Delhi District Court
Anjali Rai & Ors. vs . Anil Dorata & Ors. on 17 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJALI RAI & ORS. VS. ANIL DORATA & ORS.
DAR NO. 633/18
1. Smt. Anjali Rai (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Hitendra Rai
2. Sh. Karthikey Rai (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Hitendra Rai
3. Smt. Nirmala Devi (Mother of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Jharkhande Rai
All R/o H.No. J-293, Kartar Nagar, Gali No. 13,
3.1/2 Pusta, New Usman Pur, Delhi.
......Claimants being LRs of
deceased Sh. Hitendra Rai
Versus
1. Sh. Anil Dorata (Driver of offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Bhanwara Ram Gurjar,
Ward No. 10, Khadab Dhani Babaji Wali,
Kharab Kotputali, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Sh. Pradeep Kumar (Owner of offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Sher Singh,
R/o VPO Ramsingh Pura, Tehsil Kotputali,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
DAR No. 633/18 Page no.1 of 22
3. M/s Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 02.11.2018
Date of framing of issues : 31.01.2019
Date of concluding arguments : 05.01.2023
Date of decision : 17.01.2023
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in this Detailed Accident Report (DAR) is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Sh. Hitendra Rai in a road accident that took place on 16.05.2018, at about 10.10 pm, at NH-8, Main Highway Gurgaon to Delhi, Near Rajokari Flyover, opposite Orana Hotel, New Delhi, regarding which one FIR No.231/18, under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at PS Vasant Kunj South. The vehicle involved in this case is a water tanker bearing registration No. RJ-32RA-7468, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R1), owned by respondent no. 2 (R2), insured with respondent no. 3 (R3).
2. The claimants are the wife, son and mother of the deceased. Succinctly put, facts of case, as per DAR, are that on the above said date and time, the deceased Sh. Hitendra Rai was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-14SB-3657 via NH-8, Main Highway from Gurugram to his residence at Delhi. When he reached near Rajokari Flyover, opposite Orana Hotel, New Delhi, the offending vehicle, i.e. water DAR No. 633/18 Page no.2 of 22 tanker bearing registration No. RJ-32RA-7468, which was being driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner, had hit the motorcycle of deceased due to which the deceased fell down on the road and got crushed under the wheels of the offending vehicle. It is further stated that after the accident, the deceased was removed to AIIMS Trauma Centre where the deceased was declared 'brought dead' by the doctors.
3. Respondents no. 1 and 2 have not filed their written statement to the DAR.
4. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company has filed its written statement to the DAR wherein it is admitted that the offending vehicle stood duly insured with them in the name of respondent no. 2 w.e.f. 26.10.2017 to 25.10.2018 and the liability of Insurance Company is subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further stated that the insurance policy was issued for agricultural tractor only and the Insurance Company had taken premium for tractor only. It is further stated that as per statement of driver of the offending vehicle, one water tanker is attached with the tractor and the deceased was hit by the water tanker, which was not insured at the time of accident.
5. On 31.01.2019, the following issues were framed by this tribunal:-
1. Whether Sh. Hitendra Rai sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 16.05.2018 at about 10.10 pm, at NH-8, Main Highway Gurgaon to Delhi, Near Rajokari Flyover, Opposite Orana Hotel, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. RJ-32RA-7468 driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
DAR No. 633/18 Page no.3 of 22
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3.Relief.
6. The Tribunal has heard the arguments advanced by Sh. H.L. Dagar, Ld. Proxy Counsel for petitioners under the instruction of main counsel and Ms. Umesh Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent no.3/Insurance Company and has perused the entire record, including the written submissions filed on behalf of parties. It is pertinent to mention that R-1 and R-2 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.07.2022.
7. Now, the Tribunal proceeds to give findings on the issues framed in the succeeding paragraphs:
ISSUE NO. 1Whether Sh. Hitendra Rai sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 16.05.2018 at about 10.10 pm, at NH-8, Main Highway Gurgaon to Delhi, Near Rajokari Flyover, Opposite Orana Hotel, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. RJ-32RA-7468 driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the accident was caused by vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-32RA-7468. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have examined eye witness/brother of deceased on record Sh. Hitprakash Rai as PW3 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/A and relied upon the copy of his Aadhar card as Ex. PW3/1 DAR No. 633/18 Page no.4 of 22 (OSR). During cross examination, he deposed that on the date of accident, his motorcycle was at a distance of 100 to 150 metres from his deceased brother. He further deposed that the speed of motorcycle of his deceased brother was about 45 km per hour and he was riding at a speed of 40 km per hour. He further deposed that they used to work in the same office and in the same shift, however, on the date of accident, his brother had come in the morning for training due to which he had taken a different bike otherwise they used to travel on the same motorcycle. He further deposed that the offending vehicle had overtaken him before hitting his brother. The site plan was prepared in his presence at the spot of accident. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on the next day of accident at the hospital. He further deposed that the left side of tractor had hit the motorcycle.
8. Further, as per chargesheet, PW3 is the complainant as well as cited as prosecution witness. Even in the MLC, it is stated that the history is given by brother of deceased Sh. Hitprakash Rai, who is the present witness. Hence, his testimony is not doubtful regarding the manner of accident. Moreover, it has not been disputed that respondent no. 1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC.
9. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in cases National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del.) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein it was held that DAR No. 633/18 Page no.5 of 22 "......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
Reliance is also placed upon the recent judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Jamanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Maheshwar Rai & Ors., MAC Appeal No. 831/2015, decided on 19.11.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken the similar view as taken in the aforesaid judgments that the charge-sheet is sufficient to prove the negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, especially when no evidence has been led on behalf of respondents.
Reliance has been further placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 wherein it has been observed that "......filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal."
10. Pertinently, Respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the DAR No. 633/18 Page no.6 of 22 aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no. 1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
11. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters, the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants and the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
12. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. RJ-32RA- 7468 and the said vehicle at that time was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
DAR No. 633/18 Page no.7 of 22
13. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no. 1 has been proved, the petitioners have become entitled to compensation for death of their family member in the said accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the heads as discussed hereinafter.
(I) Loss of dependency
14. The petitioner no. 1 Smt. Anjali Rai, wife of deceased has stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A wherein she has claimed that her deceased husband was working as Assistant Order Management with LI & Fung (India) Pvt. Ltd. at Tower B SP Infocity, 243 Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Gurugram, Haryana and was getting salary of around Rs. 20,000/- per month. PW1 has tendered on record copy of pay slips for the months of January, February, March and April, 2018 along with copy of appointment letter of her deceased husband, which is part of Ex. PW1/4 (colly).
15. In order to prove the employment and salary of her deceased husband, the petitioners have examined on record one Sh. Prem P. Kandwal, Senior Manager as PW2 from the office of deceased who has brought the salary certificate of deceased for the period January, 2018 to May, 2018, appointment letter, attendance sheet, service agreement of the company as Ex. PW2/1 (colly). He admitted that the deceased was earning around Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month plus two months bonus at the time of accident and the deceased was their permanent employee. During cross DAR No. 633/18 Page no.8 of 22 examination, PW2 admitted that the deceased was given bonus by the company twice a year, i.e. in the month of March-April and October- November every year. In view of testimony of PW1 and PW2 corroborated with the documentary evidence Ex. PW2/1 (colly), the income of deceased at the time of accident is taken as Rs. 20,000/- per month.
16. Further, PW1 has claimed in her affidavit that her deceased husband was aged about 33 years at the time of accident. In order to prove the same, PW1 has tendered on record copy of Aadhar card and driving license of deceased, which is part of Ex. PW1/4 (colly). In the Aadhar card of deceased, the year of birth is mentioned as 1985 whereas in the driving license of deceased, his date of birth is found recorded as 10.05.1985. Going by these documents, the age of deceased at the time of accident i.e. on 16.05.2018 was about 33 years and 6 days.
Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of '16' is applicable in the present case.
17. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, this DAR has been filed by three petitioners being wife, son and mother of deceased. PW1 in her affidavit has claimed that the petitioners no. 1 to 3 were totally dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, all the petitioners are considered as dependent upon the deceased. Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi DAR No. 633/18 Page no.9 of 22 Transport Corporation & Anr. (Supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 1/3rd of earning of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
18. Further, in view of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are entitled to addition of 40% of earning of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased was not having any permanent job and was aged below 40 years at the time of accident. Thus, the loss of dependency in the present case is calculated to be Rs.35,84,000/- (Rs. 20,000/- X 12 X 2/3 X 16 X 140/100).
(II) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
19. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional head of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses.
20. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% DAR No. 633/18 Page no.10 of 22 in every three years and a period of 3 years have already elapsed since the deceased had expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium'. The petitioners are thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- [(Rs.30,000 + 10% of 30,000= 33,000) + (40,000 X 3 + 10% of 1,20,000 = 1,32,000/-)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
21. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.37,49,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Fourty Nine Thousand only) (Rs. 35,84,000/- + 1,65,000/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
APPORTIONMENT
22. As already discussed above, all the petitioners are considered as dependents upon the deceased. Therefore, out of the awarded amount, 60% amount is being awarded to petitioner no. 1, i.e. wife of deceased and the remaining 20% each is being awarded to petitioner no. 2 and 3, i.e. son and mother of deceased respectively.
DAR No. 633/18 Page no.11 of 22
RELEASE
23. Out of share of petitioner no. 1, 70% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 100 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 695002010004284, having IFSC Code UBIN0569500 and PAN Card No. AYUPR1417L, being maintained with Union Bank of India, Muturjuipur, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh and the remaining 30% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
The entire share of petitioner no. 2 shall be kept in FDR for the period till he attains the age of majority. However, the monthly interest accrued thereon shall also be released in the above bank account of his mother/petitioner no. 1 in order to meet his educational and other expenses and amounts of FDR on maturity would be released in saving/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 695002010015374, having IFSC Code UBIN0569500 and PAN Card No. EZIPR6382F being maintained with Union Bank of India, Muturjuipur, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh.
DAR No. 633/18 Page no.12 of 22 Out of share of petitioner no. 3, 60% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 40 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 40 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 02400110075715, having IFSC Code UCBA0000240, being maintained with UCO Bank, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi and the remaining 40% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
24. The disbursement to the petitioner is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
25. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the saving bank account or MACAD scheme account of petitioner i.e. the bank account of petitioner shall be individual account and not a joint account.
26. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioners and the above amount shall be DAR No. 633/18 Page no.13 of 22 released in account of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
27. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
28. The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of petitioner.
29. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
30. 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 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.
31. 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.
32. 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 above.
DAR No. 633/18 Page no.14 of 22
LIABILITY
33. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company has examined on record one Sh. Prashant Pratap Singh, Manager from their company as R3W1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R3W1/A and relied upon the attested copy of insurance policy of the offending vehicle as Ex. R3W1/1, copy of registration certificate of offending vehicle as Mark X and photographs of the offending vehicle as Mark Y. In his affidavit, he deposed that the registered owner of the offending vehicle was using the agricultural tractor for commercial purpose at the time of accident and hence, there is a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He further deposed that one water tanker was attached with the tractor and the deceased was hit by the water tanker which was not insured with the Insurance Company as they did not receive any premium amount for water tanker.
34. On this point, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in case titled as Yoginder singh & Anr,. Vs. Shankar Yadav & Ors. MACA No. 302/2017, decided on 16.10.2018 wherein it was held as under :-
".....9.Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence on record, I find that as per Policy Schedule-cum-Certificate of Insurance (Ex.PW1/4) in respect of insured tractor in question reveals that the limitation to use the tractor as per this Insurance Policy is for all kinds of use, except organized racing, pace making, reliability trials and speed testing. So, it cannot be said that there was any conscious breach of terms and DAR No. 633/18 Page no.15 of 22 conditions of the Insurance Policy. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has erred in putting the liability on the owner of insured tractor as the liability to pay the awarded compensation is of the Insurer."
Reliance has further been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 8395-8396 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 35534-34535 of 2013), decided on 03.07.2017, wherein it was held as under :-
".......This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle?
We have answered the question that driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy.
Accordingly, in view of the answer given to reference by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011), these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover amount from owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of owner, driver and insurer. No costs."
35. In view of foregoing discussions, all the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners, but respondent no. 3. being insurer of DAR No. 633/18 Page no.16 of 22 offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
36. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the claimants and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
37. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
38. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
39. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
DAR No. 633/18 Page no.17 of 22
1. Date of the accident 16.05.2018
2. Date of filing of Form I- First NA
Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the NA
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the NA
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the NA
owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim NA
Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and NA
Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 02.11.2018
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or
deficiency on the part of the No
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the Insurance Not given
Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of
the Insurance Company submitted his No
report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or
deficiencies on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance No
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s)
Legal offer not filed
of the offer of the Insurance
Company.
DAR No. 633/18 Page no.18 of 22
14. Date of the award 17.01.2023
15. Whether the claimant(s) were
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of Yes
residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s)
were directed to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of residence
and produce PAN Card and Adhaar
Card and the direction to the bank not 02.11.2018
issue any cheque book/debit card to
the claimant (s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s)
produced the passbook of their
savings bank account near the place
of their residence along with the 11.11.2022
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar
Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o H.No. J-293, Kartar Claimant(s) Nagar, Gali No. 13, 3.1/2 Pusta, New Usman Pur, Delhi.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near his place of Yes residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition? Yes DAR No. 633/18 Page no.19 of 22
40. File be consigned to Record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 27.02.2023.
Announced in the open court. (Shefali Barnala Tandon) on 17.01.2023 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV DAR No. 633/18 Page no.20 of 22 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident : 16.05.2018
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Hitendra Rai
3. Age of the deceased : 33 years and 6 days
4. Occupation of the deceased : Private job
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 20,000/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
Srl. Name Age Relation
No.
(i) Smt. Anjali Rai 26 years Wife
(ii) Karthikey Rai 2 years Son
(iii) Smt. Nirmala 68 years Mother
Devi
Computation of Compensation
Sr. Heads Amount Awarded
No.
7 Income of the deceased Rs.20,000/-
(A)
8 Add-Future Prospects Rs.8,000/-
(B)
9 Less-Personal expenses Rs.9,333.33/-
of the deceased (C)
10 Monthly loss of Rs.18,666.67/-
dependency
[(A+B) - C = D]
11 Annual loss of Rs.2,24,000.04/-
dependency (D x 12)
12 Multiplier (E) 16
13 Total loss of Rs.35,84,000/-
dependency
(D x 12 x E = F)
14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
DAR No. 633/18 Page no.21 of 22
15 Compensation for loss Nil
of love and affection (H)
16 Compensation for loss Rs.1,32,000/-
of consortium (I)
17 Compensation for loss Rs.16,500.00
of estate (J)
18 Compensation towards Rs.16,500.00
funeral expenses (K)
19 TOTAL Rs.36,99,000/- (after deducting
COMPENSATION the amount of interim award)
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20 RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date of filing of
AWARDED DAR till the date of award to be
deposited within 30 days and 9%
thereafter.
21 Interest amount up to Rs.11,68,225.27/-
the date of award (M)
22 Total amount including Rs. 48,67,225.27/- (rounded off
interest (L+M) to Rs. 48,67,500/-)
23 Award amount released P-1 = 30% share
P-2 = Nil
P-3 = 40% share
24 Award amount kept in P-1 = 70% share
FDRs/ MACAD P-2 = Entire share
P-3 = 60% share
25 Mode of disbursement Through bank
of the award amount to
claimant(s)
26 Next date for 27.02.2023
compliance of the award
(Shefali Barnala Tandon)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
17.01.2023
DAR No. 633/18 Page no.22 of 22