. 13.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2017(7) Scale 731 in para no. 46 of said judgment has held as under: -
"...46.Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:
(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.21 of 30 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:14:43 +0530
the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form..."
13.3 In the case in hand, driver/respondent no.1 was having a valid driving license to drive LMV NT and the laden weight of the vehicle in question is 7450 kg only. So, the respondent no.1 was holding a valid driving license to drive the vehicle in vehicle on the date and time of the accident as per above case law. Hence, respondent no.3/insurance company is not entitled for any recovery rights against respondents no.1 &2 in this matter.
13.4 As the offending vehicle was admittedly insured Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.22 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:14:52 +0530
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.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANT(S) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
14.1 The applicant(s)/petitioner(s) was/were examined under MCTAP on 26.09.2023 and his/her/their statement(s) considered.
14.2 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.
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.23 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.11.03 13:15:00 +0530 14.3 The Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi is directed to release/disburse award amount in favour of MACT Account bearing No. 42291660223 with State Bank of India, Khasri No. 759/2, Main Road, Burari, Delhi Branch of petitioner no.1 Indu Dubey, account bearing No.42291661680 with State Bank of India, Khasri No. 759/2, Main Road, Burari, Delhi Branch of petitioner No.2 Jayas Dwivedi, account bearing No. 42291662050 with State Bank of India, Khasri No. 759/2, Main Road, Burari, Delhi Branch of petitioner no.3 Tejas Dwivedi, account bearing No. 42301360266 maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch of petitioner no.4 Satya Bhama and account bearing No. 42305975436 maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch of petitioner no.5 Ambikesh Kumar as mentioned/directed hereinafter in tabulated form. 14.4 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. Indu 01.07.19 Wife 40,71,204 5,71,204 Rs.35,00,000 Rs.35,00,000/-
Dubey 96 /-, + 1/4th + 1/4th interest
Interest accumulated
accumulated shall be kept in
the form of
equal monthly
FDRs of
Rs.10,000/- for
the period of
350 months +
months which
comes out of
division of
interest
accumulated by
Rs.10,000/-.
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.24 of 30
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:15:08 +0530
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. Jayas 27.04.20 Son 17,00,000/- NiL Rs.17,00,000 Rs.17,00,000/-
Dwivedi 17 /- + ¼th 1/4th interest
interest accumulated
accumulated shall be kept in
the form of one
FDRs and the
same shall be
released to the
claimant at the
time of attaining
the age of
majority
3. Tejas 25.08.20 Son 17,00,000/- NiL Rs.17,00,000 Rs.17,00,000/-
Dwivedi 15 /- + ¼th 1/4th interest
interest accumulated
accumulated shall be kept in
the form of one
FDRs and the
same shall be
released to the
claimant at the
time of attaining
the age of
majority
4. Satya 01.01.19 Mother 14,00,000/- 3,00,000/- Rs.11,00,000 Rs.11,00,000/-
Bhama 75 /- + 1/4th + 1/4th interest
Interest accumulated
accumulated shall be kept in
the form of
equal monthly
FDRs of
Rs.10,000/- for
the period of
110 months +
months which
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.25 of 30
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:15:16 +0530
comes out of
division of
interest
accumulated by
Rs.10,000/-.
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.
5. Ambikes 01.01.19 Father Rs.60,500/- Rs.60,500/- Nil Nil
h Kumar 73
TOTAL Rs. 89,31,704/-
14.5 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 Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.26 of 30 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.11.03 13:15:24 +0530 debit card (s) freeze the account of 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.
14.6 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.
15. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount with the account of this Tribunal within 45 days. In case, the award amount is deposited by respondent no.3 Insurance Company within 45 days, Nazir of this Tribunal shall make a report upon this award and shall also Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.27 of 30 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.11.03 13:15:32 +0530
make requisite entry in the required register. In case, the award amount is not so deposited within 45 days, the Nazir of this Tribunal shall put up a report after 45 days for further needful proceedings.
16. A copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost.
17. 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).
18. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH Announced in the open Court SINGH Date: 2023.11.03 13:15:42 +0530 today i.e. 01.11.2023 (HARVINDER SINGH) ADJ-cum-PO: MACT-01(West) THC/Delhi/01.11.2023 Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.28 of 30FORM -XV SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 08.04.2021
2. Name of the deceased : Sudhakar Dwivedi
3. Age of the deceased : 24 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Regional Sales Manager
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.39,041/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased : -
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
(i) Indu Dubey 01.07.1996 Wife
(ii) Jayas Dwivedi 27.04.2017 Son
(iii) Tejas Dwivedi 25.08.2015 Son
(iv) Satya Bhama 01.01.1975 Mother
(v) Ambikesh Kumar 01.01.1973 Father
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.39,041/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/4th deduction has
deceased(C) been done
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.40,994/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.4,91,928/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.88,54,704/-
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.29 of 30
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:15:51 +0530
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.44,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.16,500/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.16,500/-
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.89,31,704/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the Rs.14,36,267/-
date of award (M) (w.e.f. 15.07.2021 to
01.11.2023 i.e. 2 years
3 months and 17 days )
22. Total amount including Rs.1,03,67,971/-
interest (L + M) (Rs.89,31,704/- +
14,36,267/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.9,31,704/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.80,00,000/- along
with accumulated
interest
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant (s).
26. Next date for compliance of 16.12.2023 the award.
Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.11.03
13:16:03 +0530
(HARVINDER SINGH)
ADJ-cum-PO: MACT-01(West),
THC/Delhi/01.11.2023
Indu Dubey (LR) vs. Munna & Ors.
[MACT No.239/2021] Page No.30 of 30