Delhi District Court
Kalawati Devi & Ors. vs . Ramesh Kumar &Ors. on 17 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
KALAWATI DEVI & ORS. VS. RAMESH KUMAR &ORS.
MACP NO. 606/16
1. Smt. Kalawati Devi (Wife)
W/o. Late Sh. Raju Yadav
2. Kajal Kumari (Minor daughter)
D/o. Late Sh. Raju Yadav
3. Priyanshu Kumar Yadav (Minor son)
S/o. Late Sh. Raju Yadav
4. Karishma Kumari (Minor daughter)
D/o. Late Sh. Raju Yadav
5. Smt. Chhathi Devi (Mother)
W/o. Sh. Surendra Ray
6. Sh. Surendra Ray (Father)
S/o. Late Sh. Devrattan Ray
7. Sh.Dipak Ray (Brother)
S/o. Sh. Surendra Ray
(P-2 to P-4 being minors through their mother/
natural guardian P-1)
All R/o. Village Faridpura, Post Belhari,
Faridpur, Taraiya, Taraiya Saran,
Bihar-841424.
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Ramesh Kumar (Driver)
S/o. Sh. Sant Raj,
R/o. VPO Gangesar,
Tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonepat-131301.
MACP No.606/16 1/19
2. Sh. Praveen (Owner)
S/o. Sh. Surender
R/o. H.No. 624, Village Lath,
Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat.
Haryana-131301.
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
124, Connaught Circus,
Level-4, Tower-II, Jeewan Bharti Building,
New Delhi-110001.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of petition : 22.12.2016
Date of framing of issues : 01.06.2017
Date of concluding arguments : 15.03.2018
Date of decision : 17.03.2018
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present petition is in respect of death of one Sh. Raju Yadav, which was caused in an accident that took place on 30.09.2016 at about 6:40 am at place just after crossing the 20th Milestone on G.T. Road, Sonepat, Haryana. One FIR No.377/2016, under sections 279/337 IPC at PS Rai, Sonepat, Haryana regarding the above accident was registered on 02.10.2016 on the basis of the statement made by brother of the deceased namely Sh.Dipak Ray/PW2, who is also alleged to be an eye-witness of the accident and section 304A IPC was also subsequently added in the above criminal case as the deceased expired on 15.10.2016 (date of death is wrongly mentioned as 18.10.2016 in the petition). The offending car involved in the said accident is of make Maruti Ritz bearing registration no.HR-11G- 9506, which at relevant time of accident was being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that on the MACP No.606/16 2/19 above said date and time, the deceased Sh. Raju Yadav as well as his brother Sh. Dipak Ray/PW2 were both going for their work on foot in a factory named M/s. Golden Rolls Pvt. Ltd. situated at GT Road, Opposite Sports Authority of India Complex, Village Sultanpur, District Sonepat, Haryana and the deceased was being followed by PW2 Sh.Dipak Ray. When they just crossed the 20th Milestone, the above offending car had suddenly come from the side of Delhi and had hit against the deceased from behind. As a result thereof, the deceased fell on the road and received severe injuries. He was first taken to the Government Hospital, Sonepat by his brother PW2 Sh.Dipak Ray and doctors of the Government Hospital had referred the deceased to PGI Rohtak, but PW2 Sh.Dipak Ray took him to Signus Hospital, Sonepat and later got him admitted in Park Hospital, Panipat. However, the deceased expired on 15.10.2016. It is alleged that the above accident was caused by R-1 while driving the above offending car at a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner.
3. R-1 & R-2 in their joint reply have specifically admitted the facts that on the day of accident R-1 was the driver and R-2 was the owner of the offending car, but they have denied the involvement of the said car in the accident and also the alleged rash and negligent driving thereof on the part of R-1. Rest of the allegations made by the petitioners in the petition have also been denied by them, either vaguely or for want of knowledge on their part, while specifically submitting that the above offending car was insured with R-3 on the date of accident.
4. R-3/Insurance Co. in its reply has also specifically admitted the fact that the above offending car was insured with them on the date of accident and they have also not denied the MACP No.606/16 3/19 involvement of the said car in the accident. However, it is their submission that the petitioners be put to proof of the averments made by them in their petition and in support of their claim for compensation. It is also submitted by them that their liability to pay compensation is only as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Geeta Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for R-3 and have also carefully perused the entire material available on record. However, none has turned up on behalf of R-1 & R-2 to address any arguments. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1"Whether Raju Yadav sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 30.09.2016 at about 06:40am at Bishwa Mile caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-11G-9506 driven by respondent no.1 Ramesh Kumar, owned by respondent no.2 Praveen and insured with respondent no.3 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP."
6. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident Tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is even lesser than that in a civil case. In the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SC MACP No.606/16 4/19 530, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a road accident case, the strict principles of proof as in a criminal case are not attracted. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
7. These observations were also quoted with approval in the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011).
8. The petitioners in support of their case have examined on record a total number of three witnesses. PW1 Smt. Kalawati Devi is widow of the deceased as well as the petitioner/P-1 herself, PW2 Sh. Dipak Ray is the brother and eye-witness of the above accident and PW3 Sh. Vikram Kumar is an official from the office of employer of the deceased. However, it is the testimony of PW2 only which is relevant for determination of the present issue.
9. PW2 Sh. Dipak Ray has duly tendered on record his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit Ex.PW2/A and in the said affidavit, he has specifically stated about the above factum as well as the manner of accident on the above lines. He has specifically deposed in the said affidavit that at the relevant time of accident, they both were going for duty in the above said factory and the deceased was walking ahead him. It is also specifically mentioned in MACP No.606/16 5/19 the said affidavit that the offending car being driven by R-1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed came from the side of Delhi and it hit the deceased from his backside. He further stated therein about taking his brother to the hospitals, the treatment taken by his brother and also the death of his brother on 15.10.2016 during the course of treatment. He has also stated about registration of the above criminal case against the driver of the said car, i.e. R-1 on the basis of his statement. He has further stated specifically in his above affidavit that the above accident was caused due to the sole negligence of R-1, who was driving his car at a very high speed, rashly, negligently and without obeying the traffic rules etc.
10. PW2 Sh. Dipak Ray was though cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for R-3, but during his cross-examination nothing material could be extracted out from him which could have the effect of challenging or controverting his testimony about the manner in which the above said accident took place or the same having not taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of said car by R-1. Rather, he has stated in his cross-examination that his brother was walking on the extreme left side of the road at the time of above accident and he himself was walking just behind his brother on the said side of the road, when the above offending car had hit against his brother from backside. He has also specifically denied the suggestions given to him by Ld. Counsel for R-3 that he was not an eye of the accident or that he was not present at the time of accident or that he had got lodged the above FIR on wrong pretext and falsely implicated the offending vehicle in the present case. The above depositions made by this witness are sufficient to prove that the above said accident resulting into death of the deceased Sh. Raju Yadav took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of MACP No.606/16 6/19 the above offending car by R-1 as there is nothing on record to take any view to the contrary.
11. Moreover, R-1 was the best witness who could have controverted the testimony of PW2 Sh. Dipak Ray by stepping into the witness box in his defence to prove that no accident took place with his above car or that it did not take place in the manner as narrated by this witness or that it took place due to the sole negligence of the deceased himself. However, for the reasons best known to him, he has chosen not to do so and an adverse inference can also be drawn against the respondents on this aspect, in view of the law laid down in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
12. Besides the above, the petitioners have, inter-alia, also relied upon various documents forming record of the above criminal case and including of the MLC, postmortem report and death summary of the deceased as Ex.PW1/9 to Ex.PW1/11 respectively and certified copies of the FIR, charge-sheet, site plan, arrest memo of accused and bail order of R-1 as Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/16 respectively. As per these documents, R-1 stands already charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 279/304A IPC in the above criminal case for causing death of the deceased Sh.Raju Yadav in the above accident due to rash and negligent driving of above offending car by him and this fact also substantiates the testimony of PW2.
13. Hence, in view of the above factual and legal discussion, it is held that the oral evidence led on record by the petitioners is duly substantiated by the documentary evidence and it stands proved that the above accident resulting into death of deceased MACP No.606/16 7/19 Sh.Raju Yadav was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R-1 in driving the above offending car bearing registration no. HR-11G- 9506, which was owned by R-2 and insured with R-3. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
14. ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP"
As the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the above offending vehicle has been satisfactorily proved, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for the death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are still required to be decided. COMPENSATION The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:-
i) Loss of dependency Both PW1 & PW2 in their examinations-in-chief tendered on record by way of their affidavits Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A respectively are silent with regard to the age of deceased at the time of accident. However, P-1/PW1 during her examination has also tendered on record, inter-alia, a copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased as Ex.PW1/8 in which the year of birth of deceased is recorded as 1978. The date of accident in this case is 30.09.2016 and going by this document, the age of deceased at the relevant time of accident comes to around 38/39 years and multiplier of '15' is applicable for calculating the loss of dependency in respect of his MACP No.606/16 8/19 death, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017. It is also necessary to mention here that during examination of PW3 Sh. Vikram Kumar, an official from the office of employer of the deceased, one document pertaining to provident fund (PF) details of the deceased has also been brought on record as Ex.PW3/2 and it is found on perusal of this document that the date of birth of deceased is given as 01.01.1980 in the said document. According to this document, the age of deceased at the relevant time of accident comes to around 36 years. In any case, the multiplier of 15 remains the same even if the age of deceased is taken as per this document.
Coming to the salary of deceased, as per the depositions made by both PW1 & PW2 in their above affidavits, the deceased was working as a Chemical Operator in the above factory named M/s. Golden Rolls Pvt. Ltd. at Rai, Sonepat, Haryana and he was getting a salary of Rs.22,000/- per month. PW1 has also made the same claim of salary of the deceased even during her cross- examination conducted on behalf of the respondents. However, the petitioners are also found to have summoned the record of employment and salary etc. of the deceased from the office of his employer and this record has been produced by PW3 Sh. Vikram Kumar, as already stated above, who was working as the 'Time Office In-charge' in the said company. He has produced on record an Authority Letter in his favour as Ex.PW3/A to depose and to MACP No.606/16 9/19 produce the said record, copies of the salary and increment register of their company for the period from March, 2013 to May, 2016 as Ex.PW3/1 (colly.) (running into 15 pages), PF details of the deceased as Ex.PW3/2 and receipt of full and final settlement of dues of the deceased as Ex.PW3/3 (colly.) (running into 2 pages).
As per the depositions made by PW3 in his cross-
examination, the deceased was working with their company as a Chemical Operator since 11.03.2013 till death. Though, as per the depositions made by widow of the deceased/PW1 during her cross- examination, the deceased was 8th class pass only, but as per PW3 the deceased was given 'on-job' training for the above said post and his job was permanent in nature and also pensionable. As per the depositions made by PW3, the salary of employees of their company varied from month to month because the salary was calculated on the basis of actual working days of the said employee in a month. As per the salary record produced by this witness as Ex.PW3/1 (colly.), the deceased got a gross salary of Rs.9,276/- only in the month of May, 2016, but the record of his salary for the succeeding months till date of accident has not been produced by this witness.
However, the minimum wages fixed for unskilled workers in Haryana at the relevant time of accident were Rs.310/- per day and for skilled workers the same were Rs.359.32 per day and any payment of salary to a person below the minimum wages cannot be accepted by this tribunal and cannot be made the basis for calculations of loss of dependency by this tribunal. Even though, the deceased was only 8th class pass, but since after getting 'on job' training for the above said post he was working as a Chemical Operator in the said factory for a considerable time, his earnings at the relevant time are to be taken as per the minimum wages fixed for MACP No.606/16 10/19 skilled workers in Haryana, which at the relevant time of accident were Rs.359.32 per day and therefore, monthly earnings of the deceased are taken as Rs.10,779.60 per month (Rs.359.32 X 30) and his annual salary comes to Rs.1,29,355.20 (Rs.10,779.60 X12). The above annual income of deceased did not attract any income tax as income upto Rs.2,50,000/- was not taxable during the relevant year of accident.
This claim petition petition has been filed by total 7 petitioners while claiming themselves to be dependent upon the deceased at the relevant time of his death. P-1 is the widow of deceased, P-2 to P-4 are their minor children, P-5 & P-6 are parents of deceased and P-7 is the brother of deceased, who also deposed on record as PW2, as already discussed. However, it is observed that P-7 himself was an earning hand as according to the case of petitioners, he was accompanying the deceased at the time of accident and was on his way to his work in the same factory where the deceased was employed. Therefore, he cannot be taken as a dependent upon the deceased at the time of his death. PW6, i.e. father of the deceased, also cannot be taken as a dependent in the absence of any evidence led on record to the contrary and hence, in terms of propositions of law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra), 1/4th amount of his above earnings is liable to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as he had left behind 5 dependents.
Further, as per the statement made by PW3 on record, the job of deceased was permanent in nature and even pensionable and hence, in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to addition of 50% of MACP No.606/16 11/19 the above earnings of deceased towards future prospects as the deceased was below 40 years of age at the time of accident.
In view of above, the loss of dependency is thus computed as Rs.21,82,869/- (Rs.1,29,355.20X150/100X3/4X15) and the same is awarded accordingly.
(ii) Loss of love and affection There cannot be any doubts that because of death of the deceased, the petitioners have been deprived from the love and affection of the deceased. Though, it is a contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent that after the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), no compensation can be awarded to the petitioners under this head, but this contention appears to be not tenable as nowhere in the above judgment, their lordships have stated so and this head of compensation was not even discussed at all. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the earlier case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 6 Scale 563, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioners towards loss of love and affection.
iii) Loss of Estate, Loss of Consortium & Funeral expenses.
The compensation to be granted in a death case under these three heads came up for active consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Constitutional Bench judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) and while taking note of the difference in amounts being granted under these heads, their lordships were of the view that the amounts of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively will be reasonable and justified under these heads. Hence, the petitioners are also awarded a total sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards these heads.
MACP No.606/16 12/1915. The petitioners are thus held entitled to the compensation as given in the following summary of computation in the prescribed format:-
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM IV-A
1. Date of accident : 30.09.2016
2. Name of the deceased : Raju Yadav
3. Age of the deceased : 38/39 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Skilled worker
5. Income of the deceased : Minimum wage
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
Srl. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Kalawati Devi 36 Widow
(ii) Kajal Kumari 13 Daughter
(iii) Priyanshu Kumar 7 Son
(iv) Karishma Kumari 6 Daughter
(v) Chhati Devi 47 Mother
Computation of Compensation
Srl. No. Heads Amount Awarded
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.10,779.60
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) Rs.5,389.80
9. Less-Personal expenses of Rs.4,042.35
the deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.12,127.05
[(A+B) - C = D]
11 Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,45,524.60
(D x 12)
12 Multiplier (E) 15
13 Total loss of dependency (D Rs.21,82,869.00
x 12 x E = F)
14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15 Compensation for loss of Rs.1,00,000/-
love and affection (H)
16 Compensation for loss of Rs.40,000/-
consortium (I)
17 Compensation for loss of Rs.15,000/-
estate (J)
MACP No.606/16 13/19
18 Compensation towards Rs.15,000/-
funeral expenses (K)
19 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.23,52,869/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
20 RATE OF INTEREST 9% pa from date of filing
AWARDED of claim petition, i.e.
22.12.2016, till deposit
21 Interest amount up to the date Rs.2,61,071.77
of award (M)
22 Total amount including interest Rs.26,14,000/-
(L+M) (rounded off)
23 Award amount released P-1 = Rs.2,14,000/- with
interest till deposit
P-5 = Rs.50,000/- with
interest till deposit
(See 'apportionment &
release' clauses in the
succeeding paragraphs)
24 Award amount kept in FDRs P-1 = Rs.12,00,000/-
P-2 = Rs. 3,00,000/-
P-3 = Rs. 3,00,000/-
P-4 = Rs. 3,00,000/-
P-5 = Rs. 2,50,000/-
(See 'apportionment &
release' clauses in the
succeeding paragraphs)
25 Mode of disbursement of the Through bank
award amount to claimant(s)
26 Next date for compliance of the 10.05.2018
award
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
16. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of
Rs.26,14,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs and Fourteen
Thousand only), including interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, i.e. 22.12.2016, till date and interest at the same rate till notice of deposit is given to the petitioners. 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 MACP No.606/16 14/19 liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
17. APPORTIONMENT Out of the award amount, Rs.14,14,000/- is awarded in favour of P-1/wife of deceased, Rs.3,00,000/- each is awarded in favour of P-2 to P-4/minor children of deceased and P-5/mother of deceased.
18. RELEASE Out of the share of P-1, Rs.2,14,000/-, with upto date interest till deposit, is directed to be released to her by transferring it into her savings account bearing no. 50431936650 at Allahabad Bank, Rai Branch, Sonepat, Haryana, IFSC Code:ALLA0212616 and remaining amount of Rs.12,00,000/- is directed to be kept in 80 FDRs of Rs.15,000/- each for a period of 1 to 80 months in succession with cumulative interest. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her above saving bank account.
Entire shares of P-2 to P-4 shall be kept in FDR for the period till they attain 21 years of age. However, the monthly interest thereon shall be released in the above bank account of their mother/P-1 in order to meet their educational and other expenses and amount of FDRs on maturity be released in the bank accounts of P-2 to P-4 (P-2 Kajal Kumari having bank account No. 50436802270; P-3 Karishma Kumari having bank account No. 50436947986 & P-4 Priyanshu Kumar Yadav having bank account No.50436801594, all at Allahabad Bank, Rai Branch, Sonepat, Haryana, IFSC Code:ALLA0212616.
Out of the share of P-5, Rs.50,000/- with upto date interest till deposit, is directed to be released to her by transferring it into her savings account bearing no.2952001700135599 at Punjab MACP No.606/16 15/19 National Bank, Murlipur Branch, Bihar, IFSC Code:PUNB0295200 and remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is directed to be kept in 20 FDRs of Rs.12,500/- each for a period of 1 to 20 months in succession with cumulative interest. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her above saving bank account.
The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, FDR amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
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.
The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
The concerned bank (s) shall not to 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 (s) 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.
19. LIABILITY Though, all the respondents are held jointly and severally MACP No.606/16 16/19 liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation, but since R-3/ Insurance Co. has not proved any violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, by way of crossed cheque/DD in name of the petitioners within 30 days from today failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after passage of 90 days from today, R-3 fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the insurance company with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
R-3 shall inform the claimant (s) and their counsel through registered post that the cheques of the awarded amounts are being deposited so as to facilitate them to collect their cheques.
20. The copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
21. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form VII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017.
22. The particulars of Form-V of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 30.09.2017 MACP No.606/16 17/19
2. Date of intimation of the accident by Not given I.O. to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by Not provided I.O. to the Insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report u/s.173 Cr.PC Not provided before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Details Accident Report Outstation matter (DAR) by IO before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on Insurance Outstation matter Company
7. Date of service of DAR on claimant(s). Outstation matter
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Outstation matter respects?
9. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR N/A
10. Whether the police has verified the N/A documents file with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the N/A Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Not provided Officer by the Insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Not provided the Designated Officer of Insurance Co.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his Outstation matter report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Legal offer not filed Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Delay in filing reply Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) of Legal offer not filed the offer of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 17.03.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with No the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near Yes their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) 30.01.2018 MACP No.606/16 18/19 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 issue any cheque book/debit card to claimants and make an endorsement to this effect on passbooks.
22. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their 23.02.2018 savings bank account near the place of & their residence alongwith 15.03.2018 endorsement, PAN & Adhaar Cards?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Village Faridpura, Post Belhari, Claimant(s) Faridpur, Taraiya, Taraiya Saran, Bihar-841424.
24. Details of savings bank account (s) of P-1 = A/c No.50431936650 the claimant(s) and the address of the P-2 = A/c No.50436802270 bank with IFSC Code. P-3 = A/c No.50436947986 P-4= A/c No. 50436801594 (All at Allahabad Bank, Rai Branch, Sonepat, Haryana, IFSC Code:ALLA0212616.) P-5=A/c no. 2952001700135599 at Punjab National Bank, Murlipur Branch, Bihar, IFSC Code:PUNB0295200
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near his place of Yes residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the Yes award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
23. File be consigned to Records after necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 10.05.2018.
Announced in the open court. (M.K.Nagpal)
on 17.03.2018 PO/MACT, New Delhi
MACP No.606/16 19/19